So that's how many years of Bush making the world safer and rogue nuclear state number 1 is still not under control?
There are two negotiating methods that can be used for obstinate donkeys of countries like NK, the carrot or the stick. The stick has been put out of reach by America's current military commitments, NK's existing nuclear capabilities, and/or America's domestic problems. Why would NK ask for anything but more carrots when they are negotitating from that position?
The more this drags on the better a case it makes for other rogue states to go nuclear. It needs to be resolved quickly. Unfortunately Kim Il Song joins Saddam and Osama on the list of half assed despots who have put Bush between a rock and a hard place. Bush couldn't sell a war right now unless Kim directly attacked LA.
This reactor idea didn't come out of the blue, NK wanted safe reactors for a long time and previous negotiations had included their provision as an enticement to disarm. What needs to be done is to nail Kim down on the deal, with full international supervision and support, and then give him the reactor, which costs approximately nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's a gamble as to whether or not he'll actually play along, but under suitably well-defined conditions he'll be forced to either disarm or give the US a universally recognized reason to bomb the shit out of Pyongyang and probably a couple of countries willing to lend them a hand holding the stick.
I'm not saying that giving into the North Koreans is going to make them any easier to work with, but it would do wonders towards making the phrase "US diplomacy" not sound like an oxymoron. Most importantly though, it would give the US the upper hand in disarmament negotiations because it would put NK into a position where they would either be compliant or be a sitting duck. This is an opportunity to advance the schedule of disarmament significantly.
But that most likely won't happen. Instead of a gamble on NK's intentions we have a sure thing. NK sticks to their guns, the six parties stick to their document, and nothing gets done and NK is an even bigger nuclear problem in 2 more years when negotiations tentatively begin again, or when sufficent military resources are freed up to threaten an invasion of a nuclear country with an industrialized military. I like my gamble better but I'm sure many people here don't.
GIVE them a reactor?!! Not unless they take 20 Walmarts and a 1/2 doz (slightly used) Krispy Cremes along with it.
Posted at 2005-09-20 10:23:18 [PermaLink]The Clinton era agreements did have a Nuclear Power plant as part of the deal. I have several friends working on the project. It was a joint US-South Korea-NK project. Unfortunately the NK's pulled so many shenanigans the project was stalled well before Bush stopped the deal due to cheating on the weapons end. As an example one of the goals was to get NK construction and engineering staff to work with SK contractors to build trust and employ NK workers. Since having contact with SK is a real no-no of the Kim regime, they basically withheld workers complaining of low pay. The SK companies eventually flew in workers from Uzbekistan to fill the gap.
The reactor deal is all sham. SK offered to provide free electricity to the north via powerlines, but that was rejected too.