0
   

N. Korea Says It Can 'Show Flexibility' - hopeful sign?

 
 
dlowan
 
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 07:04 pm
N. Korea Says It Can 'Show Flexibility'
Possible Dismantling of Nuclear Arms Programs Tied to Broader Aid Package
By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 26, 2004; Page A19

(Full article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6596-2004Jun25.html?referrer=email - free registration required)


BEIJING, June 25 -- The North Korean government on Friday expressed willingness to compromise with the United States about ending its nuclear weapons programs, saying it would "show flexibility" if U.S. officials improved their offer of energy aid from South Korea and agreed to provide some assistance itself.



In an unusually mild statement read by a North Korean official as six-nation talks in Beijing neared a close, North Korea emphasized it might be willing not only to freeze "all facilities related to nuclear weapons" but also to dismantle them. The North Korean government also refrained from publicly berating the United States as it had during the past two rounds of the talks.

But U.S. officials here said North Korean negotiators continued to deny the existence of a secret uranium enrichment program that the Bush administration and its allies insist must be disclosed and dismantled as part of any deal. One senior U.S. official described the two sides as "far from agreement."

"There's some good, some bad, some a little ugly, but not as much as has been the case in the past. The results would have to be described as mixed so far," said the U.S. official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity. "There are no breakthroughs." During the talks, the Bush administration presented a more specific proposal for resolving the 21-month standoff, offering North Korea the possibility of energy aid from South Korea, security assurances and other benefits during a three-month test period if it promised to disclose and end its nuclear weapons programs.

North Korean delegates on Friday described the proposal as "constructive," the same language they used the day before, and told the U.S. negotiating team that the proposal "was being very carefully studied in Pyongyang," the U.S. official said. Officials expect the talks to end Saturday with a plan to continue discussions at a working-group level.

In exchange for a freeze of its nuclear programs, North Korea wants the United States to remove it from a list of terrorist nations and lift economic sanctions, the North Korean statement said. The North Korean government also asked in the statement that the United States "participate in providing" it with a 2000-megawatt energy capability, about the same amount that would have been generated by two light-water reactors the United States and its allies had promised to build for the Pyongyang government in a deal that fell apart in 2002.

"Compensation is a necessary element of creating trust," the North's statement said, adding that its freeze would begin once the compensation was delivered. But the statement also said that if the United States agreed to take part in providing energy aid, North Korea was "willing to show flexibility" about its demands on the sanctions and the terrorism list. The U.S. proposal envisions South Korea and perhaps other countries providing the North with heavy fuel oil at the start of its freeze, but the United States would not provide energy aid until after North Korea began dismantling its nuclear programs.

The North also said in the statement that its freeze would cover "all facilities related to nuclear weapons," including nuclear materials that have already been reprocessed, and that it would pledge not to build, test or transfer nuclear weapons. "What we are saying is that we will not only freeze these facilities, but if the conditions are met, we'll dismantle these facilities," it said.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,992 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 07:09 pm
This problem seems to be well handled by the current administration.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 07:12 pm
Gotta give 'em points for bargaining techniques - "good cop/bad cop"....
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Aug, 2004 08:15 am
More N Korean Hijacking. Now they want to extort S Korea in order to stall on our demands that they stand down their weapons of nuclear mass destruction...this after threatening all out nuclear war with the US just months ago. Witness:

FOXNews.com - Top Stories - North Korea Warns U.S. Presence Increases Danger of Nuclear War
... North Korea Warns U.S. Presence Increases Danger of Nuclear War. Saturday, March 15, 2003 ... sending two more Aegis-equipped destroyers to the waters in response to the possible threat ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C81169%2C00.html - 33k - Cached -

Ridiculous! They must relinquish their nuclear arms now.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Aug, 2004 08:22 am
Chuckster, that is standard North Korean boiler plate, it means nothing.

North Korea has one goal and one goal only... Keep the present regime in power. Ultimately what ever it has to do to maintain that regime, it will do.
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Aug, 2004 11:35 am
This whole thing has been rolling along sub rosa for sometime. Our guys have told them thier number is up.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 09:55 am
Re: N. Korea Says It Can 'Show Flexibility' - hopeful sign?
dlowan wrote:
N. Korea Says It Can 'Show Flexibility'
Possible Dismantling of Nuclear Arms Programs Tied to Broader Aid Package

How is this news? NK's position throughout the recent debacle has always been "we're going to build nukes unless you give us more money". (I assumed at first that they thought Clinton was still in office, now I suspect they are beginning to realize they are dealing with someone who recognizes a shakedown when he hears one.)
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 12:19 pm
No small part of this scenario stems from anti-US critics here and abroad who (wrongly) believe that we don't have the "horses" to wage war (conflict management) on more than one front. The corollary then is to initiate misbehavior in other arenas on the notion that we are riding a "one-trick pony". It appears that many observers still have not comprehended the sheer scope and overwhelming power of the US military machine.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 12:46 pm
Chuckster - Agreed. These same elements also steadfastly fail to understand the deterrent power inherent in not merely the size and technological edge of our military but in the the plausible threat attached thereto by having a Commander-In-Chief who is committed to using that strength when our nation or its people are threatened.

There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists around the world were emboldened throughout the 8 years of the previous US administration as each new act of terrorism against US interests went virtually unanswered. America was the big kid who never fought back, and the bullies were lining up to score their bragging rights. "Look what I did to him, and he didn't do anything about it!" It's no wonder more and worse terrorism resulted; people tend to choose those actions which appear to achieve their goals and which appear to be without meaningful consequence.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 02:28 pm
This DPRK thing has been on my mind for a least a year during which time I tried to start a couple of threads to encourage debate but other events always seem to eclipse the discussion. I am very concerned about the perception of U.S. weakness. The present administration's policy towards N. Korea has been mostly to place it on the diplomatic back burner. I have, up until the present, agreed with Bush's policy of encouraging those states with a dog in this fight (Russia, China, S.Korea and Japan) to engage N. Korea diplomatically. However, I feel a growing need for the U.S. to enter into diplomacy with the DPRK. The main thrust of the U.S.'s efforts here should be less conciliatory and Clintonesque and more Teddy Roosevelt like utilizing large hand held diplomatic tree limbs. The head of the U.S. negotiation team should have the combined mind set of Sec. Powell and Gen. Tommy Franks.

However, time is quickly running out for the Bushies. The diplomatic capital from the tough U.S. response towards Saddam's Rope-a-Dope diplomacy has afforded us more than pleasant vignettes regarding Iraqi soccer teams. Such success has allowed America to show Muammar Qaddafi the evil of his ways and even some cooperation from Syria's Bashar al-Asad. But this currency is now being rapidly devalued. NYT's Dexter Filkin freely admitted on September 9, 2004 (last night) edition of the Charlie Rose show that things are not well in Iraq. Increasingly, more and more towns and cities have come under the control of various insurgent factions. This coupled with the U.S. administration's inability to send in troops to clear out the bad guys for fear of causing mass deaths in the civilian area and its accompanying bad PR has paralyzed efforts to stop the spread of insurgency. Also, the titular head of the Iraqi government, Iraq's Prime Minister Ayad Allawi (a former Baathist) had planned to co-opt former Sunni leaders but has only succeeded in viewing most of them murdered courtesy of the World Wide Web.

Then there are the December/January elections upon which the present U.S. administration has based much hope for the successful establishment of Iraqi democracy. These could easily turn into a diplomatic and public relations nightmare given present security concerns. Further, canceling the elections in favor of a more propitious and safer time will only afford the already legitimacy challenged Iraq government a Shi'a uprising, if not out right revolution.

So, what the hell does this all have to do with the U.S. ability to convince the N. Koreans to give up their Nukes? I think the answer lies with Iran. It has recently backed out of the Deal with the EU's (peace in our time) members Germany, France, and (OK, let's try it their way this time) UK to stop making enriched uranium for its future "Power Plants". Iran seems emboldened with Europe's continued "Why can't we all just get along?" diplomatic hand wringing and the U.S.'s perceived weakening in the ME via Iraq. If a third world medieval society feels less threatened because of present events what of the Hermit Kingdom? What incentive does the hard drinking, pornography consuming, Hollywood product obsessed leader of N. Korea to fear, especially when he can afford to brandish more than the appearance of intent to acquire nuclear WMD?

Unless we wish to revisit the DPRK problem on a continuing basis and, additionally, encourage other problem states such as Iran we must engage N. Korea quickly with firm diplomacy whose only goal is the DPRK's total nuclear de-fanging. This could be a win, win for the N. Korean people but it is not for them to decide. Therefore N. Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il must be convinced to disarm and it must be verifiable on a continuing basis. Carrots abound and can be given, but first he must submit to inspections and pass continued professional anti-proliferation monitoring efforts. Firm U.S pressure to disarm should precede attractive incentives for Kim to disarm. We are really the only country that can do this. A multilateral effort involving other states is advantageous but will be simply ineffective without major U.S. participation. The real difficulty is whether Kim will allow major incentives that make life better for his people since this will effect a chink in his government's efforts to isolate the N. Korean populace from the rest of the world. Once the N. Korean people see their potential in the world they will begin to think and act like, wellÂ…South Koreans. Perhaps the powers in Hollywood can offer Kim a life supply of their PG and XXX rated product within which Kim can wallow while permitting his people to follow their own real world dreams.

JM
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:06 pm
JM: It's distressing to see your sincerety and your ignorance of fundamental facts. NKorea is a titular war puppet of China and Russia. A Pawn. Abandon all the tomfoolery about the internal stuggles of the NKorean people and their Govt. it's simply irrelevant. (PS: Where have you been? Powell has been manhandling the NKoreans since May about all this... maybe you should spend more time establishing your fact base and less tilting in these rooms with biased others.)
Good Luck! Keep your fire.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 10:53 pm
This case is on the move:

North Korea admits UK human rights team

Quote:
North Korea has permitted a British ministerial delegation to be the first outsider to scrutinise its appalling human rights record. Bill Rammell, the Foreign Office minister, arrives in Pyongyang today, with his department's human rights specialist, Jon Benjamin, with a brief to investigate widespread allegations of prison camp torture, medical experiments on humans and random abductions.

The British mission will try to confirm the disturbing allegations that have prompted the UN human rights commission to demand an investigation.

Mr Rammell intends to impress on the world's last true Communist regime that if North Korea agrees to let human rights monitors into the country, and to end its nuclear weapons programme in line with an internationally agreed timeframe, "all sorts of positives can come its way. Isolation is the alternative route".

Britain is offering increased humanitarian aid in return for such gestures by Kim Jong Il, the country's dictator. Pyongyang has diplomatic relations with Britain and sees that as a channel to Washington.

Mr Rammell says he has "realistic expectations". The visit was allowed only after the North Koreans dropped objections to the team focusing on human rights, in addition to Pyongyang's clandestine nuclear weapons programme, which is on the agenda of six-party talks. Britain is not involved in the nuclear talks but has influence as a permanent UN Security Council member.

Satellite photographs have revealed a network of prison camps, where tens of thousands of inmates work as slaves in mining, logging and farming. Defectors say political prisoners are used to test chemical and biological weapons. One former North Korean army intelligence officer told the BBC in February that he had seen prisoners gassed to death.

Collective punishment is used against families who speak out against the regime, and Amnesty International has reports of public executions. Acute food shortages have forced tens of thousands of people across the border into China. If they are caught there, they are forcibly repatriated to North Korea and sent to camps for months of hard labour.

There is also concern about Japanese and South Koreans kidnapped by the North Koreans to train spies. But because of the nature of the regime, the claims have been difficult to verify. "They say it just doesn't happen, which I have to say lacks credibility," Mr Rammell said. He hopes to return with a commitment from North Korea for a return visit by Mr Benjamin. He is also calling on Pyongyang to admit a UN special rapporteur, as demanded by the UN human rights commission at its last session in April.

The claims of gross human rights violations in North Korea are "among the worst I have seen anywhere in the world", Mr Rammell added.

On the nuclear front, Britain hopes to persuade North Korea to continue the six-party process aimed at ending its nuclear programme which, intelligence services believe, has produced one or two nuclear weapons. But in the absence of UN weapons inspectors, expelled from the country in October 2002, it is difficult to know the extent of nuclear production.


Link
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 01:25 am
Interesting...thank you Thok!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 01:48 am
Chuckster wrote:
NKorea is a titular war puppet of China and Russia.


North Korea and Russia? Could you please give some (recent, let's say from the last decade[s]) examples?
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 01:59 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Chuckster wrote:
NKorea is a titular war puppet of China and Russia.


North Korea and Russia? Could you please give some (recent, let's say from the last decade[s]) examples?


This question is not directed to me. But let me say a few words. I have heard that there is some material released from Soviets under Gorbachev, which shows NK movement around 1950 was backed or even triggered by Stalin and Mao, with less role by the latter. I wish I could find the material.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 02:06 am
Well, I don't deny at all that Russia, has important economic and historical ties to North Korea and is one of its few allies :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 02:12 am
Thok wrote:
This case is on the move:

North Korea admits UK human rights team


One A2K'er [Steve (as 41oo)] talked with Bill the other day, before he left.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Met with my mate the minister this morning. He's on his way right now to North Korea, to tell them to give up their nuclear missiles, give up being beastly to each other, and whilst we are on the subject of being beastly, to give up eating dogs.

However he gave me assurances that no one in the British government wants to see war with DPRK, nor indeed Iran.


Since I'm friendly with the minister as well, I know, he's going to do the best. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 04:44 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I know, he's going to do the best. :wink:


me too,even if I don't know him.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 01:18 am
Informations to the explosion arehere available


UK minister tackles North Koreans on human rights abuse


Quote:
Britain placed human rights at the heart of its relationship with North Korea last night as the Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell arrived in Pyong-yang to take the measure of the world's most reclusive Communist state.

Mr Rammell, making the first visit to North Korea by a British minister, made it clear from the outset of his first meeting, with the vice-foreign minister for Europe, Kung Sok Ung, that he would raise the "very serious human rights allegations'' during three days of talks.

The visit went ahead only after North Korea agreed to discuss human rights as well as the thorny nuclear issue that has bedevilled the country's relations with the rest of the world since it announced that it had a nuclear weapon in 2002.

Mr Rammell told the minister he welcomed the addition of human rights to the agenda. Mr Kung failed to respond directly at their foreign ministry meeting.

The British delegation last night raised specific human rights cases that will be discussed in more detail tomorrow. These include the fate of a former North Korean ambassador to Indonesia who was sent to labour camp, and that of two abducted South Korean pastors.

Mr Rammell and his team, which included the Foreign Office expert on human rights, Jon Benjamin, are calling for North Korea to admit a UN human rights investigator for a return trip by Mr Benjamin.

But a brief spat less than an hour later highlighted the extent of the hard-line government's paranoia, when official minders refused to allow a television camera into a new food market despite having given prior agreement.

After a short stand-off during which Mr Rammell cooled his heels outside the blue-roofed market - the produce ranged from dried squid to dog meat - his party and the camera were allowed inside.

Diplomats say that such well-stocked markets, which were introduced in the wake of monetary reform that pegged all foreign currency exchanges to the euro in 2002, are the sign of a timid liberalisation that could keep food shortages at bay.

Yet Pyongyang still looks like a city built for war, from its limitless airport runway to its deep underground Soviet-era metro and the wide avenues virtually devoid of traffic on a Saturday afternoon. About 30 military trucks were parked outside the foreign ministry yesterday.

Militaristic billboards are everywhere in the one-party state devoted to the cult of the late Great Leader Kim Il Sung, whose picture greets visitors from the airport terminal.

In central Pyongyang, dominated by austere grey buildings and monuments to his memory, soldiers raise their fists over the slogan "think and work and live according to the requirements of Sungun politics'', the policy that places the military at the vanguard of society.

Even though the party and military elite live in Pyongyang, their fear of the outside world is palpable. Talking to foreigners is actively discouraged unless the conversations are officially approved. When journalists entered a metro car at Buhung station, where patriotic music plays in the background, two people quietly slipped out of the car.

A student, who agreed to a short conversation in the presence of a government minder, was asked how much her salary would be when she found work in a hotel after completing her course. The salary is not important, she replied. "I try to repay the care of the government,'' she said.

A group of men was reading the sports news on a stand inside the metro. One of them, a surgeon named Jang Ji Min, described how he had watched the Olympic Games on television. What was his impression?

He chatted affably for a few minutes, saying he was naturally pleased at the victory of the North Korean medal for weightlifting, and was impressed by the Chinese divers.

He added: "By seeing the play of sportsmen on television I realised how they tried their best to glorify our country by having a great success at the Games.''


Link
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 10:46 pm
It is nice to see that N. Korea might listen to UK Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell about human rights. Perhaps this will initiate a dialog with the DPRK which might be expanded in the future and allow a basis for further talks of a more meaningful and comprehensive nature. However, I would hesitate to put much hope towards the N.Korean administration changing its stripes in this regard.

What reason would Kim have to change now? Sure the international community's outrage could demand measures to punish Kim's regime, but who would really suffer? Certainly not the higher ups! Remember the UN's "Oil for Food" program. This was to soften previously levied UN sanctions against Iraq. The Iraqis got a little food and medicine and Saddam (and others via kick-backs) got wealthier.

The term "Human Rights" is a misnomer. It implies an almost divine intent. This is an illusion simply because in the real world there is no such thing. The concept possesses its roots in the English Magna Carta. But this was forced upon King John by his barons. Any such human "right" is merely a bargain between the individual (more accurately a group thereof) and his sovereign or government. This is why we see the lack of "human rights" in places like Saudi Arabia and China. In these states the individual looks to the government for life giving support. Here we see the opposite of America's "NO Taxation Without Representation". Americans are the source of revenue for their government just as King John's legitimacy sprang from his barons who made him a deal he couldn't refuse. He got to rule so long as he behaved and wasn't abusive (This row also had to do with taxation). What we see in Saudi Arabia, China, and the DPRK is essentially "No Taxation ergo No Representation".

So any "rights" come from within the society. The deal in democratic societies is: leaders get to do so as long as the people approve. Other societies are: as long as we leaders pay the bills the individual will do as we say.

Because of this, outsiders coming into N. Korea, or any other such country, with the intent of "enlightening" their leaders as to "Human Rights Abuses" are participating in a somewhat futile exercise. That the N Korean people should be treated humanely there is no question. But, if we assume that this treatment should fall somewhere above "humanely treated" prisoners of war, what are the specific parameters? The legitimacy for this decision comes from within a particular society and not from "outside help".

Because of the above reasons we must not take the Chuckster's advice to
Quote:
"Abandon all the tomfoolery about the internal stuggles of the N.Korean people and their Govt. it's simply irrelevant."
Au contraire.

We "outsiders" can help mainly by encouraging N. Korea to engage the international community initially by offering economic development. Given a stable environment the advantageous labor situation could attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Just opening the door a crack would mean a lot. But before this happens Sec Powell and others will have to do more than "manhandle" the DPRK. They will have to convince KIM to give up the Nukes, permanently.

JM
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » N. Korea Says It Can 'Show Flexibility' - hopeful sign?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.13 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 10:34:02