PDA

View Full Version : North Korea Agrees To Suspend Nuclear Activities



namvet
02-29-2012, 04:44 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) North Korea has agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and nuclear and long-range missile tests in a breakthrough in negotiations with the United States, which is set to provide food aid in return.

The rare simultaneous announcements Wednesday by the two longtime adversaries could clear the way for resumption of multi-nation disarmament-for-aid talks that the North withdrew from in 2009.

source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/us-north-korea-nuclear-activities_n_1309949.html?ref=world&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D139539)

do we trust them?? I would think a lot of hard liners left over from the other midget regime are not to happy with this

djones520
02-29-2012, 05:11 PM
It's hard to say. They could be trying to capitalize on the idea that new regime means better, and just totally plan on reneging when they get what they want.

As I said before though, I'm remaining cautiously optimistic.

Watch Obama try to spin this as a victory though, like he was responsible for Il Jong dying.

namvet
02-29-2012, 05:23 PM
probably send them cheap gas and free healthcare. maybe run for prez???

Eupher
02-29-2012, 06:41 PM
Utter crap.

Anything that EVER comes out of Pyongyang is either dead or a lie.

Rockntractor
03-01-2012, 01:31 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/tumblr_lwfomoQXBT1qanb21o1_500.png

Articulate_Ape
03-01-2012, 01:48 AM
It's hard to say. They could be trying to capitalize on the idea that new regime means better, and just totally plan on reneging when they get what they want.

As I said before though, I'm remaining cautiously optimistic.



Please. Been there, done that. How about no?

DumbAss Tanker
03-01-2012, 10:53 AM
It's hard to say. They could be trying to capitalize on the idea that new regime means better, and just totally plan on reneging when they get what they want.

As I said before though, I'm remaining cautiously optimistic.


Yeah, it's hard to get too worked up over it, but with the change in leadership, it's always possible that saner counsel is getting a hearing there...but I wouldn't invest any real hope in it for quite a while yet, it's going to take more than one blade of grass to turn that situation into an 18-hole golf course.

Odysseus
03-01-2012, 12:42 PM
In a related story, the North Koreans also promised that the check was in our mouths and they wouldn't come in our mail.

KGS Nightwatch had this take on their briefing:


North Korea: On 29 February, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) carried the following report. (The statements in bold-face type are discussed in the Comment.)

A spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave the following answer to a question raised by a KCNA reporter concerning the holding of DPRK-US high-level talks:

A third round of high-level talks were held between the DPRK and the United States of America in Beijing, China, on 23 and 24 February. Present at the talks were the delegation of the DPRK headed by Kim Kye-kwan, the first vice minister of Foreign Affairs, and the delegation of the United States headed by Glyn Davis, the Special Representative of the State Department for the DPRK Policy.

At the latest talks -- a continuation of two previous rounds of high-level talks held respectively in July and October, 2011 -- measures for confidence building to improve DPRK-US relations and issues related to ensuring peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and resumption of the Six-Party Talks were discussed with sincerity and in-depth.

Both parties, the DPRK and the United States, reaffirmed their intent to implement the 19 September Joint Statement and recognized the fact that the Armistice Agreement is the cornerstone of peace and stability on the Korean peninsula before a peace agreement is concluded.

Both sides also agreed to simultaneously take a series of steps aimed at building confidence as part of the efforts to improve relations between the DPRK and the United States.

The United States reaffirmed that it no longer will regard the DPRK with hostility and that it is ready to take steps to improve bilateral relations in the spirit of mutual respect for sovereignty and equality.

The United States expressed its willingness to take steps for expanding humanitarian exchanges in various areas such as culture, education, and sports.

The United States promised to offer to the DPRK a total of 240,000 metric tonnes of nutritional food and make efforts to provide additional food aid and both parties agreed to take administrative and practical steps immediately to this end.

The United States made it clear that sanctions against the DPRK do not target the civilian sector, such as peoples' livelihoods.

Once the Six-Party Talks are resumed, the issues of lifting sanctions imposed on us and providing light-water reactors would be discussed on a priority basis.

Both parties affirmed that it is in their mutual interest to ensure peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, improve DPRK-US relations, and realize denuclearization through dialogue and negotiations, and agreed to continue the talks.

Upon being requested by the United States and in a bid to maintain a positive atmosphere for DPRK-US high-level talks, we agreed to a moratorium on nuclear tests, long-range missile launches, and uranium enrichment activity at Yo'ngbyo'n and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] to monitor the moratorium on uranium enrichment activities while productive dialogue is underway.

Comment: Any agreement that eases tension makes an important contribution to stability in Northeast Asia, but this agreement has some issues of concern.

For starters, the North Korean announcement contains no mention of nuclear weapons or South Korea. The US did not negotiate as a member of an alliance and did not negotiate to suspend the nuclear weapons program. The agreements are bilateral and thus do not bind South Korea.

To put the agreement in context, since the time of Kim Il-sung the North always has tried to drive a wedge between the Allies, to deal with them separately and thus undermine the strength of unified Alliance negotiating positions.

This agreement is a triumph of North Korean diplomacy because it represents precisely what the North has failed to do for almost 50 years: get a strategic deal with the US without South Korea.

To What Did the North Agree?

North Korea agreed to a moratorium on tests, missile launches and enrichment activities, but in so doing seems to have agreed to continue not doing what it has not done for years. That explains its willingness to accept UN nuclear inspectors.

Despite the North's bravado, there are no signs the North is now doing any of the three things it agreed to suspend. There have been no recent missiles tests, no nuclear tests and it has not been confirmed that the North succeeded in enriching uranium. The North's nuclear weapons are plutonium weapons.

To What Did the US Agree?

The US seemingly agreed to nothing as well, in that it only promised to stop treating the North with hostility. However, for North Korea that means a lot, including bilateral talks outside the Alliance framework; normalization of diplomatic, financial and trade relations; and sending aid when asked, such as the 240,000 tons of food. In some versions of this longstanding policy strategy, the North expects the US will pull its troops out of South Korea.

It is not clear the US delegation understood the North's layers of meaning in the term "not treat it with hostility." The North's interpretation is not the only valid one. However, its interpretation determines whether there will be provocations that can escalate to war on the peninsula.

As for the food aid, a point not discussed is who will pay for the shipping? US and North Korean deals have broken down in the past because the US insisted the North must pay the shipping. The food is free, but the shipping is not and the US does not pay it.

There are two points of departure from the Kim Chong-il regime. Kim Chong-il never acknowledged the UN Armistice as a cornerstone of peace and stability. During his tenure, the Armistice was described as an obstacle to a peace treaty and a justification for the continued presence of US soldiers in South Korea. The North's latest description of the Armistice is unusual and out of character.

The second point is the North apparently cooperated with the US in crafting the language used in the KCNA announcement so that the US does not appear blatantly to be bribing the North with food aid for the moratorium. This is a silly ruse. Nevertheless, when Kim Chong-il was alive, after the end of the Agreed Framework during the Bush administration, the North never hesitated to expose what it called US hypocrisy whenever it could.

Finally the North Korean statement refers to the Six Party talks, lifting sanctions and providing light water reactors, dangling this mix of quid pro quos as if they had any prospect of resurrection. They do lay out the North's expectations of the way ahead and the meaning of the term "a productive dialogue."

Bottom Line

Like it or not, the US appears to have agreed to help North Korea celebrate the 100th anniversary of the birthday of Kim Il-sung on 15 April 2012. The test of the durability of any agreement will be the North's attitude after the 15 April celebrations.


Ultimately, we've been played again. This is just more of the Words for Food Program that Bill Clinton initiated, and which ended when the North announced that it had nukes.

Arroyo_Doble
03-01-2012, 12:43 PM
The interesting thing was how little (more like none) news play this got last night.

Bailey
03-01-2012, 12:48 PM
The interesting thing was how little (more like none) news play this got last night.

Alex can I have "the MSM is buring this for obama" for 1000.

Odysseus
03-01-2012, 01:31 PM
Alex can I have "the MSM is buring this for obama" for 1000.

I'm surprised that they aren't touting it. On paper, it looks like a big win, even though it isn't. Obama can claim that his foreign policy is showing results (and it is, they just aren't good ones), and cite this as an example of how he has brought an enemy back into the fold. By the time that the deal collapses, which it will, since there's not really much of a deal there, the next election will be over.

Arroyo_Doble
03-01-2012, 01:36 PM
Alex can I have "the MSM is buring this for obama" for 1000.

Assuming the liberal media narrative (which I don't), why would they bury it?

Bailey
03-01-2012, 01:44 PM
Assuming the liberal media narrative (which I don't), why would they bury it?


Oh come on AD you cant be this stupid. You figure out why a mainly liberal profession would cover for a liberal President then get back to me.

Arroyo_Doble
03-01-2012, 01:47 PM
Oh come on AD you cant be this stupid.

Oh, don't underestimate me.


You figure out why a mainly liberal profession would cover for a liberal President then get back to me.

I can't. That's why I asked you.

Odysseus
03-01-2012, 03:34 PM
Assuming the liberal media narrative (which I don't), why would they bury it?
My question is why you don't accept the obvious about the media.

Oh, don't underestimate me.
Admittedly, it's hard to underestimate your intelligence, but you do keep demonstrating that we are far too generous in our assessments.


I can't. That's why I asked you.

As I stated before, I'm surprised that the media isn't covering this in detail, as it's the kind of paper victory that the Foggy Bottomdwellers love. We've had a nice, friendly chat, the Norks agreed to stop doing what they weren't doing anyway, while we agreed to feed them. It's a reenactment of Neville Chamberlain waving a piece of paper and promising "Peace for our time."

Perhaps they realize that a president who is weak on foreign policy might not want to advertise his latest capitulation to one of our enemies. On the plus side, he doesn't seem to have bowed to anyone...

AmPat
03-02-2012, 12:45 PM
Oh come on AD you cant be this stupid. You figure out why a mainly liberal profession would cover for a liberal President then get back to me.

He is. Don't make it complicated.

Starbuck
03-02-2012, 01:07 PM
Assuming the liberal media narrative (which I don't), why would they bury it?

Maybe the press just doesn't find it very interesting. I know I don't.

They want to stop developing nukes? Fine. Do it.

But, nooooooo, they want to "talk about it". I'm fine with that, too. Talk all they want. Let us know if something worthwhile comes out of these "talks".

Arroyo_Doble
03-02-2012, 01:18 PM
Maybe the press just doesn't find it very interesting. I know I don't.

They want to stop developing nukes? Fine. Do it.

But, nooooooo, they want to "talk about it". I'm fine with that, too. Talk all they want. Let us know if something worthwhile comes out of these "talks".

Another strange one is the few stories on Hamas' apparent break with Iran and Syria.

Although that could also indicate that it didn't happen.

AmPat
03-02-2012, 01:26 PM
North Korea Agrees To Suspend Nuclear Activities
Again? Seriously, why is this put forth as "news?"

The NORKS play us like fools whenever they get hungry (at the top, the peons can continue to eat bark). They want food? Fine, give up your joke of a government, reunite with South Korea, and learn how to live like decent human beings. What the %^$# does "suspend" mean? It means, "We in NK will continue to be the anus of the globe quietly until we need something else from the world. Then, we'll unleash more nuclear threats and skirmish within the southern border until we get our way--------AGAIN!"

Starbuck
03-02-2012, 03:17 PM
Another strange one is the few stories on Hamas' apparent break with Iran and Syria.

Although that could also indicate that it didn't happen.

What, we are to think that Hamas no longer wants to annihilate Israel? Hamas has come to view Israel as a country of peace loving people who are only part of God's precious flock and therefore should be treated with respect?

Nah.........:biggrin-new:

No one is going to believe it, that's why it hasn't been reported.

Bailey
03-02-2012, 03:20 PM
I'm surprised that they aren't touting it. On paper, it looks like a big win, even though it isn't. Obama can claim that his foreign policy is showing results (and it is, they just aren't good ones), and cite this as an example of how he has brought an enemy back into the fold. By the time that the deal collapses, which it will, since there's not really much of a deal there, the next election will be over.


I think the MSM will not follow it because they know the Norks (great term BTW) will not in anyway shape or form honor it so the are proactively protecting the Magic Negro.

djones520
03-02-2012, 03:55 PM
What, we are to think that Hamas no longer wants to annihilate Israel? Hamas has come to view Israel as a country of peace loving people who are only part of God's precious flock and therefore should be treated with respect?

Nah.........:biggrin-new:

No one is going to believe it, that's why it hasn't been reported.

I don't see it as a break with Iran, more just a play to get more power on the other side of Israel. Syria's regime is gonna get overthrown, sooner or later. They get some good will there now, it'll be easier to shove a foot in the door when that happens. They have nothing to lose by doing this. All the terrorist supporters will still back them because they're a thorn in Israel's side, and they may develop new grounds to tread apon, and further encircle their enemies with Syria becomine open territory to them.

Arroyo_Doble
03-02-2012, 04:19 PM
I don't see it as a break with Iran, more just a play to get more power on the other side of Israel. Syria's regime is gonna get overthrown, sooner or later. They get some good will there now, it'll be easier to shove a foot in the door when that happens. They have nothing to lose by doing this. All the terrorist supporters will still back them because they're a thorn in Israel's side, and they may develop new grounds to tread apon, and further encircle their enemies with Syria becomine open territory to them.

Wasn't their "marriage" to Iran mostly because of money, anyway?

Iran may be running out of largesse.

Odysseus
03-02-2012, 06:13 PM
Wasn't their "marriage" to Iran mostly because of money, anyway?

Iran may be running out of largesse.

It's also ideological. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they are Sunni. Iran is Shia, and Assad is an Alawite, which is a Shia offshoot. Hezbollah is also Shia.

djones520
03-02-2012, 06:28 PM
It's also ideological. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they are Sunni. Iran is Shia, and Assad is an Alawite, which is a Shia offshoot. Hezbollah is also Shia.

You know as well as I though that the folk spulling the strings and handing the money out care about that less then seeing some rockets fall in Israel.

fettpett
03-02-2012, 08:42 PM
great...food prices are already up...now we're going to be giving some to a country that can easily take care of it's self, but they are too fucked up to do it. I imagine the only reason this is happening is that they are trying to prevent a civil war...I mean, hell the soliders are doing begger work to feed themselves

djones520
03-05-2012, 05:43 AM
http://i.imgur.com/d9Xr9.jpg

Odysseus
03-05-2012, 10:32 AM
You know as well as I though that the folk spulling the strings and handing the money out care about that less then seeing some rockets fall in Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood sees the Iranian Shia as heretics, and while they will cooperate against a common enemy, they will not permit themselves to be dominated by them. The Shia corridor that goes from Iran to Lebanon, by way of Iraq and Syria, is a greater danger to the Saudis and Turks than Israel is, and they are the source of funding for the Brotherhood.
The history of the first two great jihads shows that the internal schisms of Islam often undermined cooperation. Some Islamic authorities considered the Shia a greater abomination than Christians or Jews, and declared jihad against them. The Ottoman and Persian empires were constantly at war for that reason. There are also numerous examples of Muslim rulers siding with Christians against other Muslims. Islam is first and foremost an imperialist project, and it cannot tolerate dynastic conflicts.

The dirty little secret of the Sunni Arab states is that they actually benefit from having Israel around, and while they know this, they will never publicly admit it. Israel is the lynchpin of regional stability, which is why the Saudis would be very happy to see them take out Iran's nuclear capability. That''s not to say that the Saudis have any love for the Israelis, but there are lots of back channels that permit cooperation and intel sharing.


http://i.imgur.com/d9Xr9.jpg

He does look hungry.

Starbuck
03-05-2012, 01:35 PM
Wasn't their "marriage" to Iran mostly because of money, anyway?

Iran may be running out of largesse.

Largesse? They have largesse, too??!!:adoration: Is there no justice at all?!! They have all the oil, and now we are told they have largesse, TOO?! And here we sit in the USA; almost no oil, and damn little largesse.

It challenges the very notion that there is a God.:adoration: