North Korea Says It Will Drop Nuclear Efforts for Aid Program

[Lasher]

Uuuuh - Isn't this essentially the same agreement Clinton had established with North Korea? You know, the one Dubya decided to scuttle, as unacceptable or something? The biggest difference I understand is, thanks to the arrogance of the * regime, North Korea now actually has nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. Am I right? Help me out.

***

BEIJING, Sept. 19 - North Korea agreed to end its nuclear weapons program this morning in return for security, economic and energy benefits, potentially easing tensions with the United States after a three-year standoff over the country's efforts to build atomic bombs.

The United States, North Korea and four other nations participating in nuclear negotiations in Beijing signed a draft accord in which Pyongyang promised to abandon efforts to produce nuclear weapons and re-admit international inspectors to its nuclear facilities. Foreign powers said they would provide aid, diplomatic assurances and security guarantees and consider North Korea's demands for a light-water nuclear reactor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/international/asia/19cnd-korea.html??ex=1127793600&en=6845845dd1cc857b&ei=5043&partner=EXCITE

[swag]

1. It seems as though you have a leg to stand on. Crosspost.

from

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4818897&mesg_id=4818897

Steve Clemons will be on Franken at 2 Eastern today discussing this. Until then:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com

Here are some points that need to be kept in mind.

First, the Chinese and South Koreans did the heavy-lifting here, but if it takes a little bit of applause of the Russian, American and Japanese roles -- fine. Interestingly, the language that China floated to North Korea in the deal-making process and which North Korea has used to base its statements seems to have originated with South Korean proposals.

But bottom line -- North Korea's statement is a significant positive step. They expect a light-water nuclear reactor and a phased-in approach in this process, and America has not signed off on those pieces yet, but still -- while the devil is in the details -- these are elements that are rooted back (in part) in the 1994 Framework Talks.

The other good news is that positive momentum has been created. The bad news is that we lost five and a half years getting to this point, when we could have been there in 2000. Since then, North Korea has assembled up to 8-10 nuclear warheads. That has been the cost of dithering, inaction, and John Bolton's subversion of Powell's efforts to get North Korea negotiations on track early in the Bush administration.

. . . more

[Lasher]

3. Oops

Sorry I trampled on your original post by my unintentional duplication. Hope DU administrators will combine the threads. I've been listening to Franken since noon EDT so I have been looking forward to the 2 PM discussion.

[swag]

4. No, I don't think you trampled me at all.

You got to the analysis independently, though good knowledge of current history.

I think your thread stands on its own merits.

When I said "Crosspost," I was merely referring to the fact that I was crossposting in your thread.

Carry on, and thanks for a good post.

[sadiesworld]

2. Yep.

Apparently, what was considered yellow-bellied appeasement under Clinton becomes masterful foreign policy under * (with the added bonus that we now "owe one" to China).

[swag]

5. It's on now - Franken and Clemons.

Interesting that their headline is the same as yours: agreement borrowed from Clinton, but now N Korea has nukes.

[Lasher]

6. Listening to Franken right now...

I can see one big difference - China is in control and we're not. Everybody in the world hates us, thanks to Dubya and his regeime, so somebody with some credibility had to broker the deal.