Inspections of North Korean Nuclear Facilities To Begin Next Week

ABC News ^ | Sept. 7, 2007 | JOHN HENDREN

[Delacon]

Bush Administration Announces Plan to Disable Pyongyang's Nuclear Sites by the End of 2007

International nuclear experts will begin on-site inspections of North Korean nuclear facilities next week to develop a way to disable all of Pyongyang's nuclear sites by the end of the year, the Bush administration said today.

The announcement came just as South Korean President Moo Hyun Roh and President Bush, meeting at the Asia-Pacific summit in Australia, publicly clashed over why the United States has never formally declared an end to the Korean War.

Officials said that the nuclear experts will come from three nations in the six-party talks to disarm North Korea: the United States, China and Russia.

This would mark the first time that multilateral experts would inspect the facilities. The inspections follow an agreement in June in which North Korea committed to end its nuclear weapons program in a trade for fuel and other foreign aid.

Christopher Hill, the U.S. envoy handling the talks with Pyongyang, called the agreement "another significant step toward the goal of de-nuclearization" of the Korean peninsula.

The experts arrive Tuesday, but Bush administration officials said the day was not chosen for any symbolic link to the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The experts leave Sept. 15.

North Korea initiated the offer, said Hill, also the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. Hill is accompanying Bush at the 21-nation Asian economic summit.

Hill made the surprise announcement at the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in Sydney after final consultations with all six nations.

Inspectors will arrive in Pyongyang to survey sites that North Korea has agreed to disable, beginning with the Yongbyon site, which contains a fuel fabrication facility, a 5-megawatt reactor and a reprocessing facility.

The experts will examine the sites for ways to disable them by Dec. 31, 2007. The U.S. delegation will include officials from the National Security Council and the Energy and State departments.

Hill was careful in his phrasing, using the term "experts" rather than "inspectors" to abide by North Korean objections to the stronger term.

The parties also agreed to use the term "disable" rather than "dismantle," apparently leaving open the question of just how far North Korea will be required to go in shutting down the sites and how quickly the government of Kim Jong Il would be able to restart them.

Among the options, Hill said, were drilling holes in the sides of the reactor and filling them with cement.

"Our hope is that they can agree on some disabling measures & that make it very difficult to bring a facility back online," Hill told reporters. "The idea of disabling is to make it difficult to bring things back online."

The announcement followed an awkward, but polite exchange in which Bush and South Korea's President Moo Hyun Roh seemed to clash over the timing of a U.S. declaration formally ending the Korean War.

It began as a photo opportunity, with the two presidents complimenting one another and declaring progress in the six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear program. Then, things heated up.

Roh agreed to carry a message in a forthcoming summit to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il urging him to comply with international agreements.

The exchange heated up as Roh asked the president to clarify his stance.

"I think I might be wrong," Roh said, through a translator. "I think I did not hear President Bush mention a declaration to end the Korean War, as of just now. Did you say so, President Bush?"

Bush replied, "I said it's up to Kim Jong Il as to whether we can sign a peace treaty to end the Korean War. We've got to get rid of his weapons & and we're making progress toward that goal. It's up to him."

Roh laughed politely and gave a broad smile before saying, "I believe that they are the same thing, Mr. President. If you could be a little clearer in your message."

Bush gave an awkward chuckle, glanced at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and, with a shake of the head, responded, "I can't make it anymore clear, Mr. President. & That will happen when Kim Jong Il verifiably gets rid of his weapons programs and his weapons."

Afterward, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe downplayed the apparent clash. "There was clearly something lost in translation during the photo op. President Bush considered it a good meeting and both the U.S. and Roh are on the same page with regards to the need for North Korea to comply with its obligations under the six-party talk agreements. Once it complies, we'll be able to move to a full peace agreement as spelled out through the six-party talks."

[AmericanInTokyo]

This contradicts with John Bolton’s view.

[AmericanInTokyo]

TLR, if you have time, you are needed over there.

As our Freeper Emeritus on Korean Issues, with unchallengeable credentials and understanding of DPRK tactics, history, methodology and the "big picture" on Korean things, we need some additional input and balance on this.

[Williams]

The nuclear threat is and has been the serious one from N Korea, we enetered this administration with teh discovery of a secret N Korean nuke program and maybe a nuke. There was not any immediate prospect of ending the N Korean regime, a result taht S Korea, for example, opposes (unfortunately). So ending a N Korean Nuke program would be a major accomplishment.

That is if it happens and depending on what we give in return. However, N Korea never got the reactors that Clinton agreed to. Now you are saying that N Korea only wanted rice and fuel?

I don't think Bush was distracted, but S Korea certainly was not a plus during this period.

[Williams]

I’d like to see the end of the regimes in Cuba, N Korea, Iran and a number of others. But you are moving the goal posts on this one. N Korean regime change was not the issue and never was. We can all agree it would be a great thing, but N Korea backing down on a nuke program, if it happens, is a major accomplishment and the only one we set out to achieve.

[Williams]

I should have added the desirability of regime change in Red China, as well.

[Delacon]

Sorry but Bush has always demanded multilateral negotiations with NK and has always been reviled for doing so in the liberal press. His reasons for demanding multilateral negotiations and NK’s reasons for avoiding them are the ones I’ve mentioned before. This is a diplomatic coup for the US. Unlike under all past presidencies during the past 3 decades, if Kimmy boy backs away from this one, he will have to deal with not only the US, but China, and Russia.

[Delacon]

Bush was never distracted. Recall how the US suggestion that the US troops should withdraw to the southern tip of the penninsula amid anti-american protests a few years back. That clarified the SK’s govt position and got the protests to stop.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Please face it. We were esssentially and eventually blackmailed.

The fact is, Bush maintained the multilateral approach as you correctly point out, and refused, initially and to his credit quite stubbornly, to take the bait and to engage in direct US/DPRK talks and negotiations--as the Democrats insisted.

This was during his correct, purist earlier phase of foreign policy on this issue bypassing the State Department traditional approach of appeasement, detente, and "carrots over sticks".

As I said, the Libs and Clintonites urged him into one-on-one with DPRK as well. He resisted for as long as he could.

And this is where you and I start to part ways in our interpretation. For example, dont you recall anything of that most embarrassing situation of the US scrambling laughingstock-wise to get the DPRK's massive illegal drug/conterfeit based cash back to them from Banco del Asia, almost tripping over their shoelaces shamelessly, all along the length of Foggy Bottom?

At the end of last year, Mr. Bush's position weakened considerably by Democrat control of Congress and other global distractions (Iraq to name a few), he did in fact change his tact and in fact did enter bilateral one-on-one discussions with the DPRK. By this, they had achieved their biggest victory in Pyongyang. They even had a major national celebration over their success. Ask Chris Hill. He did the negotiating. This is a stubborn, immovable fact.

In my opinion, indeed this was the low-water mark and showed the departure of the Bush Administration from its earlier correct line of strength and pressure (including efforts to strangle the regime) to one of more conciliation and appeasement. Why do you think all of the world's major, mainline appeasement press, Time, Newsweek, Economist, NYTimes, WashPost, came out in editorals and writing and said essentially "FINALLY! He vanquished the neocons and has come around to our way of thinking on this regarding engagement of Pyongyang rather than isolation". When the world press went in favor of Bush's altered strategy, I dont know about you, but that told me a lot.

It is the fact of the matter. To insist otherwise, one must have been living on another planet for the last 12 months.

This is no victory. We should not trumpet it as one.

[TigerLikesRooster]

N. Korea declares a few nuclear sites well known to U.S. intelligence, and may a small amount of uranium from somewhere, and insists that they are all N. Korea got.

Do you believe it? Can you demand more intrusive inspection? N. Korea has thousands of underground facilities. Many are not known to outsiders. Who knows what they stored in those bunkers and caves. There are extensive underground facilities in Jagang, Yanggang, N. and S. Hamkyong Province. All military related, munition production, missile production, underground military base, and nuclear facilities.

Can America pinpoint which nuke facilities are where and what nuclear material(warhead, component) are located where? Can U.S. demand the inspection of all suspected sites?

Is U.S. so sure that N. Korea would not resort to extreme form of hide-and-seek or shell game? If so, it is utterly naive.

If U.S. knows N. Korea is up to no good and demand more transparency, what would U.S. do if N. Korea would threaten to pull the plug out of inspection? Can U.S. call the bluff? Or does it cave and stop short of real inspection?

What U.S. is doing in E. Asia is rather simple. It cannot economically pressure S. Korea and China to rein in N. Korea because it will ruin god-d*mn inflated financial portfolio in U.S.. however small willingness Bush has to get tough on these appeasing players, I suspect it was all but wiped out by multinationals and financial institutions, scared of financial shock it will generate.

U.S. lives on precariously maintained financial bubble which is really sensitive to any non-trivial international conflict. Many get their fill from bubble-generated income, extremely risk-averse, due to precarious nature of financial market. This also creates dangerous complacency to play down brewing national security crisis. The extent some Americans go to justify this completely failed policy is beyond me.

[TigerLikesRooster]

See my #29 if you are interested.

[AmericanInTokyo]

I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly. Thank you for weighing in. I am very skeptical about this deal...considering more than anything else....who it was struck with!!

[TigerLikesRooster]

I think Bush's best case scenario is to keep N. Korea quiet by offering the promise of many goodies, and keep negotiating process running, buying him enough time and resources to deal with Iraq and Iran situation.

However, if Iran and N. Korea coordinate their move, this would not work. He has to let one of them scot-free, while taking down the other.

One complicating factor is the case of Chia Head getting greedy and selfish. If he tries to play U.S. against China and settle for grand deal with U.S., he will get the ire of China and upset Iran.

On the other hand, if he simply creates (military) provocation from time to time and try to wring concessions from U.S. as much as possible while not crossing Iran and China, things will go smooth for him, if the current situation continues. This is the safest course for Chia Head.

Which way Chia Head chooses, one thing is for sure. There is no way he can declare all nuke material and facilities, and agree to complete inspection. He knows Bush just needs enough cover to spin it as a great success. Bush does not have leverage to comple Chia Head to stick to complete disband of nuclear program.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Correction: disbanding of nuclear program

[hinckley buzzard]

I’m not expecting much. Too many weasel words in there. Sounds about like the Clintonoid “agreed framework” which the NoKo’s promptly violated all to hell while the Bulgarian cleaning lady lumbered around and the “experts”(led by an inspector named Mohammed)looked the other way.