Re: North Korea Demands Nuke Reactor From U.S.

[mallard]

Yahoo! News - 9/20/05 - World
North Korea Demands Nuke Reactor From U.S.
by Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press Writer

<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050920/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear>

Seoul - "North Korea insisted Tuesday it won't dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the U.S. gives it civilian nuclear reactors, casting doubt on a disarmament agreement reached a day earlier during international talks.

"Washington reiterated its rejection of the reactor demand and joined China in urging North Korea to stick to the agreement announced Monday in which it pledged to abandon all its nuclear programs in exchange for economic aid and security assurances.

"North Korea's new demands underlined its unpredictable nature and deflated some optimism from the Beijing agreement, the first since negotiations began in August 2003 among the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia.

"'The U.S. should not even dream of the issue of (North Korea's) dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing (light-water reactors), a physical guarantee for confidence-building,' the North's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency."

[jojog]

1. Sounds like

the agreement that was in place under Clinton, later scrapped by Bush.

[jhawk_tim]

2. No way

in hell we should give North Korea a nuclear reactor.

[mallard]

3. Re: The deal was cut during ....

... that brief thawing phase and around when Albright ventured beyond the Iron Curtain to meet Kim.

We promised to provide them with one if not two less volitile type nukes ib exchange for giving up the type suitable for conversion into weapon-grade plutonium.

Not knowing the fine print on how skirting that restricted field has effected the deal to supply these plants, it seems the Bush administration abrogated an international agreement on the grounds they don't have to honor or respect that estranged regime.

The point is more about honoring agreements already made by the US government to show overall national integrity.

The neocons who broke it off obviously give not much concern for images of being self-serving opportunism above all else.

Whether or not we ought to be providing North Korea with infrastructure for electric power generation and building trust, those agreements were considered a done deal at the time.

[mallard]

4. Re: Starting from March '01 ....

... strong urgings started coming in from a handful of Congressmen to bag the agrreement to provide two light water reactors to the North - but by no means was th US epected to be going it alone on the financing or construction.

Re: NTI - North Korea Nuclear Chronology - circa January '02

<http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/dprk/nuc/chron/NKNCH01_GO.html>

Scrolling down to 3/2/02:

"2 March 2001
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher says that the Bush administration plans to fulfill its Agreed Framework commitments 'completely and fully.'
¡XJohn Diamond, 'Bush Is Asked To Reassess North Korea Reactor Deal,' Chicago Tribune, 3 March 2001, p. 1.

"7 March 2001
President George Bush states that he is not certain North Korea can be trusted to adhere to its commitments under the Agreed Framework. Speaking in Washington at a joint press conference with South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, Bush says, 'I do have some skepticism about the leader of North Korea. We¡¦re not certain as to whether or not they're keeping all terms of all agreements.'"

[drfresh]

5. if I recall correctly

A light-water reactor would make it really hard to generate nuclear fuel. But I'm too lazy to fact-check at the moment.

[chenGOD]

7. That is correct.

Read:

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/dprk/final_cox.html

[ladylibertee]

6. Ladies and Gentlemen. Introducing the third war under the Bush

Administration.