Posted on 02/13/2007 3:05:04 AM PST by MadIvan
I don't want to hear about "Hung Noodles!"
Of course the deal could be good or bad.
First, I don't think there are ANY 'good' options for Bush.
Fact is, the West is in no position to accelerate the situation right now, and I don't think looking to whether or not Psycho Kimmy thinks he's won means that he has won.
From his presser yesterday, it is clear that Bush's plan has been to neutralize China's use of NoKo as a proxy taunt by driving a wedge of "face" between them. A very small accomplishment, but certainly better that Madame Halbright's work.
They got everything they had planned for. Sure they won.
Yep
We have to agree on one thing and perhaps disagree on another. One, is that because of the massive F-up in Iraq (we can blame whomever on that), we had our hands essentially tied on NK. However, we disagree. I still think in the long term, they "won" through this Clintonian-like arrangement (buying time at the very least) and we essentially "lost".
Alright, genius.
I'll be glad to agree with you if you've got a better frikkin idea.
Let's hear it.
(Please don't be one of those jackasses that posts mushroom cloud pictures.)
At any rate, check this out from the Conservative daily in Seoul for some additional perspective (I cite it as yesterday's Choson Ilbo). I don't see a great difference between what CLINTON got and what BUSH got, to be quite frank with you, sam:
"The agreement provides a number of points of comparison with the 1994 Geneva Accords. The Bush administration has over the last six years pursued a North Korea policy borne out of dissatisfaction with the Clinton administration's 1994 deal. The U.S. government must therefore have had the accords in mind when hammering out the six-party deal. Since the Geneva Accord had a loophole in merely seeking to "freeze" North Korean nuclear facilities, the Bush administration was under pressure to find something better. That has resulted in the terms "shut down" and "disable" for what North Korea must do. But "shut down" is just a conceptual re-packing of "freeze.” Since the negotiators did not offer any clear-cut definition of what “disable” means, the term will likely remain a bone of contention in negotiations with North Korea for years to come. If "disable" doesn't mean completely immoblize the nuclear facilities, it isn't much different from "freeze" either. Above all, the agreement makes no mention of the nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and nuclear program that North Korea already has or has carried out. The biggest difference between the Geneva Accords and the latest agreement is that North Korea has now conducted a nuclear test and has large quantities of plutonium from its nuclear reactor and a small number of nuclear weapons made from it. The Geneva Accords were blamed for failing to take any measures against North Korea's past nuclear activities. But the latest agreement doesn’t mention them either, at a time when it is certain that North Korea has conducted a nuclear test and possesses a small number of nuclear arms. A rough road lies ahead. It seems North Korea used a double strategy in the latest round of the six-party talks, giving up what it could and getting what it wanted. Since it already has nuclear weapons and nuclear materials, North Korea probably felt it would be no great loss to its nuclear status if it gives up its nuclear facilities and programs in return for bigger dollars. It shows North Korea once again slicing the salami as thinly as it can. It will cost a great deal of money, in two stages, to attain a complete dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear facilities. The latest talks show how expensive taking down the nuclear facilities and programs will be, and it will take even more energy assistance to get Pyongyang to scrap its nuclear arms and the nuclear materials it has stockpiled separately. Negotiations over them will take years, not months, and could well hit another snag in the process. We have already spent 14 long years and have no idea how many more years it will take. Despite the latest agreement, the future of the talks is uncertain.
Therefore, at least two things should be made clear if future negotiations are to be successful. First, North Korea must discuss completely dismantling all nuclear weapons, materials and programs; and second, there has to be a fixed schedule that defines each step and the conclusion of negotiations. Unless these premises are accepted, negotiations on the North Korean nuclear issue will never come to an end. Spring has not come. We must manage inter-Korean relations in a prudent and coolheaded way. The column was contributed by Hyun In-taek, a professor of political science and international relations at Korea University."
Sidebar to Tiger here, can you add some linguistic or culture perspective on the dilineation in the Korean language between "freeze" and "shut down", against the context of North Korea's subjective definition, and more importantly, North Korea's record of either following internationally proscribed definitions, and adhering to bilateral or multilateral agreements in the first place??
"In Iran's capital, the debate now appears to focus on how hard Iran should push for favorable terms," the Los Angeles Times reported. "The hard-liners, perhaps impressed by North Korea's achievement, are now inclined to be more resilient and more uncompromising," said Sadegh Zibakalam, professor of politics at Tehran University. 'They say if North Korea could do it, why shouldn't we? Why should we let the United States dictate to us, rather than negotiate with us?'" "
Thanks AIT! Good post.
Sorry I flew off the handle, but this diplo-speak, like I suspect you feel, makes my hair catch on fire. I can't stand it.
It's like shopping with a woman. You hate it, but you can't just shoot her, so, sometimes you have to go shopping!
=)
Same thing here. I do not think we are at a point where we have the famous "causus belli". We can't just bomb NK, because that would put us Waaaay behind the ball (especially since I assume our real intelligence from NSA/CIA is probably even more political and even more worthless in the post-Iraq, post-Pelosi, post-Valerie Plame/Libby, post-Doug Feith, post-Rumsfeld era. So how do we know what to target if we did!?!
Given that, we're doomed to dicker.
Meanwhile, like I said, we've got two things that we need time on.
1) Missile Defense. We need more. Need more testing. Need more radar in Japan. More PAC-3. More NMD. More Aegis. More. more.more.
2) Get Iraq in some semblance of completeness. That ain't gonna happen for at least two years anyway, right?
So, we have to let the diplomats do their idiotic dickering.
IMO.
shutdown --> Peh-seh (approx. romanization)
It literally means "seal up."
freeze --> Dong-gyol (approx.romanization)
It literally means "freeze and tie."
I do not know what word N. Koreans used for the two words above, but these are what S. Korean media used.
Dong-gyol is like "suspension" in Korean.
Peh-seh is like "closing-down" in Korean(a kind of "sealing up")
What is sealed up can be unsealed. It is not irreversible, as a sealed cave can be unsealed and open again.
As you may know, N. Korea can reinterpret the meaning of these phrases, or if that is not easy, they can claim "the ulterior" motive behind the agreement. Since the agreement is not in good faith according to their view, it is not valid.
The two moves are commonly taken by N. Korea to renege on or scrap the deal outright.
They do cost-benefit analysis on constant basis, factoring in how China and U.S. would respond. When the time to take an irreversible step to denuclearization approaches and if they see they can get away with breaking the deal without much cost, they will. All deals hinges on whether N. Korea perceives the cost would be prohibitive. It is not enough to be merely costly.
N. Korea was able to survive playing the hard ball. They pride in their ability to outlast and outscare their opponents. It takes a lot to push them back. The pressure should be "sustained," "unwaivering," and "going-up." You should make clear your resolve is rock-hard, which means you are ready to take the last step if it comes to that.
If you want to succeed in a negotiation with N. Korea, the pressure required is an order or two higher than what is required in dealing with other parties.
Remember that there is a faction in Iran advocating that they emulate N. Korea. Their way of running the country or dealing with external powers.
To them, N. Korea could be viewed as showing more balls than devout(and fanatic) Muslims like them. They are getting impressed. Iran is economically in far better shape. They have a good source of hard cash, crude oil. They are better positioned to outlast U.S. than N. Korea. If Iran emulates only half of what N. Korea does, U.S. is in real trouble in Mid-East.
Iran and N. Korea feed each other. You should see them as one problem unfolding on two fronts.
Either U.S. knock out Iran and scare N. Korea. Or U.S. plays hard ball with N. Korea, and keep Iran in check.
If U.S. is going to play soft with N. Korea now, they better make sure that U.S. knock out Iran (and hostile elements in Iraq.) If U.S. cannot do it, it will not get what it wants from N. Korea through "deals."
Without such hopeful prospect in Mid-East, this deal with N. Korea would amount to virtually nothing. Of course, N. Korea could implode on its own. Its likelihood is not small in my opinion, but it is not something none of the players involved, especially U.S., could control.
I found out the N. Korean phrase to describe the current deal. It is "Im-hi Ka-dong Joong-ji", literally meaning, "temporary stopping of operation."
This is how N. Korea's domestic media described it. Its meaning is no different from "suspension."
EXCELLENT Insight. I suspected as much (about DPRK).
Correction: Im-hi --> Im-shi
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.