U.S. could decide soon on taking N. Korea to U.N.

[applegrove]

U.S. could decide soon on taking N. Korea to U.N.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050605/2005-06-05T060014Z_01_N05306171_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-KOREA-NORTH-USA-DC.html

Jun 5, 2:00 AM (ET)

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A decision is likely within weeks on whether to take the North Korea nuclear issue to the United Nations, where sanctions could be imposed on the isolated communist state, a senior U.S. defense official said on Sunday.

The comment reflects growing frustration over Pyongyang's failure to return to six-party negotiations aimed at persuading the North to abandon its nuclear ambitions. The last round of talks was held in June 2004.

Taking the issue to the U.N. Security Council, which Pyongyang opposes, "is something we're giving increasing study to and probably will come to a decision over the next few weeks," the official told reporters."

- Snip --

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050605/2005-06-05T060014Z_01_N05306171_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-KOREA-NORTH-USA-DC.html

[slor]

1. Taking them to the U.N. !?!

I thought they were "irrelevant".

[applegrove]

2. My thoughts exactly. Don't get me wrong. I don't want a war with

Korea. But looks like they will have to go with sanctions in the end.

[Toots]

7. So you feel you can get more flys with vinigar than honey?

I do not understand your logic. If it were me I would flood their country with food and supplies and try and establish commerce with them. But that is only how this Liberal thinks about such things. I guess if I were of a more Conservative mind I might try and starve them into compliance and humiliate them at every opportuity.

[pie]

8. That is certainly what I would do. Invite them to the big table

This is what Kim actually wants.
It is the Liberal solution.

[applegrove]

9. You think the UN has not tried that? For the last 10 years? Even if

this is saber rattleling - we need to use all tools to get the bomb out of the hands of a crazy nut.

We's tried the honey and the carrot. That is what Clinton was doing. It has not worked fully as evidenced by the number of bombs having increased by 5. And did he sell scud technology to Syria the other day?

I am not a conservative. My point in posting this was to say: "Wow - look out!!!".

[jayfish]

17. It Was Working Until * Opened His Pie-Hole...

and stopped fuel shipments. NKs' plutonium based program was under IAEA seal and was being monitored via a live video feed.

Jay

[bpilgrim]

24. "go with sanctions in the end" we've been doing that since the 'CRAZIES'

'TOOK' the helm.

up to that point things were going very well over there, better than the recent past 50 or so, i.e. the SUNSHINE POLICY was giving many people great hope and real progress in talks trade and what not, even cameras and inspectors on their nuke facilities, till the CRAZIES took the helm.

in the beginning of the FIASCO created by the CRAZIES the EVIL DOER only wanted a signed document from the CRAZIES that they would NOT ATTACK them.

the CRAZIES said FUCK-YOU.

and here we are...

:nuke:

peace

[Kool Kitty]

27. I'd like the bomb out of the hands of crazy nuts, too.

Let's start with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

[strizi64]

3. More Than 180 Cases of U.S. Aerial Espionage in May

Korean Central News Agency of DPRK via Korea News Service (KNS)

Pyongyang, June 1 (KCNA) -- The U.S. imperialists perpetrated more than 180 cases of aerial espionage against the DPRK in May, according to a military source. Strategic and tactical reconnaissance planes with various missions were involved in those cases after taking off U.S. air force bases in south Korea and overseas.

U-2 made shuttle flights in the skies over Tokjok Islet, Phochon and Sokcho for hours everyday to spy on the strategic targets of the DPRK.

RC-135 flew in the air above Taebu Islet, Yangphyong and Yangyang and EP-3 in the skies over Taebu Islet, Hoengsong and Kangrung to spy on the overall areas, coasts and seabed of the DPRK.

The number of the cases of such aerial espionage by the strategic reconnaissance planes reached more than 30 in May.

In the meantime, RC-7B, RC-12 and other type tactical reconnaissance planes were also hell-bent on spying on the military targets in the areas along the forefront.

<snip>
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2005/intell-050602-kcna01.htm

hmmm.....

[Deja Q]

4. Anybody got some popcorn?

NK has been repeating *'s own diatribes about pre-emptive gobbeldygook... * did nothing.

NK then says it's got nukes. * did nothing.

NK tested a missile for distance. How many weeks ago was that?


Assuming NK is as serious about "pre-emptive strikes against perceived enemies" and all that, shouldn't * have done something a LONG time ago?

[fasttense]

5. Putting on my conspiracy hat, how do we know all this about

N Korea is true? Brush lied about WMD in Iraqi and the press all fell into step. Is the same thing happening with N Korea?

[bemildred]

6. Drool. Repetitive, fanciful drool. nt

[applegrove]

10. Do you see the hypocritical in the US 'taking them to the UN' ?

That is what bit me. Perhaps the neocons are realizing that things are a whole lot more difficult in practice than in Utopia.

[bemildred]

12. That's a good point, very hypocritical in their attitude to the UN.

But, I was just thinking it's an empty threat, and the endless
repetition of it just makes us look feeble. One should not
bluff all the time, it looks foolish and loses.

[applegrove]

14. You'll have to fire a whole lot of people who are not neocons to stop

any bluffing. I do not think it is bluffing. I think they will do what they tried with SH and Iraq with NK. Since he has no oil to sell - it may just be harder to get around. People will starve as they have already.

I'm hoping for one really smart tiny little flying bomb that will be encoded with Kim DNA and has his name on it.

Like with Saddam. People in many countries have the luxury of not starving. I consider it a crime against humanity when they are left to.

5 bombs could kill a whole lot of SK, Chinese, Indians etc. even if they don't make it to the USA.

Bombs bad.

Why I am for nuclear disarmament. We can agree on eradicating small pox .. why not the bomb!

[bemildred]

19. You never know with fools.

I was thinking China might get tired of Kim.
But China will defend N. Korea from US, IMHO.
Attacking N. Korea or Iran w/o Chinese complicity would be
way dumber than Iraq, which was way dumb in the first place.
Nevertheless, it would not surprise me if they attempted to
whip some sort of distraction.

[daleo]

11. What would be the grounds at the U.N.?

Is it illegal for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons?

[bluestatepatriot]

15. It was illegal--and N Korea's violation needs to be addressed

It was illegal for N Korea to develop nukes while they were a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--which they did. Although they withdrew from the Treaty, it is the responsibility of the US, along witht he rest of the international community, to demonstrate that N Korea's nuclear weapon's development was a threat to international peace and security. The Security Council is definately an appropriate forum for dealing with N Korea, although I don't think we will get sanctions out of it. What we need to do first, is get the major players on the same page with us outlining the definite repurcussions N Korea would face if it did not dismantle its weapons. Then we talk to N Korea in bilateral talks and provide security assurances and later, other benefits once their nuke program has been verifiably dismantled.

[jayfish]

16. Isn't The US A Signatory To The NNPT?

Why are we in violation of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

<SNIP>
Second pillar: disarmament

Article VI and the preamble indicate that the NWS parties pursue to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles. After more than 30 years this has remained only a promise. In Article I, the NWS declare not to "induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to ... acquire nuclear weapons". A preemptive-strike doctrine and otherwise threatening postures can be viewed as induction by non-NWS parties. Article X states that any state can withdraw from the treaty if they feel that "extraordinary events", for example a perceived threat, force them to do so.
</SNIP>

And the US's withdrawal from the ABM treaty? Should Russia take the US to the UN?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/

"I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks."

GWB

I guess NK could argue the same huh?

Jay

[bluestatepatriot]

22. We are not in violation of Article VI

The point you bring up is one which was part of the reason that the NPT review conference last month completely bombed, and it is a salient argument made by many other states. The difference though, is that Article VI asks that states (nuclear weapon states) negotiate in good faith efforts to disarm their nuclear weapons. However, as a non-nuclear-weapon state signatory, North Korea was legally bound NOT to develop nuclear weapons--which it began to do in earnest during the 1990's. As for North Korea's withdrawal, it did so in a way that is really quite funny, although it is also very serious. They originally declared their intent to withdraw in 1993, but after negotiations "suspended" the withdrawal one day before it would come into effect(which doesn't take effect for 90 days after the intent is declared). Then, when they were placed under pressue again for renegging on their agreements in 1994 and continuing to build nukes, they recinded the suspension and declared a day later that they had withdrawn. So there is serious question as to whether or not N Korea followed the rules (of course the rules never determined whether or not it was possible to do what N Korea did, but regardless, it was about as dishonest as one can get).

The maintenance of the ABM Treaty was part of a final document in the 2000 review conference, but it is not legally binding (although it has come with major political costs).

[daleo]

20. Well, it looks like there is no penalty for withdrawing from the NPT

And I don't actually see any penalty for violating the treaty adumbrated within the text.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

As for withdrawal:

"1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."

I imagine they could use Bush's declaration of them as a member of an "axis of evil" as the extraordinary event outlined in the treaty. I have my doubts about whether "international law" can do anything to North Korea on this matter, although I suppose Bush/Bolton will twist as many arms as they can.

They will probably claim that all nuclear development that they participated in prior to withdrawal was for peaceful purposes, as allowed in the treaty. It would be very difficult to prove otherwise, given the artificiality of peaceful and warlike uses of nuclear weapons (for example, an explosive device could be claimed as a mining or oil recovery technology).

[bluestatepatriot]

25. Nope, no penalty for withdrawing,

although there shouldn't be. If there was a penalty for withdrawin no one would have joined. BUT, there should be some sort of mechanism to deal with a state that does everything it can to get the capability to develop nukes, and then withdraw, which has been discussed but nothing's happened, or likley will happen at least until the next review conference in 5 years.

[Javaman]

13. Ain't going to happen any time soon...

Or at least they will drag it out in to infinite.

Moron* and his room full of dopes said there are "terrorists in Iran", so got to get the draft machine up and running first before stoking the flames in N.Korea.

[Canuckistanian]

18. What's next? Condi with a slide show?

The credibility of the US is shot. The UN should say make a serious effort at 5-party talks and we'll consider it.

[bluestatepatriot]

23. If only we were able to pull an Adelai Stevenson again

"The credibility of the US is shot." This is unfortunately all too true, and hopefully we will turn that around. And its the 6-party, not 5-party talks, and the U.N. isn't really involved in those (which are basically defunct now anyway).

[Canuckistanian]

26. I stand corrected

And what a different world we would have lived in if Adlai Stevenson were the president.

[bpilgrim]

21. "we don't need no STINK'N U.N.!" - W "thats what we got BOLTON for" Chene

wonder if pappy will have to send in da big boyz - Scowcroft etc - to chill * out again, like he did the summer of 2002...

"Don't Attack Saddam"

By Brent Scowcroft

Wall Street Journal

August 15, 2002

Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether to launch a war against Iraq. Leaks of various strategies for an attack on Iraq appear with regularity. The Bush administration vows regime change, but states that no decision has been made whether, much less when, to launch an invasion.

...

That said, we need to think through this issue very carefully. We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities -- notably the war on terrorism -- as well as the best strategy and tactics available were we to move to change the regime in Baghdad.

...

That(Saddam) clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

...

In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq -- any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have. Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could have a similar effect.

source...
http://ffip.com/opeds081502.htm

but as the UK minutes show, it failed then & it will probably FAIL again. :scared:

whaddaya think :shrug:

peace