| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2007/2/13-17 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:45727 Activity:high |
2/13 N. Korea agrees to shutdown nuclear program in exchange for
1 million tons of fuel oil per year:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-11-nkorea-nuke-talks_x.htm
\_ Basically, I'll believe it when I see it. I sure NK is perfectly
happy to get free fuel oil, but I'm a little sceptical of them
keeping up their side of the deal. On the other hand, if China
really signs on, this may be real progress.
\- i agree. [no opinion on the china part, tho].
\_ Pretty much: believe this sort of thing when they hand over
their reactors.
\_ How much is one ton as an oil measuring unit? Is it still 2000lb?
\_ I'm assuming yes. Using 1010 kg/m^3 as the density of fuel oil,
this is about 237 million gallons. For reference, I think that
the largest oil tanker in the world holds ~ 10.5 million gallons.
this is about 237x10^6 gal. For reference, I think that the
largest oil tanker in the world holds ~ 10.5x10^6 gal.
\_ Never negotiate with terrorists.
\_ Just for the record, NK hasn't done any international terrorism
for 20 years. It don't think brinkmanship diplomacy counts as
terrorism. Jump to "6. Terrorism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_North_Korea
-jrleek
\_ They 'tested' a missile by throwing it OVER japan,
and 5 years ago they threatened to turn the surrounding
area into a sea of flames. They want to be taken seriously
as an international terrorist menace, the US takes
them seriously as an international terrorist menace,
so what's the problem?
\_ Admittedly, this is a little grey, but generally people
think of terrorism as killing large numbers of innocents.
Did either of those event qualify? No? Then it's
brinkmanship. If you think threats qualify as terrorism,
I'm ok with that.
\_ It isn't an act of terror. It is an highly provocative
act begging for war. Many long bloody wars have been
fought through out history over less.
\_ Ok, thanks for agreeing with me.
\_ I agree it isn't an act of terror. Terror is
what non-gvt entities do. When gvt's do the
same things, they are acts of war. When a gvt
sponsors a third party terrorist group, the
terrorist group is committing an act of terror
but the gvt is committing an act of war, even
for the same act.
\_ While I'm on a roll here, what about official north korean
state sanctioned counterfeiting of the US 100 dollar
bill and heroin shipping?
\_ Drug dealers and counterfeiters are terrorists? You
really are an "if you aren't with us, you're with the
terrorists" kinda guy, huh?
\_ The NK government is doing the counterfeiting but
nice try.
\_ I guess I don't understand your response. If an
individual counterfeits, he is not a terrorist, but
if a government counterfeits, they are terrorists?
\_ No. I was directly responding to your implication
that the counterfeiting was being done by non-gvt
entities. The counterfeiting is a form of
economic aggression. What I said above in the
other sub-thread about lobbing missiles over
Japan: many wars have been started over less.
\_ I didn't mean to imply that the counterfeiting
was by non-gvt entities. Re-reading it, I
can't see how you got that. So, again, thanks
for agreeing with me.
\_ I'm not going to quibble with you over
whether the counterfeiting is an act of
terror or an act of war. It doesn't matter
since the point of this whole thread was
that NK is run by psychotic paranoids who
commit evil acts on a continuing and daily
basis. They were not "just" 20 years ago.
They were 20 years ago, they were today and
they were every day in between.
\_ If you wanted a whole thread about how NK
is run by psychotic paranoids, you should
have started one. I just pointed out
that the particular breed of nasty stuff
NK does is not generally considered state
-sponsored terrorism, and provided
evidence. WHICH YOU ADMIT IS TRUE.
However, you seem to have taken this
simple statement as some sort of sweeping
defense of NK's bad behavior, and gone
ape trying to attack that straw man.
Next time try responding to what people
actually write, rather than what the
voices in your head say. (or shut-up)
\_ *laugh*, So anyway, if you want to
quibble over "terrorist" vs. the
more accurate, "act of war", you're
welcome to. Perhaps you can start
a club for the extreme OCD and the
pedantic. The only difference between
NK's actions and any random terrorist
group's action is NK is a state
actor while the RTG is not. And since
you brought it up, you should really
go back and re-read who said what to
see who is screaming in all caps and
going ape-shit and who has maintained
the same simple line of reasoning.
Hint: the all-caps wasn't mine. Have
a nice day and please do try to keep
the personal attacks to a minimum. It
doesn't help your cause and it's quite
boring.
\_ Ha. I like that. Traslation:
"You were right the whole time, but
you're still wrong." Cool.
\_ Hey, wait a minute. I just went
back and re-read everything. This
misunderstand occured because you
don't know what "brinkmanship"
means. Go look it up, and lo, ye
shall be enlightened.
\_ How about kidnapping of foreign nationals (including South
Koreans) in foreign soil (e.g. Hong Kong)?
\_ This may qualify, but how recently? Most incidents I'm
aware of occured >= 20 years ago.
\_ And they're still holding them so every single day
right now.
\_ Most of the Japanese have been returned, or have
died. The vast majority of the abducted were South
Korean, the the SK govt. is kind of ignoring them.
(The SK chinese embassy recently turned away an
escaped SK abductee.) Anyway, I'd chalk that up to
the NK inability to ever admit they were wrong,
rather than contuined terrorist activity. In any
case, I'm not trying to defend NK, I'm just saying
they don't really qualify as terrorist to most
people. Also, those abductions are mostly unknown,
which means that most people aren't "terrified" of
them.
\_ "Most" have been returned. Or they died in
captivity. Very nice. All is good then! Let's
party! And since the SK govt is terrified of a
war with the NK they have cynically decided to
ignore the kidnappings so that must be ok, too!
Yay for the SK gvt making the right moral choice.
Not. And since the NK is emotionally incapable
of admitting fault, that makes kidnapping foreign
citizens ok, too. Yay! Much happiness! And
finally since the gvt and SK media have decided
to bury the issue, most people are unaware of it
so they're not afraid and thus the original act
of kidnapping wasn't a problem. Yay! I'm so glad
you were here to clean all that up. And here I
was thinking all this time the NK gvt is run by a
bunch of evil paranoid psychotics who have been
threatening their southern neighbors for 50+ years
and now have nukes, too. I feel so much better
now. The only thing you missed was how NK is
really the victim of all this and if the West
would just give peace a chance and stop provoking
the NK and respect them it'd all be good.
\_ As I said, I am not defending NK. I'm saying
that "terrorist" has a fairly well accepted
meaning, that NK does not _CURRENTLY_ fit. Is
NK run by an evil bunch of criminals? Yes. Is
every evil criminal a terrorist? No.
\_ They aren't terrorists. Governments are
not terrorist entities. Governments can
however commit the same acts as terrorists.
In those cases we call them acts of war.
\_ Also, for the record, I don't really think
SK reluctance to push these kinds of issues is
due to fear of war. From what I see in SK
politics, it seems like they're more afraid of
having their "Sunshine policy" shown for the
naive drivel it is.
\_ It's either that or Kim torrents a bunch of movies.
Do you support piracy?
\_ Why are so many South Koreans pro North Korea over
the evil satanic United States that stations several
hundred thousand servicemen in SK so the NK does NOT
just come marching in? I don't get it. NK has
tons of artillery pointed at Seoul, they kidnap citizens,
build crazy tunnels under Seoul, have said "WE WILL
BOMB THE FUCK OUT OF SEOUL IN ORDER TO UNITE WITH
OUR BROTHERS", and still many south koreans think
NK is just a bunch of misunderstood dudes.
\_ FUNK SEOUL BROTHERS
\- FUCK SEOUL BROTHERS
\_ Check it out now
\_ Just naivete. SK history teaches that Korea is 1
country and that it's generally "Korea vs the world."
In otherwords, nationalism and xenophobia. Many just
can't believe that their brothers could be more
dangerous than the forieners. I think it's similar to
asking Europeans "which country is the biggest threat to
World Peace?"
\_ Go dubya! I'm sure he knows exactly what he's doing! |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-11-nkorea-nuke-talks_x.htm BEIJING Shi Yinhong, a leading Korea-watcher who teaches international relations at Peoples University in Beijing, said Friday he welcomed moves toward a concrete agreement but cautioned that Pyongyangs record of "playing games" means all parties should prepare for disappointment. Its probable that there will be agreement in some form that North Korea will freeze part of its nuclear program in exchange for energy assistance, even implicitly, from the United States, Shi said. In the past three years of negotiations, we have never had such a concrete agreement. How can you interpret North Koreas suddenly being willing to abandon its nuclear program? We should be prudent about not reading too much long-term significance into this. Is North Korea really set on a course of denuclearization? The tragic story of the 1994 agreement could be repeated. On the one hand, Pyongyang wants assistance and a better relationship with the United States, Shi argued, but at the same time the North Koreans immediate purpose is to eliminate the UN sanctions. Shi credits the recent intensification of bilateral talks between Washington and Pyongyang with improving the climate for agreement. The other four parties to the six-party talks have basically been sidelined, he said. North Korea and the USA provide the basis to the other four sides of the talks, they can only raise their point of view at the end of this process. Their views are still important, but they have been less involved. Shi warned that any agreement may only temporarily halt the North Korean nuclear program. Will it represent a fundamental decision by North Korea to abandon nuclear bombs? The North Koreans always want to have their cake and eat it. Print | By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- North Korea reached a tentative agreement with five other nations Tuesday on initial steps toward ending its nuclear weapons program, US negotiator Christopher Hill said. The agreement would shut down a program that built and tested a nuclear device and amassed plutonium for as many as a dozen other weapons. Initially, however, that plutonium and any completed nuclear weapons would remain in North Korea. The deal, reached in Beijing by negotiators from North Korea, the United States, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea, requires a final OK by the six governments. Under the agreement's terms, North Korea would shut down a nuclear reactor that has been producing plutonium for four years, according to a senior Bush administration official and an Asian diplomat. Inspectors from the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency would return to North Korea within 60 days to verify that the reactor has been shuttered, they said. In return, North Korea would get a million tons of fuel oil a year. The two officials, both of whom had been briefed on details of the agreement, declined to be identified because it has not gotten final approval from their governments. After a fifth day of negotiations in Beijing, Hill said the agreement is only a first step toward the ultimate goal of dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons program. "I'm encouraged that we might be able to make a real step forward on the denuclearization issue," he said. Supporters and opponents of the agreement both say it resembles a 1994 accord, known as the Agreed Framework, which traded economic and diplomatic concessions for a freeze of the North Korean nuclear program and a pledge of eventual denuclearization. Under that deal, North Korea received 500,000 tons of fuel oil annually. The 1994 pact collapsed in 2002 when North Korea admitted working to enrich uranium, another potential source of bomb fuel. John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN until December, said on CNN that the agreement is "a very bad deal" that would undercut sanctions against North Korea and make the administration "look weak ... He said President Bush should reject the deal because it is no better than the 1994 agreement: "If we (are) going to cut this deal now, it's amazing we didn't cut it back then." Jack Pritchard, a former US negotiator with the North Koreans in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, said the latest deal initially leaves North Korea "a declared nuclear-weapon state with a stock of plutonium for more." James Kelly, assistant secretary of State for Asia in Bush's first term, said he was optimistic. "It's a mistake to prematurely trash" the agreement, Kelly said. David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think tank, said North Korea has produced enough plutonium for as many as 12 bombs. It tested a nuclear device for the first time in October. |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_North_Korea demilitarized zone (DMZ) extends for 2,000 meters (about 125 miles) on either side of the MDL North Korea has had a history of poor relations with neighboring countries. Red Cross societies with the aim of reuniting the many Korean families separated following the division of Korea and the Korean War. After a series of secret meetings, both sides announced on July 4, 1972, an agreement to work toward peaceful reunification and an end to the hostile atmosphere prevailing on the peninsula. Officials exchanged visits, and regular communications were established through a North-South coordinating committee and the Red Cross. Kim Dae-Jung in Tokyo by the South Korean intelligence service. There was no other significant contact between North and South Korea until 1984. Dialogue was renewed on several fronts in September 1984, when South Korea accepted the North's offer to provide relief goods to victims of severe flooding in South Korea. Red Cross talks to address the plight of separated families resumed, as did talks on economic and trade issues and parliamentary-level discussions. However, the North then unilaterally suspended all talks in January 1986, arguing that the annual US-South Korea "Team Spirit" military exercise was inconsistent with dialogue. Roh Tae Woo called for new efforts to promote North-South exchanges, family reunification, inter-Korean trade and contact in international forums. Roh followed up this initiative in a UN General Assembly speech in which South Korea offered to discuss security matters with the North for the first time. Initial meetings that grew out of Roh's proposals started in September 1989. In September 1990, the first of eight prime minister-level meetings between North Korean and South Korean officials took place in Seoul, beginning an especially fruitful period of dialogue. December 13, 1991, called for reconciliation and nonaggression established four joint commissions. These commissions - on South-North reconciliation, South-North military affairs, South-North economic exchanges and cooperation, and South-North social and cultural exchange - were to work out the specifics for implementing the general terms of the Basic Agreement. Sub-committees to examine specific issues were created and liaison offices established in Panmunjom, but in the fall of 1992 the process came to a halt because of rising tension over the nuclear issue. It forbade both sides to test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy, or use nuclear weapons and forbade the possession of nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities. A procedure for inter-Korean inspection was to be organized and a North-South Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC) was mandated with verification of the denuclearization of the peninsula. JNCC was established in accordance with the Joint Declaration, but subsequent meetings failed to reach agreement on the main issue of establishing a bilateral inspection regime. As the 1990s progressed, concern over the North's nuclear program became a major issue in North-South relations and between North Korea and the US. The situation worsened rapidly when North Korea, in January 1993, refused IAEA access to two suspected nuclear waste sites and then announced in March 1993 its intent to withdraw from the NPT. During the next 2 years, the US held direct talks with the DPRK. edit Relations outside the peninsula After 1945, the Soviet Union supplied the economic and military aid that enabled North Korea to mount its invasion of the South in 1950. Soviet aid and influence continued at a high level during the Korean war; as mentioned, the Soviet Union was largely responsible for rebuilding North Korea's economy after the cessation of hostilities. In addition, the assistance of Chinese volunteers during the war and the presence of these troops until 1958 gave China some degree of influence in North Korea. In 1961, North Korea concluded formal mutual security treaties with the Soviet Union (inherited by Russia) and China, which have not been formally ended. For most of the Cold War, North Korea followed a policy of equidistance between the Soviet Union and China by accepting favors from both while avoiding a clear preference for either. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, the Soviet-backed Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan created strains between China and the Soviet Union and, in turn, in North Korea's relations with its two major communist allies. North Korea tried to avoid becoming embroiled in the Sino-Soviet split, obtaining aid from both the Soviet Union and China and trying to avoid dependence on either. Following Kim Il Sung's 1984 visit to Moscow, there was a dramatic improvement in Soviet-DPRK relations, resulting in renewed deliveries of advanced Soviet weaponry to North Korea and increases in economic aid. South Korea established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1990 and the People's Republic of China in 1992, which put a serious strain on relations between North Korea and its traditional allies. Soviet Union in 1991 had resulted in a significant drop in communist aid to North Korea. Despite these changes and its past reliance on this military and economic assistance, North Korea proclaims a militantly independent stance in its foreign policy in accordance with its official ideology of Juche, or self-reliance. At the same time, North Korea maintains membership in a variety of multilateral organizations. KEDO temporarily resolved this crisis by having the US and several other countries agree that in exchange for dismantling its nuclear weapons program, two light-water reactors (LWRs) would be provided. North Korea at the time denied these allegations and insisted upon its right to produce nuclear energy for civilian purposes, as allowed by Article X of the NPT. Following this withdrawal, North Korea's neighbours quickly sought a diplomatic solution to an escalating crisis. The announcements never mention what sort of gift, but Kim has a large collection of cultural and other souvenirs from leaders all over the world, which is partly or entirely on public display. |