[hrothgar]

Interesting piece in The New Republic about the (just announced) deal with North Korea. Anyone wanting to read the original with all the links can access it here http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank - (registration is required)

------------

The Washington Post has a decent summary of the deal struck between the United States and North Korea:

In a landmark international accord, North Korea promised Tuesday to close down and seal its lone nuclear reactor within 60 days in return for 50,000 tons of fuel oil as a first step in abandoning all nuclear weapons and research programs.

North Korea also reaffirmed a commitment to disable the reactor in an undefined next phase of denuclearization and to discuss with the United States and other nations its plutonium fuel reserves and other nuclear programs that "would be abandoned" as part of the process. In return for taking those further steps, the accord said, North Korea would receive additional "economic, energy and humanitarian assistance up to the equivalent of 1 million tons of heavy fuel oil."

The full text is here. John Bolton hates it, but he did make one astute point: "This is the same thing that the State Department was prepared to do six years ago. If we going to cut this deal now, it's amazing we didn't cut it back then." No kidding. It seems likely that North Korea would have accepted this offer before it tested a nuke last year. So why wasn't it done then? Seeing as how North Korea probably won't ever give up what nuclear weapons it now possesses, that looks like a glaring blunder in hindsight.

That said, it's certainly good news that the Yongbyon plutonium facility will be shut down and sealed, so credit to the Bush administration. On the other hand, Robert Farley's take seems accurate: "While a success on its own terms, this agreement represents an utter rejection of the Bush administration's approach to North Korea thus far. Carrots, instead of sticks, brought compromises. Nuclear weapons were the subject of diplomacy, not the precondition." Contrast this with the administration's approach to Iran, in which disarmament is the precondition of talks, rather than the hoped-for final goal.

I also wonder how this agreement will fare back in Washington. As Fred Kaplan has pointed out, the Agreed Framework struck by the Clinton administration in 1994 foundered, in part, because Republicans in Congress failed to fund the light-water reactors promised to North Korea. We'll see if Democrats behave differently this time around. Also, Bolton told CNN, "I'm hoping that the president has not been fully briefed on it and he still has time to reject it." So anything's still possible. And, of course, Kim Jong Il could always act erratically and back out all of the sudden...

[pbleighton]

I don't think North Korea will abandon nuclear fuel. I think they are playing us.

We need to accept the fact that more and more countries will possess WMD.

North Korea is the most dangerous country to have them, because
1. The leader is mentally unstable
2. They are incredibly poor, and need money
3. They're far away from the Middle East, all of which leads to
4. Unlike Iran, there is a reasonable chance of North
Korea selling a nuke or three to Bin Laden
5. The above might lead some in the U.S. to go to war with North Korea

Peter

[jtfanclub]

Quote

"This is the same thing that the State Department was prepared to do six years ago. If we going to cut this deal now, it's amazing we didn't cut it back then." No kidding. It seems likely that North Korea would have accepted this offer before it tested a nuke last year. So why wasn't it done then? Seeing as how North Korea probably won't ever give up what nuclear weapons it now possesses, that looks like a glaring blunder in hindsight.

Am I confused? Was this not Part I of the deal with North Korea from 1994? Gobs of fuel oil in return for no heavy water reactor, followed by two light water reactors in return for all nuclear weapons & materials?

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Feb 13 2007, 11:42 AM, said:

I don't think North Korea will abandon nuclear fuel. I think they are playing us.

agree, which is bolton's point

[mike777]

Again why are liberals so eager to go to war.

Why cannot NK have all the nukes they want and sell them to whoever that want to. Sounds like just one more excuse for war and also what the heck are our troops still doing in NK and Japan it has been 50+ years.

I thought we are all against preemptive wars.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 14 2007, 03:48 AM, said:

Again why are liberals so eager to go to war.

Why cannot NK have all the nukes they want and sell them to whoever that want to. Sounds like just one more excuse for war and also what the heck are our troops still doing in NK and Japan it has been 50+ years.

I thought we are all against preemptive wars.

Sorry Mike...

I'm a bit confused. It sounds like you're claiming that I want to go to war with North Korea. I'd love to see where I claimed this.

Alternatively, this might be another in your long series of inept over-simplifications.

[mike777]

Believe it or not all my posts are not in reply to you.

[pbleighton]

"Again why are liberals so eager to go to war."

Which liberals, Mike?

I don't follow you.

Peter

[han]

mike777, on Feb 13 2007, 07:53 PM, said:

Believe it or not all my posts are not in reply to you.

This post seems to contradict itself. Perhaps you meant "believe it or not, not all my posts are in reply to you."

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 14 2007, 03:53 AM, said:

Believe it or not all my posts are not in reply to you.

Sorry...

You made a comment about the behaviour of "all liberals"
Seemed reasonable to assume that I was included in that

[BebopKid]

pbleighton, on Feb 13 2007, 11:42 AM, said:

I don't think North Korea will abandon nuclear fuel. I think they are playing us.

We need to accept the fact that more and more countries will possess WMD.

North Korea is the most dangerous country to have them

I agree with Peter on this one.

I don't think North Korea will cease nuclear operations.

I also don't think we will get to the "war" stage during this administration, and hope that the world can control North Korea without war.

[Winstonm]

I don't think North Korea will abandon nuclear fuel. I think they are playing us.
(I think you underestimate how desperate N.Korea is for any enonomic gain. It is more likely their entire nuclear program a ruse to get economic sanctions lifted in exchange for giving up something they never possessed.)
We need to accept the fact that more and more countries will possess WMD.
(With this I agree.)

North Korea is the most dangerous country to have them, because
1. The leader is mentally unstable
(This is purely assumption. Pakistan and India have come closer to nuclear war than any countries since the U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. over the Cuban crises - and Israel may well use their nukes if they felt that threatened. Having nukes and being willing to use them are completely different things.)
2. They are incredibly poor, and need money
(One or two nuclear bomb sales would only be a drop in the bucket to what this economy needs - they would have to be able to sell the technology and I doubt that could ever do that)
3. They're far away from the Middle East, all of which leads to
4. Unlike Iran, there is a reasonable chance of North
Korea selling a nuke or three to Bin Laden (I don't think Korea is Islamic - there is more risk in N. Korea using a nuclear weapon again Japan or S. Korea. There would not be enough money made in the sale of 2 or 3 nukes to justify the risk of fallout if found out.)
5. The above might lead some in the U.S. to go to war with North Korea
(You don't go to war with N. Korea unless prepared to go to war with China.)

[BebopKid]

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2007, 10:09 PM, said:

(You don't go to war with N. Korea unless prepared to go to war with China.)

I would correct that to "you don't go to war with North Korea without China on your side."

[Winstonm]

BebopKid, on Feb 14 2007, 12:06 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2007, 10:09 PM, said:

(You don't go to war with N. Korea unless prepared to go to war with China.)

I would correct that to "you don't go to war with North Korea without China on your side."

Valid point.