PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Offers N.Korea Incentives to Scrap Nukes



Seraphim
06-23-2004, 04:51 PM
By Teruaki Ueno and Saul Hudson

BEIJING/WASHINGTON (*******) - The United States offered North Korea (news - web sites) aid incentives on Wednesday to scrap its suspected nuclear weapons programs after key allies pressed for a way to break a deadlock in six-party negotiations.



There was no formal response from North Korea, which appeared as entrenched as ever and urged the United States to soften its "hostile" stance.


Completing a policy reversal, Washington presented a plan to allow other nations to supply energy aid and said it could consider giving North Korea assurances it would not be attacked, U.S. officials said. It also offered Pyongyang three months to start dismantling its programs, they added.


In return, the communist state must provide a full listing of its nuclear activities, disable some dangerous materials and allow monitoring, senior officials said in outlining the proposal made at the start of six-party talks in Beijing.


The incentives are the first significant, detailed overture to North Korea since President Bush (news - web sites) took office and branded North Korea as part of an "axis of evil" alongside Iran and prewar Iraq (news - web sites).


The plan hinged on North Korea making the strategic decision to abandon its suspected programs -- something it has refused to do during the 20-month crisis.


U.S. officials said they did not expect a response during the talks to a proposal they developed from ideas presented by negotiating partners, South Korea (news - web sites), Japan, Russia and China.


Previously, the United States had said North Korea should not be rewarded for moving to scrap its programs because its nuclear development was in violation of agreements Pyongyang had signed in the 1990s. Washington believes North Korea has at least two nuclear bombs.


Wednesday's proposal completes a shift started earlier this year when the United States first said it would not oppose other countries supplying energy to North Korea.


ELECTION-YEAR TALKS


There have been two previous rounds of senior-level talks but progress has been glacial, and few have expected major breakthroughs at the third round.


Japan pressed for progress warning "the credibility of the six-party process itself" was at stake if none was made this time.


Many political analysts believe North Korea will wait until after the U.S. presidential election in November before seriously considering scrapping its programs and that Bush will not push too hard for fear of provoking a showdown during his re-election campaign.


It was unclear how the plan would be received by the unpredictable North, which unleashed a characteristic barrage of anti-U.S. rhetoric before the talks.


"No positive results can be expected from the third round of the six-party talks if the U.S. again raises its old brigandish demand at the talks that will start today," North Korea's Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary.


North Korea's chief negotiator, Kim Kye-gwan, said Pyongyang would abandon its nuclear weapons program if the United States dropped its "hostile policy" toward the North, a refrain from previous rounds.


"The U.S. proposal is very complicated and North Korea is going to need time to analyze it," South Korean negotiator Lee Soo-hyuck told reporters.





The U.S. plan drew on a similar framework the United States has used with Libya. Last year, Libya committed to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and has since won economic and diplomatic rewards as it has moved toward that goal.

"Good faith action on North Korea's part will be met with good faith response by the other parties," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, referring to what he called the "Libya model."

If North Korea were to make a Libya-like pledge, South Korea could immediately give the energy-starved country fuel oil, a senior Bush administration said in Washington.

(Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed, Steve Holland, Benjamin Kang Lim and Godwin Chellam)

Romulus
06-23-2004, 07:39 PM
Why?

Didn't Clinton do the same thing? Well they pretty much played him and now looks like Bush is falling for the same shat! :fork:

J.P.97
06-23-2004, 07:49 PM
This is just one side of the coin.

Politics is much more complicated than that.
Wish it was more straight forward.

my 2 cents.

Black Dots
06-23-2004, 08:00 PM
Contrast the way the US is handling North Korea with the way it is handling Iraq. The inconsistency may spread a dangerous message. Specifically: if you are a rogue nation with a weak military and no nukes, you may risk US military intervention. However, if you have nukes and a substantial military, the US is going to sit and talk. Do you think this may cause more nations to seek unconventional weapons?

Kilgor
06-23-2004, 08:02 PM
What makes north korea more dangerous is that it has hundreds if not thousands of pieces of artillery that can reach seoul and level it flat in hours.

Unforunately that is powerful bargining power.

usa320
06-23-2004, 09:54 PM
BAD, BAD, BAD Idea. were setting ourselves up for blackmail if we do this.

Flagg
06-23-2004, 10:00 PM
I recently read a quote here on Milphotos.net that I think is relevant.

It went something like this:

"Diplomacy is like petting a rabid dog with your left hand, while your right hand carefully reaches for a big rock."

I like that......it's quite funny

Brozozo
06-24-2004, 12:06 AM
Bull****, the US shouldn't be bargaining like this.

Black Dots
06-24-2004, 12:20 PM
Bull****, the US shouldn't be bargaining like this.

Unfortunately, we aren't holding any cards. What are our options? Invade? We’re already spread thin in Iraq. In fact, some US troops have already (or will soon, I forget the timetable) be transferred from Korea to Iraq to fill in the gaps. South Korea is also about to send 3,000 troops of its own.

Considering that it’s taking almost all of the standing military to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan, I doubt a full-scale conventional war in a completely different theater is something anyone in the DoD or military wants to even think about.

Other factors to consider:

1. China. They weren’t so keen on the whole invasion of Korea thing last time we tried it.
2. Election Year. With one war going really poorly, do you think Bush wants to take a stab at another?
3. The draft. That’s the only way we’d get the manpower to meet the requirements for such a conflict, and that’d go over like a lead balloon. See #2

There is a chance that the Koreans can be engaged diplomatically in conjunction with the other major powers in the region (Russia, China, Japan) who probably aren’t thrilled with the idea of another nuclear power in the neighborhood.