No Duff - North Korea to give up all of its nuclear weapons

#1
BREAKING05-SEP19-CHINA-NORTH KOREA

BREAKING05: STORY 104
NORTH KOREA
BEIJING, CHINA
SEPTEMBER19,2005
NATURAL WITH MANDARIN SPEECH
DURATION:01:40
SOURCE:REUTERS
FEED HISTORY:BN05 - 0545GMT
INTRO: North Korea to give up all of its nuclear weapons and programmes in a
landmark agreement.

TV AND WEB RESTRICTIONS~** NONE**~

SHOWS: (BN05) BEIJING, CHINA (SEPTEMBER 19, 2005)(REUTERS - ACCESS ALL)
1. VARIOUS OF MEETING WITH SIX-PARTY DELEGATES
2. (SOUNDBITE)(Mandarin) WU DAWEI, CHINESE CHIEF NEGOTIATOR SAYING:
"The joint statement is the most important achievement in the two
years since the start of the six-party talks"
3. MORE OF MEETING
4. (SOUNDBITE)(Mandarin) WU DAWEI, CHINESE CHIEF NEGOTIATOR SAYING:
"We will continue the six party talks through dialogue and peace
to solve the nuclear issue and to meet the expectations of all six
parties"
5. DELEGATES STANDING UP AND APPLAUDING

STORY: North Korea agreed on Monday (September 19) to give up all of its
nuclear weapons and programmes in a landmark agreement that caps two years of
negotiations aimed at defusing a high-stakes crisis.
In exchange, South Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia and China --
the other players in the six-party talks in Beijing -- expressed willingness
to provide oil and energy aid and security guarantees.
Washington and Tokyo agreed to normalise ties with the impoverished and
diplomatically isolated North, which pledged to rejoin the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"The joint statement is the most important achievement in the two
years since the start of six-party talks," Chinese chief negotiator Wu
Dawei said.
"We will continue the six party talks through dialogue and peace
to solve the nuclear issue and to meet the expectations of all six
parties," he said.
The seven-day fourth round of talks ended with a standing ovation by
all delegates.
Under the terms of the agreement, North Korea would have the right to a
civilian nuclear programme if it regains international trust, resolving the
main sticking point between Pyongyang and Washington.
The United States, backed by Japan, had argued that North Korea could
not be trusted with atomic energy, but China, South Korea and Russia supported
the position that if it scrapped its nuclear weapons and agreed to strict
safeguards it could have such an energy programme in future.
Failure to reach an agreement on dismantling North Korea's nuclear
weapons programmes could have prompted Washington to take the issue to the
U.N. Security Council and press for sanctions.
The North had said sanctions would be tantamount to war.
North Korea had demanded aid and security guarantees before it
dismantled any of its nuclear programmes, but Washington and Tokyo had wanted
it to verifiably dismantle first.
The six parties will hold a fifth round of talks in Beijing in
November, but analysts said the issue of whether North Korea can have a
light-water reaction was not yet resolved.
In Monday's agreement, the United States affirmed it had no nuclear
weapons on the Korean peninsula and had no intention to attack or invade North
Korea with nuclear or conventional weapons.
Three previous rounds of negotiations failed to resolve the dispute,
which started when the United States accused Communist North Korea in 2002 of
a nuclear arms programme in violation of international agreements.
North Korea denied the charge and promptly withdrew from the
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Then, in February this year, North Korea, branded by the United States
as part of an "axis of evil" along with Iran and pre-war Iraq, said
it did indeed have nuclear weapons.
 
#2
The NK have broken every agreement so far so one more will be no big problem.
Mind you Bush knows this but is a properganda coup needed by Georgei boy now.
johm
 
#3
Text of the actual agreement:

"For the cause of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in northeast Asia at large, the six parties held in a spirit of mutualrespect and equality serious and practical talks concerning the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula on the basis of the common understanding of the previous three rounds of talks and agreed in this context to the following: 1) The six parties unanimously reaffirmed that the goal of the six-party talks is the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsulain a peaceful manner. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclearprograms and returning at an early date to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) and to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards. The United States affirmed that is has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRKwith nuclear or conventional weapons. The ROK (South Korea) reaffirmed its commitment not to receive or deploy nuclear weapons in accordance with the 1992 jointdeclaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, while affirming that there exist no nuclear weapons within its territory. The 1992 joint declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula should be observed and implemented. The DPRK stated that it has the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The other parties expressed their respect and agreed to discuss at an appropriate time the subject of the provision of light-water reactorto the DPRK. 2) The six parties undertook, in their relations, to abide by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations andrecognized norms of international relations. The DPRK and the United States undertook to respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalizetheir relations subject to their respective bilateral policies. The DPRK and Japan undertook to take steps to normalize their relations in accordance with the (2002) Pyongyang Declaration, on thebasis of the settlement of unfortunate past and the outstanding issues of concern. 3) The six parties undertook to promote economic cooperation in the fields of energy, trade and investment, bilaterally and/ormultilaterally. China, Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Russia and the U.S. stated their willingness to provide energy assistance to the DPRK. TheROK reaffirmed its proposal of July 12, 2005, concerning the provision of 2 million kilowatts of electric power to the DPRK. 4) Committed to joint efforts for lasting peace and stability in northeast Asia. The directly related parties will negotiate a permanentpeace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum. The six parties agreed to explore ways and means for promoting security cooperation in northeast Asia. 5) The six parties agreed to take coordinated steps to implement the aforementioned consensus in a phased manner in line with theprinciple of ''commitment for commitment, action for action.'' 6) The six parties agreed to hold the fifth round of the six party talks in Beijing in early November 2005 at a date to be determinedthrough consultations. "

Will it make a difference?
We shall see.
 
#4
Quite the coup for NK I think. If things stayed as they are the regime faced destruction from one of two causes:

1. Internal revolt as the inhabitants starved;
2. External military action (most likely China) if they looked like attacking SK to take the inhabitants minds off starving to death.

Now they get food and other aid to keep the locals happy, they get a guarantee that they won't get a visit from the "regime change" wing of the US Armed Forces and the money they save on building nukes can be spent on conventional arms to make sure no-one visits. This will keep the regime in power for some time yet. And the US think they've got the best of the deal. If I was the Dear Leader I'd be drunk as a skunk by now celebrating.
 
#7
OOTS - Interesting you concluded China to be their main threat. I've been speculating for a while that China would invade prior to allowing a US/NK war. Who knows if it will hold. BBC seems optimistic - like they'd have a clue.
 
#8
No duff as in serious release Zaph.

As regards "No play" well only time will tell, but Japan is already throwing tantrums.
 
#9
So, let's see how this will go.

NK promises to give up its nuclear weapons programme in return for lots of foreign aid.

Realising that giving aid to NK is chaper than an invasion, the US provides millions of dollars of aid.

Now that NK no longer have to waste resources looking after their own people, thanks to millions of dollars of US aid, they can resume work on their nuclear weapons programme.

US gets upset, but fails to realise it is indirectly subsidising the NK nuclear weapons programme. Senior official in the State Department describes Kim il Whatever-It-Is-Thesedays as a 'nut', and offers no further opinion or strategy.

US still doesn't bomb NK.

This has happended how many times before?
 
#11
Classic brinksmanship by the North Koreans. Particularly now, the West, and the US in particular, cannot afford for things to go 'hot' in Korea. I don't see that this 'agreement' (if indeed that is what it is, and not good old-fashioned diplomatic bribery) is markedly different to what went before during the 1990s. Watch the North kick up a fuss about some clause or other and the whole thing will fall through. Strikes me that all this diplomatic shuffling is simply a rather desperate attempt to hold-off the inevitable day of reckoning with the North.
 
#12
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
Deal off already?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-09/20/content_479477.htm

North Korea jeopardized a six-country deal on giving up its nuclear arms just one day after it was struck by vowing on Tuesday to keep the weapons until Washington provides civilian atomic reactors.
Perfect. The US give NK the ability to generate electricity, so that they can use their own reactor to generate weapons grade plutonium.

Ahh, Hans Bwick, don't fcuk with me.

 
#13
Crapper - you've got it.

All some horrible bollox game where we end up inevitably getting burned.

The problem isn't going to go away until the whole regime and structure there has gone. Our concern should be with how that happens. Chinese invasion imho is the calmest way and possibly even wouldn't be resisted. Anything else gets violent outwards and likely uses nukes. Whilst USSR collapsed quietly, I doubt NK is on for that, they will go with the biggest bang they can muster. It's a cultural thing.

PTP - I'd never questioning your vp. Just questioning your optimism. I'll wait for GWB to call endex.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#14
It is indeed typical NK tactics. check out their wonderful News Agency for the gen - I always manage to find something amusing there:

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

The Chinese could bring them to heel in a second, but don't want to. The results would probably by either

a) three million starving refugees crossing their border, or

b) a unified, democratic and powerful (economically at least) Korea.


As with Iran, the NKs were caught lying and cheating on their 'solemn international undertakings', and are now blaming everyone else but themselves. No-one is stupid enough to ever trust them again, without continuous, absolute, and verifiable proof.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top