U.S.-Japan Joint Statement on North Korea

The State Department ^ | February 19, 2005 | Richard Boucher

[snowsislander]

		Joint Statement Richard Boucher Washington, DC February 19, 2005 U.S.-Japan Joint Statement on North Korea The following joint statement was agreed upon by the U.S. and Japan on February 19, 2005: The U.S. Secretary of State and the Japanese Foreign Minister made clear their deep concern over the D.P.R.K. Foreign Ministry Statement dated February 10, 2005, which publicly declared that North Korea would suspend its participation in the Six-Party Talks for an indefinite period and that it had manufactured nuclear weapons. The Ministers affirmed that North Korea’s nuclear program poses a serious challenge to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and represents a direct threat to the peace and stability of the Northeast Asian region, including Japan. The Ministers, while reconfirming their fundamental policy toward North Korea, reiterated their commitment to continuing to seek a peaceful diplomatic resolution of the nuclear issue through the Six-Party Talks. The Ministers strongly urged North Korea to return to the Six-Party Talks at an early date without preconditions, and to commit itself to the complete dismantlement of all its nuclear programs, including its uranium enrichment program, under credible international verification. The Ministers agreed that the statement by the D.P.R.K. only further isolates it from the international community and runs counter to the efforts by the parties concerned to peacefully resolve the nuclear issue through the Six-Party Talks. The Ministers agreed that North Korea’s stated interest in establishing normal relations with its neighbors and the international community can only be met through immediate re-engagement in the Six-Party Talks and the elimination of North Korea’s nuclear programs. The Ministers noted that this path offers for North Korea the best way forward to multilateral security assurances, a better life for its people, and progress toward a new relationship with its neighbors, the region, and the world. The Ministers expressed their concern over North Korea’s missile program and decided to continue to share information with a view to maintaining preparedness for any situation. The Ministers strongly urged North Korea to speedily and completely resolve the abduction issue. The U.S. Secretary of State reaffirmed the United States’ full support of Japan’s position on the abduction issue. The Ministers also reaffirmed the continuing strength and vitality of U.S.-Japan security arrangements, and expressed confidence in their capacity to deter and address challenges to regional peace and stability. 2005/220

	This site is managed by the Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein. Copyright Information | Disclaimers

[RightWhale]

If something needs to be debated perhaps consider the idea of why China's nukes are not a threat, but N Korea's are. Why Iran's nukes are a threat but Israel's aren't. Why Russia's, America's, England's, France's nukes are not a threat, but alQaida's are.

[snowsislander]

If something needs to be debated perhaps consider the idea of why China's nukes are not a threat, but N Korea's are. Why Iran's nukes are a threat but Israel's aren't. Why Russia's, America's, England's, France's nukes are not a threat, but alQaida's are.

President Bush has identified both North Korea and Iran as members of an Axis of Evil. Any nuclear weapons -- any weapons of mass destruction -- in the hands of members of such a group are of course a proper concern of ours, especially when both governments are headed by unstable nutcases.

As to Al Qaeda, they are a declared enemy of the United States, and have in the last few years attacked us viciously. Not only should they not have nuclear weapons, as vile unlawful combatants who abuse our open society to hide their disgusting deeds, they should be exterminated like the vile rats they are.

As to the United Kingdom and France, they are allies. We are committed to the defense of Israel.

Russia's and China's ownership of nuclear weapons is a fait accompli of large powers, and neither threatens us in the same nutty manner that North Korea and Iran do on a continuing basis.

[gogipper]

In a word asymmetry

[RightWhale]

Could we add India and Pakistan and then ask whether nukes in the hands of democratic states are okay, but in the hands of other kinds of regimes is not? That would require China and Russia to be democracies, which maybe they are.

[snowsislander]

Could we add India and Pakistan and then ask whether nukes in the hands of democratic states are okay, but in the hands of other kinds of regimes is not? That would require China and Russia to be democracies, which maybe they are.

I think it is a fine idea to debate whether or not Pakistan, one bullet away from being a radical Islamic state, should have nuclear weapons.

India however is clearly a democracy, and I am not sure to what end debate would serve. They are becoming an increasingly important player, and may well soon be a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

[nkycincinnatikid]

....Julia Childs knives weren't threatening but Jeffry Dahmers were. Betty Crockers ovens were just fine but Adolf Hitlers were roundly criticized. Hey go figure.

[monkeywrench]

Excellent reply!

[RightWhale]

Countries are not individual people susceptible to psychoanalysis. The answer is a little deeper.

[Faraday]

What the Chinese, the North Koreans, and the South Koreans must weigh is that Japan will develop a massive nuclear arsenal rapidly if they determine it necessary to their survival. They can then decide if that prospect is worth propping up the chia-pet tyrant.

[nkycincinnatikid]

But I ask you then, does the Il Jong regime behave as a nation, does it act in the interests of the people? Is it constrained by such needs? Or is it an individual named Kim with nukes thanks to the nuanced leadership of Clinton, Carter, Albright, who chose to ponder navels, rather than face realities.

[RightWhale]

does the Il Jong regime behave as a nation, does it act in the interests of the people?

If the State is allowed to become too weak you get Lebanon; if too strong you get N Korea. They might not be operating on the theory of the consent of the governed or the theory of individual advantage. Those aren't the only options.

[Paul_Denton]

If something needs to be debated perhaps consider the idea of why China's nukes are not a threat, but N Korea's are. Why Iran's nukes are a threat but Israel's aren't. Why Russia's, America's, England's, France's nukes are not a threat, but alQaida's are.

Because sucidal mental cases like mullahs, terrorists and stalints dictators WILL use them to kill as many people as possible. They do not care about the retaliation. China's nukes are a threat and that is why we have the missile defense system. The ONLY reason Israel even exists today is because of its nuclear arsenal. The ONLY reason we are free is because no one will invade the US because we have a nuclear arsenal. Nukes dont kill people, people kill people. Same argument as guns.

[RightWhale]

Of course. But do we have the national right as a modern State to demand Iran or N Korea give up their nukes? What if they don't go along with the request?

[Paul_Denton]

Of course! the moment Iran gets nukes Israel will be gone. What do we do? we contain em, preemptivly attack them, nuke em or out-spend them (as Ronald Reagan did).

[nkycincinnatikid]

Thats a tough spot to be in alright.

[RightWhale]

Israel has a right to national defense. Do we have some kind of treaty with Israel that lets us preempt Iran?

[RightWhale]

Who hired us as sheriff of the planet?

[nkycincinnatikid]

OKey Dokey , With that nugget , I capitulate.

[Paul_Denton]

Israel has a right to national defense. Do we have some kind of treaty with Israel that lets us preempt Iran?

We have a right to national defense too. Defense is not letting your enemy take the first shot. Defense is a strong offense, and therfore we need to preemptivly attack.