US Spurns Seoul Plea For North Korea 'Guarantee'

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 1-04-2003 | David Rennie

[blam]

US spurns Seoul plea for North Korea 'guarantee'

By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 04/01/2003)

The United States and South Korea found themselves at loggerheads yesterday as Washington flatly rejected a suggestion by Seoul that it guarantee North Korea's security.

The public rift came as a source close to the administration said they were inclined to let the Stalinist nation "stew in its own juice" rather than give in to nuclear blackmail.

In a sign of how the 50-year-old US-South Korean alliance has drifted, a top aide to South Korea's president-elect Roh Moo-hyun echoed demands from North Korea that the US should sign a formal non-aggression treaty.

"We are working on a mediation proposal that asks for a concession from both US President George Bush and the North Korean leader," he said.

North Korea, which portrays its recent decision to restart its nuclear weapons programme as an act of self-defence, wants a categorical guarantee from the US never to invade or attack.

The North Korean ambassador to China, Choe Jin-su, yesterday held a rare press conference to declare: "If the US legally assures us of security by concluding a non-aggression treaty, the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula will be settled."

A senior administration official in Washington dismissed the demands. "The president said in South Korea last year that we have no hostile intent, so a non-aggression pact is not the issue. The question is whether they will abandon their nuclear ambitions," he told reporters.

North Korea recently admitted that it has a nuclear programme and threatened to restart a nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium warheads.

The Bush administration is adamant that it will not "reward bad behaviour" and has vowed to break away from the traditional pattern that Western powers buy North Korea off every time the bankrupt hermit state triggers a fresh international crisis.

Critics have claimed that the White House has no policy for dealing with the nuclear crisis. But Daryl Plunk, a Korea expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank with close links to the Bush administration, said there was a clear plan to hold to a "cool, hands-off containment approach".

There is little - realistically - that Washington can do to prevent the North from building nuclear bombs if it insists, he said. However, even a nuclear armed North Korea remains a bankrupt failed state with no prospects for long-term progress.

"Kim Jong-il can make two, three or six bombs, but he can't eat nuclear bombs, and he can't sustain his people on them," he said. Veteran Asia hands in the administration, including Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, are shedding few tears for the crisis facing the 1994 Framework Agreement - the Clinton-brokered nuclear pact that some US allies, notably South Korea, still hope to revive.

Under that deal, North Korea promised to freeze its nuclear weapons programme in exchange for 500,000 tons of fuel oil a year, and help in building heavy water reactors, which are harder to use for military purposes. That deal fell into crisis last autumn following North Korea's admission that it has a secret uranium enrichment programme - an admission which prompted the suspension of further fuel oil deliveries, at America's behest.

"The situation with the North Koreans was quite predictable. We were always going to get to this point," Mr Plunk said. "The Bush Korea hands believed that the Framework Agreement would not survive, that it was a flawed deal."

Mr Plunk echoed the verdict of one Western diplomat that a military strike on North Korea is "off the menu". He added: "The stakes are just too high."

The United States would draw the line at letting North Korea sell nuclear weapons to outsiders, he said, but ultimately North Korea had a sovereign right to develop its own nuclear weapons, though it would surely incur the wrath of its only ally, China, if it did so in earnest.

Until only a few years ago, South Korea clung to the United States as its best protector in the face of the heavily-armed North.

But the American belief in containment clashes directly with the policies of the South, which remains committed to dialogue with the North.

Mr Plunk, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, conceded that there was a "fundamental policy difference" between Seoul and Washington. But he predicted that Mr Bush and Mr Roh would eventually come to a "quiet understanding", leaving America as the tough-talking "bad cop" working in partnership with South Korea's more emollient "good cop".

[Dog Gone]

I think this is about right, except that I don't believe we'll be content to do nothing forever. I don't forsee a military strike anytime soon, and I think diplomacy and isolation are the preferred alternatives for now.

Naturally, the South Koreans aren't being terribly helpful, but most of us could have predicted that.

[wretchard]

From all appearances, South Korean President Roh returned empty handed from Beijing: which is why Roh attempted to set up a meeting between North Korea and the US when get got back. North Korea has already indicated what it would demand at any such meeting: a non-agression pact and money.

President Bush has already swept the non-agression proposal off the table, and is unlikely to offer Pyongyang any money, leaving nothing to talk about. The President has apparently called Kim's bluff: 'build the damned thing', he seems to say.

In the strange dynamic of the situation, the United States can ramp up the pressure by doing nothing. The fuse is burning toward the powderkeg under South Korea and Japan, who are yelling at everyone to do something; and President Bush is responding by pointing out that Pyongyang can put out the fuse any time it likes.

As Tokyo deploys Aegis destroyers in the Sea of Japan and reconsiders its pacifist policies, South Korean President Roh is running out of moves. He will have to get off his "sunshine policy" fence pretty soon, as no one is pulling his chestnuts out of the fire.

[Diana Rose]

Kim Jong-il: spoiled brat

[marron]

This is the correct position for us to take. We have been taking it on the chin from the South Koreans for some time. We are there to defend them, but we have become their whipping boy.

It is a good time for them to wake up and deal with this crisis as an adult nation.

North Korea isn't very vulnerable, protected as it is by China. We wouldn't be able to invade it, Iraq style, without China's forbearance which isn't going to happen. But on the other hand, both South Korea and Japan are well capable of defending themselves. They just haven't been expecting to need to. They have had us to do the heavy lifting, and they have had us to blame for life's unfairness.

If we refuse to get too bothered by the whole thing, ahead of our timetable, it puts Japan, and South Korea, and China too, for that matter, in the position of having to get real, and be accountable.

If, post Saddam, we can be helpful, fine. But its time we got out of the whipping boy business. The absense of the US means a militarized North, a militarized South, and a militarized Japan. And a China with more to worry about than Taiwan. I don't see the problem.

[blam]

"In the strange dynamic of the situation, the United States can ramp up the pressure by doing nothing."

Hey, let China deal with it, they can't like having a nuclear North Korea next door.

[11B3]

When an impetulant child throws tantrums for attention, there is no better way to teach them that this behavior will not be tolerated than to ignore them. (Which is what President Bush is essentially doing.)

You'd think that China would wake up soon, and realize that the looney toons in charge of NK may indeed begin blackmailing the Chinese instead - after all, their missiles easily reach everywhere in China, and NK knows where everything is.

It would be sweet irony for NK to turn on its' mentor. The possible downside is that NK may in fact reunite with the South with their new Chamberlain administration, and both of them begin answering to China. That would cause nuclear arms to be built in Japan like cars were in the '80s. Bottom line: China should be careful what is wishes for.

[Hugin]

I sugest we remove our 37,000 troops from the ingrate South Korea, and deploy them to our border with Mexico instead. Then build SDI and tell South Korea, Japan and China to work it out with NK themselves.

[canuck_conservative]

"... remains a bankrupt failed state.."

You mean like Kalifornia?

[apologies to all CA right-wingers]

[blam]

Friday, 3 January, 2003, 18:34 GMT, BBC

France joins Korea diplomatic push

A North Korean diplomat said mediation could be positive

France is to add its weight to the growing diplomatic pressure on North Korea to abandon its nuclear programme. Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is to visit China, Russia and South Korea - all of which are at the heart of efforts to persuade Pyongyang to stop the relaunch of its nuclear programme.

Mr de Villepin will make a whistle-stop tour of North Korea's allies

North Korea has said it wants unconditional and direct talks with the United States with whom it had a previous aid-for-nuclear-freeze deal, objecting to the involvement of other nations.(Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha...They know no-one else will give them anything!)

But South Korea has been trying to enlist the support of Pyongyang's long-time allies China and Russia to help it to avert a looming crisis.

The new involvement of France could be another part of that plan.

Paris takes on the presidency of the United Nations Security Council for January and fostered close links with Russia and China during negotiations about a resolution calling on Iraq to disarm.

China dialogue 'valued'

Mr de Villepin - now in Ivory Coast trying to stop an escalation of the civil conflict there - will start his trip in Moscow on 8 January where he will meet his Russian counterpart, Igor Ivanov, his ministry said.

In Beijing, he will hold talks with President Jiang Zemin and Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan before going on to South Korea.

Marie Masdupuy, a spokeswoman for Mr Villepin, said: "This trip comes at a time when two very serious situations are focusing world attention: Iraq and North Korea.

In the current very delicate environment, we attach particular value to dialogue with China, which is a major partner," she added.

On Friday, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw discussed the nuclear dispute with his Chinese counterpart. The two men also addressed the situation in Iraq, but no further details were available.

Agreement broken

North Korea has opposed the internationalisation of a situation it sees as a dispute purely with the US.

But on Friday its ambassador to China said other countries who wanted a peaceful solution could play a "positive role".

CRISIS CHRONOLOGY

16 Oct: N Korea acknowledges secret nuclear programme, US says

14 Nov: Oil shipments to N Korea halted

22 Dec: N Korea removes monitoring devices at Yongbyon nuclear plant

26 Dec: UN says 1,000 fuel rods have been moved to the plant

31 Dec: UN nuclear inspectors leave North Korea

31 Dec: N Korea threatens to pull out of NPT nuclear treaty

Pyongyang accepts it has broken the terms of a 1994 agreement it made with the US by removing surveillance equipment from a nuclear plant supposed to remain dormant.

But it said it needed the Yongbyon plant to generate electricity after the US stopped sending aid shipments of oil.

For its part, the US said it halted oil deliveries after North Korea had admitted carrying out banned nuclear work.

Both Pyongyang and Washington say they want a peaceful resolution.

But the US is refusing to talk until North Korea again dismantles its nuclear facilities - which Pyongyang is refusing to do.

Amid that stand-off, South Korea has enlisted all the diplomatic support it can to stave off a conflict where it would probably be the biggest target.

Continuing talks with Pyongyang - rather than sanctions and isolation - is the favoured policy of both South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and his successor Roh Moo-hyon who takes office next month.

[sushiman]

Let's get out of Japan while we're at it . The Japanese are getting bargain protection from us for what , 55 years ? The second richest nation in the world can afford to defend themselves . And don't be fooled by all the politeness and smiles , most of these people want us the hell out of their country .

[vbmoneyspender]

You know what they say about the Koreans. They are the Irish of East Asia.

[sushiman]

Interesting perspective on US/Japan Relations (Isreal Too)
Japan Today ^ | 1-04-2003


Posted on 01/03/2003 4:28 PM PST by Colorado Doug


Thoughts on anti-Americanism

Manga artist Yoshinori Kobayashi and critic Takahiko Soejima denounce conservatives like Hisahiko Okazaki, Kanji Nishio, and Yoshihisa Komori as "tools of America who pretend to be patriots" and "lap-dog conservatives" in the January issue of Shokun magazine.

Kobayashi and Soejima, hugely popular among Japan's youth, recount that they previously regarded these conservatives as patriots just like themselves. Their attitudes changed following the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, when these conservatives argued that it was not the time to voice anti-Americanism and that making openly anti-American statements would damage both Japan-U.S. cooperation and Japan's national interests.

They add that there are reasons both for the terrorism committed by Islamic extremists and for that committed by Chechens, and being told to place a priority on one while ignoring the other is a double standard based on "fraudulent logic."

Soejima reveals that he identified emotionally with the New Left in his youth and offers his take on Japan's "lap-dog conservatives": While they act like pro-American nationalists, they are nothing more than subjects of "the Japan handlers of the American Empire."

Soejima also dismisses the media as being manipulated by America's information strategy. He predicts that the American Empire will begin to collapse in the same manner as the Roman Empire and argues that while U.S. President George Bush is eager to suppress speech favorable to terrorism, in the long term this effort will fail. Given the popularity of these two

Meanwhile, in an Sekai magazine interview titled "Why I Am Against Attacking Iraq," Professor Emeritus Yuzo Itagaki of the University of Tokyo, who is known for his studies of the Middle East and Islam, warns of the risk that following U.S. preemptive action against Iraq-which he believes will occur-the situation in the Middle East and surrounding areas may spiral out of control.

According to Itagaki, the gravest danger lies in Israel's involvement: If Iraq attacks Israel or is presumed to have done so, the Palestinian situation will slide into deeper and deeper chaos, because the Bush administration, unlike that of his father (who directed the Gulf War of 1990-91), approves of Israel's right to retaliate. Any Israeli retaliation would fan the flames of unrest among the governments of Middle Eastern and neighboring countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, and Turkey.

Itagaki says that the coming peak of U.S. unilateralism may also be regarded as the beginning of its descent.

After the United States attacks Iraq, conditions threatening U.S. hegemony will come to the fore; Israel, anticipating the decline of U.S. power, is already exploring strategies for gaining a new partner. China's behavior, Itagaki predicts, will be a key factor in this context. (Kyodo News)

[Frohickey]

Let's get out of Japan while we're at it . The Japanese are getting bargain protection from us for what , 55 years ? The second richest nation in the world can afford to defend themselves . And don't be fooled by all the politeness and smiles , most of these people want us the hell out of their country .

If Japan is the 2nd richest nation in the world, and the US is the 1st richest nation in the world... guess what would happen if Japan defended themselves, and we stopped defending them?

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #1

It is a decision time for China. If N. Korea is allowed to continue, it will result in nuke-armed Japan. That would lead to nuke-armed S. Korea. The rearmed Japan would be likely to help out pro-independence Taiwanese. These Taiwanese do not have hard feeling toward Japan, unlike those from main land China after 1949. The new Japan will help them out politically and even militarily. Japan and Taiwan may have virtual alliance of some sorts.

Such potential developments are highly negative to Chinese ambition to be the unchallenged regional hegemon.

It is better to shape the course of events in China's favor by actively participating in solving the Korean crisis. Unfortunately, China may force U.S. to drop the support of Taiwan in exchange for Chinese fixing N. Korean problem. How does U.S. deal with it ? It remains to be seen.

As for current gov of S. Korea and her new president-elect, they belong to Cater/Barak camp. People with nice slogans but no backbone. They hate local conservatives more than Kim Jong-Il. They will raise the danger level rather than lower it, contrary to their wish. S. Korea is divided into two polarized camps of equal size. They are oil and water. The media spin is the new president and his supporters will fix all the wrongs of the past, sweeping aside all the older folks. Is this the new dawn in S. Korea ? Or is it the latest of the long series of delusions by liberals all over the world, which will inevitably lead to bitter disillusionments ? I think that it will turn out to be the latter.

[blam]

"I think that it will turn out to be the latter."

That's my thinking also.

[sushiman]

" If Japan is the 2nd richest nation in the world, and the US is the 1st richest nation in the world... guess what would happen if Japan defended themselves, and we stopped defending them? "

I am talking DEFENSE only here , not a global military as the US has . Their constitution - in its current form anyway - prohibits anything other than defense forces / weapons . Of course , the constitution could be amended , but I believe that is highly unlikely right now . Never fear my friend , the USA isn't going anywhere right now .

[Frohickey]

" If Japan is the 2nd richest nation in the world, and the US is the 1st richest nation in the world... guess what would happen if Japan defended themselves, and we stopped defending them? "

I am talking DEFENSE only here , not a global military as the US has . Their constitution - in its current form anyway - prohibits anything other than defense forces / weapons . Of course , the constitution could be amended , but I believe that is highly unlikely right now . Never fear my friend , the USA isn't going anywhere right now .

Same here. I know about Japan's constitution.

If Japan were to pay for its own defense, and the US didn't, Japan would still be the 2nd richest nation in the world. The US would still be the richest nation in the world, but our lead would be bigger. :p