68 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

Article and Links

North Korean Fliers Said to Have Sought Hostages
2 hours, 38 minutes ago
By ERIC SCHMITT The New York Times

WASHINGTON, March 7 The North Korean fighter jets that intercepted an unarmed American spy plane over the Sea of Japan last weekend were trying to force the aircraft to land in North Korea and seize its crew, a senior defense official said today.

One of the four North Korean MIG's came within 50 feet of the American plane, an Air Force RC-135S Cobra Ball aircraft, and the pilot made internationally recognized hand signals to the American flight crew to follow him, presumably back to his home base, the official said.

The American crew members ignored the gesture commands, aborted the surveillance mission in international airspace about 150 miles off the North Korean coast, and returned safely to their home base at Kadena Air Base in Japan.

The official offered no explanation as to why the North Korean fighters did not take further action once the American plane aborted its mission and turned back toward its base.

The new details of the incident emerged during a day in which North Korea declared a three-day maritime exclusion zone in the Sea of Japan, signaling its intention to test fire a missile. Pentagon officials said it was virtually the same area in which North Korea tested an anti-ship missile on February 25.

Details about the intercept, which came to light after military officials interviewed the flight crew, suggest that the more than 15 Americans aboard faced greater peril than was previously known. Ignoring a fighter pilot's order to land, even in international airspace, could have led to the plane's downing, military officials said today.

"Clearly, it appears their intention was to divert the aircraft to North Korea, and take it hostage," the official said.

The disclosure of what appeared to have been a plan to force down the aircraft came during a broad-ranging interview about the North Korean nuclear crisis with the senior Defense Department official.

In April 2001, a United States Navy surveillance plane collided with a Chinese fighter that was closely tailing it. The plane, an American EP-3E, was forced to make an emergency landing on Hainan island in China. The 24-member crew was detained for 11 days.

Pentagon officials have acknowledged they were caught off guard by the intercept on Saturday night Sunday morning in Korea and did not scramble American fighters during the 22 minutes the North Korean jets tailed the four-engine Air Force reconnaissance plane. North Korea's air force is so strapped for fuel and spare parts, its pilots fly only about 13 hours of training missions a year, and rarely stray from their home skies.

Despite the growing tensions over North Korea's push to build a nuclear arsenal, there has not been a serious aerial confrontation between the two countries since North Korea shot down an unarmed American EC-121 reconnaissance plane in 1969, killing 31 American airmen.

For these reasons, Pentagon officials say there is little doubt that the North Korean mission was a well-planned operation that used its top pilots flying two MIG-29's and two MIG-23's.

Pentagon officials acknowledged that there was no way to be certain of the North Korean plan to divert the American plane to the North. There were no radio communications between the aircraft.

They added that the North Korean jets had not "locked on" to the American surveillance plane with their firing radar, as initially suspected apparently because they were carrying heat-seeking missiles that did not require "fire-control radar" to guide the weapons to their targets.

Nonetheless, officials at the Pentagon and the United States Pacific Command in Hawaii are working out details of plans to protect the reconnaissance flights when they resume shortly. Officials said they were balancing the need to ensure the crew's safety and not be intimidated by the North Koreans, while trying to avoid steps that could unintentionally set off hostilities.

Military officials said that American fighters would not closely escort unarmed reconnaissance planes, but could fly patrols near by. One senior military official said that the Navy might dispatch one of its Aegis-class cruisers to the Sea of Japan to provide early warning of any North Korean flights.

The Cobra Ball reconnaissance planes are highly specialized military versions of a Boeing 707 that monitor ballistic-missile launchings and provide early warning of any firings.

In addition to the shooting down of the EC-121 aircraft in 1969, four North Korean patrol boats seized the Navy intelligence ship Pueblo in January 1968. In response, President Lyndon B. Johnson sent two squadrons of fighter planes to South Korea, called up 15,000 Air Force and Navy reservists and ordered the aircraft carrier Enterprise to a position about 200 miles off the North Korean coast. The Pueblo's 82 crew members were released in December of that year, but the North Koreans kept the ship.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.thebatt.c...7/3e6907abecaa3



N. Korea actions could heighten nuclear tensions

By Christopher Torchia

March 07, 2003

SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea's increasingly bold military maneuvers in recent weeks have heightened fears of an armed clash amid tension over its suspected efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

U.S. and South Korean authorities also worry that North Korea is preparing to take the most serious step yet in its efforts to push Washington into dialogue: reactivation of a nuclear reprocessing facility that could enable the production of bombs within months.

A North Korean decision to restart the plant that extracts weapons-grade plutonium from spent fuel rods would fit a pattern of Pyongyang's raising tension in an attempt to win concessions from its No. 1 enemy. To counter North Korea, Washington ordered heavy bombers to Guam in what it called a defensive measure.

''There is a kind of tit-for-tat pattern that's getting nasty here, but is still somewhat restrained,'' said Leon Sigal, a security analyst at the Social Science Research Council in New York City.

Many analysts believe North Korea is speeding up its so-called brinkmanship strategy because of U.S. plans for war against Iraq, possibly this month. According to this theory, the North Koreans believe Washington is more likely to compromise now to avoid a second crisis in Northeast Asia, but would be tougher on North Korea if it conducts a successful campaign against Saddam Hussein.

''They're doing everything they possibly can to get the attention of the U.S. military,'' said Patrick Garrett, an analyst at GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria, Va.-based research center.

''This is part of the larger effort to ratchet this crisis up to the point where the U.S. will decide to sit down and have a discussion with them,'' he said.

President Bush's administration has chosen not to negotiate with North Korea, saying it will not be bullied into giving the communist country what it wants: a nonaggression treaty and economic aid. The strategy has been criticized by leading U.S. Democrats who say direct talks offer the only chance of defusing the nuclear crisis.

Northern actions in the past two weeks include:

-- The dispatch of a MiG-19 warplane across the South's western sea border. The plane quickly retreated after South Korean jets flew to the area.

-- The test-firing of an anti-ship missile on the eve of the inauguration of South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun.

-- The reactivation of a 5-megawatt nuclear reactor that is part of a suspected weapons program.

-- The interception by MiG-29 warplanes of a U.S. reconnaissance plane in international airspace off North Korea's east coast.

North Korea's next step might be to switch on the reprocessing plant at the Yongbyon nuclear complex north of Pyongyang, a possible prelude to the manufacture of several nuclear weapons by the summer. That would involve the transfer of 8,000 spent fuel rods in stainless steel canisters from a cooling pond to the plant.

All the North Korean actions appear to have been carefully planned, but the possibility of an isolated confrontation seems higher than it has been in years.

''What worries me the most is the possibility of miscalculation and accidental outbreak of hostilities on the account of escalating nuclear tensions,'' Alexandre Mansourov, a Northeast Asian security expert, said in a commentary released by the Nautilus Institute, a Berkeley, California-based research group.

Sigal, the analyst in New York, said the start this week of an annual U.S.-South Korean military exercise called ''Foal Eagle'' has heightened tension with North Korea. Communist forces are also engaging in winter training.

''We're at a point in which the propaganda in the North is pretty high-pitched, which means the armed forces are hyper-vigilant, hyper-attentive,'' Sigal said.

''On our side, I assume people are being hyper-careful,'' he said. ''But things happen. Armed reconnaissance happens in the DMZ, Apache helicopters do stray, certain intelligence operations do possibly penetrate real air space.''

In 1994, a U.S. Army helicopter was shot down after straying into North Korean airspace during a training mission near the Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ, that separates South and North Korea. One pilot was killed, the other captured and released two weeks later.

The DMZ was once the scene of frequent infiltrations and armed clashes, but such incidents have dwindled in recent years. Even if a clash occurs, the possibility that it would lead to full-scale war is doubtful, partly because the Koreas realize a conflict would devastate both sides.

The difference now is that North Korea could soon manufacture nuclear weapons, a concern in a 1994 crisis that led former President Bill Clinton to consider bombing the Yongbyon complex. U.S. officials believe the North already has one or two atomic bombs.

Bush has said he seeks a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dilemma, but has not ruled out the military option.

© 2003 The Battalion Online

Edited by bobdrake12, 08 March 2003 - 10:22 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.smh.com.a...6826533281.html

Pyongyang: We'll put a torch to New York (excerpts)

By Shane Green, Herald Correspondent in Tokyo

March 8 2003

North Korea would launch a ballistic missile attack on the United States if Washington made a pre-emptive strike against the communist state's nuclear facility, the man described as Pyongyang's "unofficial spokesman" claimed yesterday.

Kim Myong-chol, who has links to the Stalinist regime, told reporters in Tokyo that a US strike on the nuclear facility at Yongbyon "means nuclear war".

"If American forces carry out a pre-emptive strike on the Yongbyon facility, North Korea will immediately target, carry the war to the US mainland," he said, adding that New York, Washington and Chicago would be "aflame".

Copyright © 2003. The Sydney Morning Herald

[bobdrake12]

It was a little over a year ago that President Bush used the term "axis of evil".

bob

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/1796034.stm



Saturday, 2 February, 2002, 06:30 GMT

Bush's 'evil axis' comment stirs critics (excerpts)

There is mounting international concern about President George W Bush's grouping together of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil".

Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov of Russia, which sees all three as falling within its sphere of influence, questioned whether there was evidence to label the three an "axis of evil".

Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Mr Bush's comments "a big mistake".

"First of all they (Iran, Iraq and North Korea) are very different from each other," she said.

Mr Bush made the comment during his State of the Union speech, claiming the three countries were developing weapons of mass destruction.

But there have been angry responses from the countries themselves, while several allies of the US have expressed fears that it is preparing to open a new front in its war against terrorism.



1. Iraq: Suspected of wanting to pursue programmes to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons

2. Iran: Listed by US as state sponsor of terrorism. Washington says Tehran plans to develop weapons of mass destruction

3. North Korea: The US's main concern has been missiles and other weapons programmes - and the country's willingness to export sensitive technology

Edited by bobdrake12, 08 March 2003 - 10:52 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

It was a little over a year ago that President Bush used the term "axis of evil".

bob

Seeds take time to germinate and grow. Yes it was but one season and we are reaping in the first harvest of this crop. But this is a crop that will come back of its own accord and the harvesting will get more complex each season.

Diplomacy is like flying, best when it seems effortless.

[Lazarus Long]

http://story.news.ya.../koreas_nuclear
North Korea: U.S. Plans Nuclear Attack
2 hours, 39 minutes ago

By JAE-SUK YOO, Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea on Sunday accused the United States of plotting an atomic attack against it, continuing the communist North's hostile rhetoric in the standoff over its moves to develop nuclear programs.

Chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei warned that the world must not tolerate the North's ambitions and said in an interview that "all countries must be treated equally."

When asked whether North Korea poses a greater threat than Iraq, ElBaradei told the German weekly newspaper Bild am Sonntag that "in both cases, we are worried about the proliferation of nuclear weapons."

"The difference is that, in Iraq, we can now check with a team of highly qualified inspectors whether there is a new nuclear weapons program," said ElBaradei, who heads the Vienna, Austria-based International Atomic Energy Agency.

"In North Korea, IAEA inspectors were forced out of the country in December, and we know that North Korea is in a position to produce weapons-grade plutonium."

The nuclear dispute flared in October when Washington said Pyongyang admitted pursuing a nuclear program.

Washington and its allies cut off oil shipments to the impoverished communist state. The North retaliated by expelling U.N. monitors, moving to reactivate its frozen nuclear facilities and withdrawing from the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In recent months, the isolated North has taken steps to restart its plutonium-production line at a mothballed reactor, and expelled U.N. inspectors who were monitoring the shutdown reactor.

ElBaradei's agency has sent the dispute to the U.N. Security Council, and while Washington says it wants to settle the dispute diplomatically, it has not ruled out a military option.

North Korea claims the Bush administration is planning pre-emptive strikes on its military bases and nuclear facilities, which U.S. officials believe are being used to make atomic bombs.

On Sunday, its state KCNA news agency said the U.S. Department of Defense mapped out a plan including "not only cruise missile strikes and massive air raids, etc., but the use of tactical nuclear weapons."

The North's "army and people will take every possible self-defensive measure to cope with the U.S. bellicose forces' new war moves," it said.

Tensions between Pyongyang and Washington increased last week after North Korean fighter jets intercepted a U.S. reconnaissance plane over the sea between the Korean Peninsula and Japan.

U.S. officials believe Pyongyang may be preparing to test fire another missile soon, following the launch of an anti-ship missile off its east coast late last month.

The Pentagon is deploying 12 B-1 and 12 B-52 bombers to Guam, about 2,000 miles from North Korea in case of conflict in the region.

"These moves indicate that the U.S. Air Force is taking the lead in implementing the U.S. imperialists' strategy to mount a pre-emptive attack on (North Korea)," said Pyongyang's official Rodong Sinmun newspaper.

Meanwhile, U.S. officials demanded that Pyongyang dismantle its nuclear facilities in Yongbyon during unofficial talks in Germany last month, a major Japanese daily said Sunday.

U.S. diplomats also called for Pyongyang to allow U.N. monitors to return to verify that it wasn't enriching uranium for its purported nuclear weapons program during the meetings at the North Korean Embassy in Berlin on Feb. 20-21, the Asahi newspaper reported.

North Korea rejected the demands and the meetings ended in disagreement, the paper said, citing an unidentified former U.S. official who attended the meeting. Pyongyang had proposed a visit by U.S. nuclear inspectors, it said.

U.S. officials were not immediately available for comment Sunday.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.worldnetd...RTICLE_ID=31396




Virtuosos of the attack mode (excerpts)

Posted: March 7, 2003

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

A casual glance at recent newspaper headlines involving Democrats attacking President Bush for every imaginable reason shows how thirsty Democrats are to regain power. It's their prerogative to serve as watchdogs, but much of their criticism is so transparently contrived that it says more about them than it does the president.

Let's take a look at stories from last week alone.


o Democrats Say Bush Failing on North Korea." Democratic foreign-policy experts – an oxymoron if there ever was one – said, for the umpteenth time, that North Korea posed a far graver threat than Iraq and "must be dealt with immediately to keep it from becoming a hostile nuclear power." I hate to break it to Democrats, but North Korea is already a hostile nuclear power. They have some gall even to raise this issue, since it's a mess they largely created through endless appeasement and a phony "Agreed Framework." And they're advocating that we do it all over again with Iraq. Their formula is "walk softly, talk even more softly, and carry no stick. Trust dictators, not your own common sense." It's also noteworthy that Democrats don't give any specifics as to what action should be taken against North Korea. Just more talk to detract from the Iraqi mission. They're in their destructive mode – criticizing Bush without offering feasible alternative solutions.

o "Senate Democrats Question Bush War Plans." Now that's a new one! But again, they offer no reasonable alternatives. Their constant refrain essentially is "We agree that Saddam is evil (though we reserve our right to lampoon Bush for simplistically recognizing the very existence of evil), but war is unthinkable when you can disarm him by talking him to death." Their motto should be: "Twelve more years." They are saying we need to work with Saddam just long enough to let him acquire nukes like North Korea. While they would have us believe they favor rigorous inspections, they don't explain their utter indifference to the inspections process during those years that Clinton allowed Saddam to make a mockery of the United Nations with impunity.

o "Democrats Slam Bush Foreign Policy." This one reiterates the familiar charge that Bush is a unilateralist and hasn't deferred enough to the United Nations and the rest of our good buddies in Germany and France.

o "Senate Democrats Question Bush War Plans." They condemn Bush for not having been clairvoyant as to the precise cost and duration of the war.


These relentless assaults against President Bush reveal an unparalleled obstructionism aimed at hurting him politically, rather than advancing the best interests of the country. This strategy is so selfish, so unseemly and so obviously partisan it's difficult to imagine that it won't backfire. We'll know soon enough.


David Limbaugh, an attorney practicing in Cape Girardeau, Mo., is the author of the pull-no-punches exposé of corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department, "Absolute Power." Personally signed copies are now available in WorldNetDaily's online store.

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 05:41 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

http://story.news.ya...ea_north_dc&e=4
N.Korea Tests Missile, South Tallies Crisis Cost
31 minutes ago
By Paul Eckert

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea (news - web sites) fired a cruise missile into the Sea of Japan on Monday, ratcheting up tensions as it tries to force the United States into nuclear negotiations at a time when Washington's eyes are firmly on Iraq (news - web sites).

The United States, which wants to keep the standoff with Pyongyang from hindering its buildup for possible war with Saddam Hussein, had anticipated the launch, the second in as many weeks, and played down its significance.

So had South Korea (news - web sites), after Pyongyang declared a maritime exclusion zone in the Sea of Japan from March 8 to 11.

The firing nonetheless caused Seoul's stock markets to dip, adding to fears voiced by a Seoul private-sector think-tank that a prolonged nuclear crisis and any protracted Iraq conflict would slash 2003 growth prospects for Asia's fourth-largest economy.

"The missile was fired around noon (0300 GMT) today into the Sea of Japan, and we judged it was the same type as was test-fired on February 24," a Seoul Defense Ministry spokesman said by telephone.

"We are still trying to find out exactly what type of missile it was," he added. Yonhap news agency quoted a senior official as saying the missile flew about 110 km (68 miles).

The anti-ship missile North Korea fired into the same waters two weeks earlier was thought to be a version of a Chinese Silkworm missile. Last week, a Pentagon official said Washington was "not overly concerned" about the expected repeat launch.

Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hatsuhisa Takashima said: "We understand this was not a ballistic missile and therefore is not considered a direct threat to Japan."

But he added: "We do not think that this is very favorable in light of the rather unstable situation created by North Korea's nuclear development."

In 1998, North Korea shocked the world by firing a Taepodong ballistic missile that flew over Japan's main island of Honshu. Pyongyang-affiliated sources in Tokyo and Japanese media reports have predicted another ballistic missile launch amid the crisis.

U.S. WANTS OTHERS ON BOARD

Seoul's Korea Economic Research Institute (KERI) said 2003 growth could tumble to 1.4 percent compared with an estimated 6.2 percent in 2002 in the worst case if a possible Iraq war and a North Korean nuclear crisis persist.

"South Korea's economic growth rate is likely to fall to the one-percent level if geopolitical tensions including the North Korean nuclear issue and a war in Iraq drag on," said the privately funded KERI, describing that as a worst-case scenario.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Sunday the United States would eventually talk with North Korea about the country's nuclear ambitions, but reiterated the U.S. view that others in Asia should help bring about an end to the standoff.

"I think eventually we will be talking to North Korea, but we're not going to simply fall into what I believe is a bad practice of saying the only way you can talk to us is directly when it affects other nations in the region," Powell said.

Powell told the CNN "Late Edition" television show a 1994 deal for North Korea to halt its nuclear program had been the product of direct talks with the North that Pyongyang later set aside in pursuit of other ways to develop nuclear weapons.

"This time, we want a better solution that involves all the countries in the region, and I hope North Korea understands that it is also in their interest to have all the nations in the region (be) a part of this dialogue, and within that broader dialogue we'll be talking to North Korea," he said.

U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday: "We have to bring the weight of the international community in a multilateral fashion to deal with the North Korea threat."

China and Russia have resisted U.S. entreaties to pressure North Korea into multilateral talks, but have not ruled them out.

PROVOCATIONS MOUNT

Pyongyang insists on bilateral talks with the United States and has been underscoring that demand with moves that seem to parallel the U.S. timetable for war with Iraq.

"The nuclear issue, a product of the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK (North Korea), is an issue to be solved between the DPRK and the U.S.," its Korean Central News Agency said.

"The only way of solving it is to conclude a non-aggression treaty with legal binding force through bilateral direct talks," the state-run agency said on Monday.

"Many countries are calling for the peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula through direct talks, and even American politicians share the same view," it added.

On February 24, North Korea fired a short-range anti-ship cruise missile into the Sea of Japan, upstaging the inauguration of South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun.

Last week, Japanese media reported the North was close to restarting a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Yongbyon, north of Pyongyang, that could produce weapons-grade plutonium.

Earlier, U.S. officials said North Korea had restarted a research reactor at Yongbyon, seen as the source of plutonium for the two atomic bombs the North is believed to possess.

On March 2, four North Korean MiG fighter jets buzzed a U.S. spy plane in international airspace, after a similar plane violated South Korean airspace last month. North Korea called the interception a "justified self-defensive act."

Roh, in office less than two weeks, has avoided criticizing North Korea's recent moves in a crisis that began when Washington said in October it had admitted to pursuing a covert program to enrich uranium for weapons.

Seoul newspapers have accused Roh -- a keen advocate of reconciliation with North Korea -- of neglecting both the North's threats and Seoul's alliance with Washington, where there is talk of trimming the 37,000-strong U.S. troop presence in the South.

U.S. B-52 and B-1 bombers landed on the Pacific island of Guam last week as a deterrent to Pyongyang in the event of a U.S.-led war against Iraq. North Korea said the deployment was preparation for a pre-emptive attack.

[Lazarus Long]

As a point of reference we don't have 20 years to develop the Next Order for a Global Social States. The following article and Japan's dependence on Iraqi oil have at least as much if not more to do with Japan's coming onboard, as well as by the way S. Korea with respect to the imminent invasion of Iraq.

Poland BTW is the counter example to bringing Democracy to other States argument. They didn't recieve it they demanded it for themselves WHILE under a totalitarian regime. We supported their efforts but that movement was completely homegrown.

Japan may scrap N. Korea deal
http://uk.news.yahoo...9/80/dvrnh.html
Wednesday March 19, 06:23 AM
By George Nishiyama

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan may scrap a historic joint declaration with North Korea if the communist nation violates the agreement by taking further threatening action, Japanese officials say.

But they said on Wednesday that unless it was aimed directly at Japan, a ballistic missile launch would not automatically prompt Tokyo to tear up the 2002 agreement, which is seen as paving the way to a normalisation of ties.

"They still have not crossed the line," top government spokesman Yasuo Fukuda told a news conference, referring in part to North Korea's firing of two short-range, non-ballistic missiles in the past month.

If a ballistic missile was directed at Japan, however, Fukuda said Tokyo would have no choice but to abandon the declaration.

"If it is a direct threat to our nation, then it cannot be tolerated," he said.

The Pyongyang Declaration was issued last September when Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi met North Korean leader Kim Jong-il at a high profile summit in the North's capital.

Pyongyang's relations with the outside world have worsened since October, when U.S. officials said it had admitted to running a secret nuclear weapons programme.

Japanese media have reported that North Korea may be planning to launch a Rodong medium-range ballistic missile that could reach nearly all parts of Japan.

Analysts say North Korea could see such a launch as a way to stay in the international spotlight even as the United States prepares to attack Iraq.

North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency carried a report on Tuesday referring to "rumours" in the U.S. and Japan that it may launch a ballistic missile.

It also said that Japan's plans to launch a series of spy satellites on March 28 was "a hostile act", adding: "There is no law allowing Japan to send a satellite into space and banning the DPRK (North Korea) from doing so."

When North Korea shocked Japan and the world in 1998 by test-firing a long-range Taepodong ballistic missile over Japan, Pyongyang said that it was merely launching a satellite.


FORUM FOR DIALOGUE

Fukuda said that any decision to abandon the declaration would be made taking into account the "overall situation" and the merits of maintaining a dialogue with North Korea.

"Once we abrogate it, then we lose a forum for dialogue. Is that good? We have to consider that carefully," Fukuda said.

While the declaration led to the resumption of talks aimed at normalising ties between the two former foes, they quickly stalled over North Korea's nuclear programme.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hatsuhisa Takashima said North Korea had given no sign it was ready to abandon the agreement, but that its recent actions had diverged from the spirit of the declaration.

North Korea agreed in the declaration to extend a moratorium on ballistic missile launches and to uphold all international treaties regarding nuclear issues, while Tokyo offered to provide financial aid once diplomatic ties were established.

"Currently, if we consider the character of actions the North Koreans have been taking so far, we cannot say that North Korea is strictly abiding by the spirit and terms of the Pyongyang Declaration," Takashima said.

"If they continue these kinds of things and it becomes apparent that North Korea is clearly violating the terms of the Pyongyang Declaration, then the Pyongyang Declaration might become ineffective."

Since the declaration, Pyongyang has withdrawn from the nuclear non-proliferation pact and ended its moratorium on missile testing.

[DJS]

Why China isn't helping disarm North Korea

(Washington, D.C.): According to today's Washington Post, Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday said that the People's Republic of China's is "eager to play a positive role in helping to resolve the crisis" arising from North Korea's now-unmasked nuclear ambitions. Unfortunately, Beijing's idea of a positive role seems to be basically one of supporting Pyongyang in its insistence that it will only participate in direct, bilateral negotiations with the United States, aimed at advancing the North's extortionist agenda.

As Haesook Chae points out in the Los Angeles Times today, the PRC is not being helpful to the Bush Administration for a very simple reason: The Communist regime in North Korea is serving today, as it has for decades, as Beijing's proxy in a struggle to challenge -- and ultimately to displace -- the United States in East Asia, thereby restoring China to what it considers to be its rightful place as the dominant power in the region.

President Bush is absolutely right to insist on an approach to North Korea based on the proposition that South Korea, Japan, Russia, the European Union, the International Atomic Energy Agency and its parent organization, the UN, and -- most especially -- China share responsibility for contending with Pyongyang's misconduct. That policy, and Washington's strategy for advancing it, must be informed, however, by an appreciation of China's not-so-secret "zero-sum" agenda, not for a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, but a U.S.-free Asia.


China's little Korea secret

by Haesook Chae

Los Angeles Times, 25 February 2003

Why won't China rein in North Korea in the current nuclear crisis? The answer lies in Beijing's secret goal of getting U.S. troops off the peninsula. The prevailing understanding on China is fundamentally flawed. The consensus is that China shares common interests with the U.S. and nations in the region in denuclearizing North Korea. Therefore, it ought to play an active and leading role in resolving the crisis, especially because Beijing seems to have the most leverage over North Korea.

Much to the disappointment of the U.S., however, China has excused itself from the "relevant parties." Beijing insists that this is really a matter exclusively between the United States and North Korea. Furthermore, China does not believe that the U.S.-North Korean dialogue ought to include the United Nations; Beijing has vociferously opposed efforts to bring in the world body to bear on the issue. The question is, why?

The key to understanding China's behavior is realizing that exclusively bilateral talks could produce what China secretly craves: the removal of the U.S. military presence from the Korean peninsula.

In a multilateral setting, the emphasis would be on North Korea's violation of the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its threat to the region and the world. Thus, various multinational measures to disarm North Korea would be discussed. U.N. involvement would remove the onus on the U.S. to negotiate on its own.

However, if the situation were framed solely as a dispute between the U.S. and North Korea, the focus would be shifted to what North Korea is demanding in exchange for nuclear disarmament. North Korea, with its far-reaching missile capability, would then be perceived as a direct threat to U.S. security. Combined with South Korea's strong resistance to taking military action against the North, the U.S. could well be cornered into conceding to North Korean demands, namely, a nonaggression treaty and a military withdrawal from South Korea. China would then have achieved its short- term goal of removing U.S. troops from the peninsula.

Ejection of the U.S. military presence is an essential first step toward China's ultimate long-term goals: reunification with Taiwan and reassertion as the dominant regional power.

After a U.S. withdrawal, China would be likely to find two friendly Koreas on its southern border. Post-Cold War South Korea is no longer a hostile country but an important trading partner. And if a united Korea emerges, it would probably be amicable toward China.

Further, if Japan rearms and goes nuclear in reaction to the new circumstances on the Korean peninsula, the rationale for the U.S. military presence there may be diminished as well.

In this best-case scenario for China, with American forces removed from Korea and Japan, Far East geopolitics would enter a new era. China could reassert its historical status as the dominant regional power and eventually reabsorb Taiwan.

This crisis may well drive the U.S. off the Korean peninsula. With this in mind, why should China help the U.S. to maintain its military presence in South Korea by pressuring North Korea to give up nuclear weapons?

That China appears constrained by anxieties over the potential flood of starving refugees that would be created by North Korea's economic collapse only serves as a cover for China to prop up North Korea's bargaining position. China's sales of a key chemical ingredient for nuclear weapons development to North Korea, as recently as December, should be understood within this context. China wants North Korea to maintain its strong leverage in any bilateral talks with the U.S.

Only when viewed from this perspective are China's inaction and stubborn insistence on direct talks between Pyongyang and Washington comprehensible; indeed, it is a profound and brilliant strategy. Haesook Chae is an assistant professor in the political science department of Baldwin- Wallace College in Ohio.

[Lazarus Long]

http://uk.news.yahoo...9/80/dxc87.html
U.S. to shift Seoul garrison as soon as possible
Wednesday April 9, 06:23 AM

SEOUL (Reuters) - The United States says it will relocate a sprawling garrison in central Seoul as soon as possible as part of a realignment of its 37,000-strong troop contingent in South Korea.

Washington has kept troops stationed on the divided peninsula for 50 years to deter North Korea, but many South Koreans -- particularly the young with no memories of the U.S. role in the 1950-53 Korean War -- have come to resent their presence.

After an initial two-day meeting of senior South Korean and U.S. officials on how to alter the size and location of the U.S. forces, a joint statement on Wednesday said the two sides had agreed to shift the Yongsan garrison in Seoul "as soon as possible".

The statement said the aim was "to resolve inconveniences to Seoul citizens".

The United States, it said, expressed understanding of South Korean concerns regarding the alignment of its troops, including the presence of the 2nd Infantry Division stationed just south of the fortified Demilitarised Zone that bisects the peninsula.

The United States would "consolidate" the structure of its bases, the statement said. Plans call for fewer bases and for the bases to be away from towns and cities where possible.

The formal troops talks were the first since President Roh Moo-hyun came to office in February vowing to seek a more equal partnership with Washington.

But since he took power, Roh has urged Washington not to make any hasty decisions while the standoff over North Korea continues. Washington, by contrast, is pushing for some changes soon even as it keeps an eye on North Korea's suspected nuclear weapons ambitions, diplomats say.

The talks could result in pulling back some troops from positions near the border with the North or withdrawing some from the South altogether. The South fears that could send the wrong signal to North Korea.

The statement said the two governments had agreed in principle that, as U.S. troops are shifted, the South Korean military would take on an expanded role by assuming responsibility for selected missions.

"The two sides agreed that there would be no compromise in the combined deterrence of their forces throughout the process of realignment," it said.

The talks were co-chaired by Richard Lawless, U.S. deputy assistant defence secretary for East Asia, and Lieutenant-General Cha Young-koo, South Korean assistant defence minister for policy.

The next meeting was scheduled for the United States in May.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 09 April 2003 - 01:46 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

http://uk.news.yahoo...9/80/dxc8e.html
N.Korea "reminds" Japan it is in North's missile range
Wednesday April 9, 06:28 AM

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has criticised Japan for backing the U.S.-led war in Iraq and has told Tokyo to remember the Japanese archipelago was within range of the North Korean military.

The North's official KCNA news agency on Wednesday did not spell out what kind of weaponry it had in mind but was clearly alluding to its medium- and longer-range ballistic missiles, one of which Pyongyang fired over Japan in 1998.

KCNA said "unusually noisy war outcries" against North Korea had been heard in Japan since the war in Iraq started three weeks ago. It said some parliamentarians and other public figures were calling for greater deterrence against the North's suspected nuclear weapons ambitions.

"Japan should behave with discretion, clearly mindful that it is also within the striking range of the DPRK," it said. DPRK is the acronym for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.latimes.c.....ews-headlines

N. Korea Hints It May Accept U.S. Talks
6:20 AM PDT, April 12, 2003
By JAE-SUK YOO, Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea hinted Saturday that it would accept U.S. demands for multilateral talks to discuss the communist country's suspected nuclear weapons program.

"If the U.S. is ready to make a bold switchover in its Korea policy for a settlement of the nuclear issue, the DPRK will not stick to any particular dialogue format," a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman was quoted as saying by the official KCNA news agency.

DPRK stands for Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the North's official name.

Until now, Pyongyang has insisted on direct talks with Washington to negotiate a nonaggression treaty. It sees the issue as a narrow dispute with the United States and President Bush, who has called North Korea part of an "axis of evil."

U.S. officials argue that North Korea poses a global danger. They have rejected one-on-one talks, saying the standoff should be solved with the participation of other countries. Russia, China, Japan and South Korea could all be threatened if North Korea starts building nuclear weapons, they say.

"The solution to the issue depends on what is the real intention of the U.S.," the North Korean spokesman was quoted as saying. KCNA did not identify him by name.

"It is possible to solve the issue if the U.S. sincerely approaches the dialogue," the spokesman added. "What matters is the U.S."

The comments were of a much softer tone than other remarks from North Korea in recent weeks. It has repeatedly accused the United States of planning to invade the communist country once it is done fighting in Iraq.

It has warned this would lead to nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea's possible change in position came as the United States is expected to shift more attention toward it as the war in Iraq nears a conclusion.

On Friday, North Korea said it would never give up its nuclear programs. The North compared U.N. inspections to "taking off our pants" and giving Washington an excuse to invade.

Bush has said he seeks to resolve the nuclear standoff with North Korea diplomatically, but has not ruled out a military solution.

The standoff flared in October when U.S. officials said North Korea admitted it had a clandestine nuclear program in violation of a 1994 agreement with the United States.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun on Saturday urged North Korea to hold talks to resolve the crisis.

"When the North comes out as a responsible member of the international community, we and the international community will not hold back on all necessary assistance," Roh's office quoted the president as saying.

South Korea, which is a close ally of the United States, hopes to persuade isolated North Korea to scrap its nuclear programs in return for aid and better ties with the outside world.

Roh, who took office in February, said he would discuss the issue with Bush when he visits Washington next month for their first summit. He said he also plans to meet with the leaders of China, Russia and Japan soon.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il reportedly inspected a military base on Friday.

The North's KCNA news agency said Saturday that Kim inspected Unit 205 of the Korean People's Army and told officers there, "No forces on earth can match this might of the People's Army." KCNA earlier reported that Kim visited an air force base Thursday.

[Lazarus Long]

http://story.news.ya...th_dc&e=5&ncid=
N.Korea Said to Reprocess All Nuclear Fuel Rods
Sun Jul 13, 2:03 AM ET Reuters

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea (news - web sites) has reprocessed all 8,000 spent fuel rods stored at its Yongbyong nuclear complex, giving the communist state the means to make more atomic weapons, a South Korean news agency said Sunday.

According to the Yonhap agency, Chang Sung-min, a top intelligence aide to former South Korean president Kim Dae-jung (news - web sites), said U.N.-based North Korean diplomats had told U.S. officials that the reprocessing had been completed.

"North Korean delegates told U.S. officials in an unofficial meeting in New York on July 8 that the reprocessing of spent fuel rods was completed on June 30," Chang was quoted as saying.

Seoul's Foreign Ministry later issued a statement saying that South Korea (news - web sites) and the United States had exchanged information about the North's nuclear activities. It declined to elaborate.

Washington and Seoul are trying to draw North Korea into talks aimed at negotiating an end to its plans to acquire nuclear weapons. Intelligence reports have estimated that the isolated, impoverished state has already built one or two such weapons.

If confirmed, the latest Yonhap report would show the North Koreans had made more progress than previously suspected in amassing the raw material for making nuclear arms.

South Korea's intelligence agency told parliament last week it estimated that the North had recently reprocessed a small number of the 8,000 spent fuel rods stored at Yongbyon, a city 75 km (47 miles) north of Pyongyang.

The rods were part of a plutonium-based nuclear weapons program that was frozen under a 1994 nuclear agreement between North Korea and the United States.

The pact unravelled earlier this year after U.S. revelations of a covert North Korean scheme to enrich uranium for bombmaking.


AIR SAMPLES

The latest Yonhap report follows one by Japan's Kyodo news agency Saturday, citing U.S. sources as saying air samples taken close to Yongbyon had shown traces of krypton 85, a reprocessing by-product.

Quoting Chang, now a U.S.-based academic, Yonhap said that the North Koreans in New York had also repeated Pyongyang's insistence that the United States agree to direct one-to-one talks to resolve the nuclear standoff.

The two Koreas wound up three days of ministerial talks in Seoul Saturday agreeing to pursue "an appropriate way of dialogue" to end the nuclear dispute.

South Korea hailed the joint statement as a step toward a peaceful resolution, but the wording masked the two sides' failure to bridge the divide over how to open negotiations.

Washington and Seoul are insisting on multilateral talks involving the United States, the two Koreas and their immediate northeast Asian neighbors, Japan and China.

Saturday, North Korea said through its official Minju Chosun daily that it was not opposed to multilateral talks, but demanded to hold bilateral talks with the United States first.

[tbeal]

I don't know if any of you have noticed the fact that if america did not act like a threat to north korea and treated north korea as well as the south then they would feel the need to develop weapons to protect themselves. you don't think any other nuclear powers in the world are going to nuke you and it's because you are treating them like the 'enemy' that theya re acting like it

[DJS]

tbeal,

After some careful consideration of the issue I have come to some conclusions regarding North Korea.

We should pull the 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea off the peninsula. There is no longer a reason to have troops stationed in the Asian theater, period. Both South Korea and Japan possess strong enough economies that they should be able to shoulder the burden of their own defense. However, I am specifically referring to South Korea.

The Korean peninsula has zero strategic value to the United States, other than to act as some kind of ambiguous buffer zone between China and our allies.

The US troops on the Korean peninsula use to act as a trip wire. Now they are hostages.

By pulling our troops off the Korean peninsula we would also be deescalating the situation and treating the DPRK less like "the enemy". This may have the desired effect of correcting the problem you mentioned in your post.

However, please remember that the DPRK is the most brutal regime in the world today. Death camps, torture, starvation; absolutely unspeakable atrocities. We should try to avoid conflict with the North, but we should never back down, and absolutely never give into blackmail (cough**Clinton, Albright and Co.) Even if we do eventually decide to pull our troops off the ground in South Korea, we should always be willing to supply the South with logistical and air support in the case of "the unthinkable" happening.

Kissinger

[tbeal]

spot on the states should be able to react but not threaten

[DJS]

ah, but there is even more to it than I eluded to above, tbeal.

North Korea is a geo-strategist's worst nightmare.

Ask yourself this question...

Would pulling all US troops off the Korean peninsula be viewed by the DPRK as a sign of good will?

My answer would be MOST DEFINITELY NOT! As I stated in my previous post, the troops we have stationed in South Korea are effectively hostages. They are maintaining the balance of power. Pulling them out would be viewed by North Korea as us trying for a power play; ie, a first move toward a preemptive strike on their nuclear facilities.

Pulling our troops out of South Korea could trigger a second Korean War.

So yeah, it would be great to pull the troops out. And over the long haul it would definitely result in a deescalation, but it is simply a geo-strategic impossibility at the present time. Which is why you seem Rumsfeld repositioning troops in the more southern regions of South Korea (we're slowly trying to inch our way out of the situation).

Another thing to keep a watch on. This week Japan made public its desire for a missile defense shield and its unwillingness to accept a continuation of the strategic relationship between itself and North Korea. Can you say another arms race? [":)]

[tbeal]

obviously a pulling out of troops from s.k. should be a gradual one (but it should start now in a serious way) or s.k. won't have time to increase there defences to make up for it. But I think any increase inpower by the 'allies' (including this missile defence program ) will just make it worse cause all I see in north korea is a scared main party trying desperatly to keep their way of life ( in example of this is their missile program. which is more of a defensive measure) I think there situation is similar to the soviet union in 1950-1970 stalin was not an agrresor he was trying to protect his power. Any threat to north korea could cause them to overeact completly - stopping them from having a nuclear program is like robbing them of there only chance of a guaranteed defence. The problem is what happens if the n.k. rebel and we let them have nuclear weapons they could use them agaist there own people.

[tbeal]

* nk people rebel

[DJS]

obviously a pulling out of troops from s.k. should be a  gradual one (but it should start now in a serious way)

Like I said, a first step is a repositioning in more southern locations.

or s.k. won't have time to increase there defenses to make up for it.

South Korea can defend itself. They have a 700,000, man army with the most modern weaponry supplied compliments of the US of A. Granted the DPRK has a million man army, but its equipment is outdated (Soviet stock 70s to early 80's) and they would have the unenviable task (as the offensive party) of crossing the DMZ, the most heavily fortified defensive zone in the world.

But I think any increase inpower by the 'allies' (including this missile defence program ) will just make it worse cause all I see in north korea is a scared main party trying desperatly to keep their way of life ( in example of this is their missile program. which is more of a defensive measure) I think there situation is similar to the soviet union in 1950-1970 stalin was not an agrresor he was trying to protect his power. Any threat to north korea could cause them to overeact completly - stopping them from having a nuclear program is like robbing them of there only chance of a guaranteed defence. The problem is what happens if the n.k. rebel and we let them have nuclear weapons they could use them agaist there own people.

Ok, first off, the US does not have the final say over security issues regarding Japan or South Korea. We operate in both countries under SOFAs (status of forces agreements) which make our presence contigent upon us living up to certain commitments and abiding by certain rules.

Regarding missile defense: As Lazarus has mentioned earlier in this thread, missile defense would in no way protect South Korea from an artillary barrage from the North. The range is too close and the offensive stength of the DPRK so great that it would overwhelm any defensive system that is currently being developed.

Japan is another story. Japan has the technology and the resources to build a system right up there with our best efforts. Also, the Japanese public strongly supports missile defense. (Note, they are moderately opposed to being a nuclear nation). Such sentiments, along with recent public statements by the Japanese government expressing interest in missile defense, lead me to believe that there is a definite possiblity this is where Japan is going. This is something that the US could not prevent, nor do I think it would want to.

Personally, I think Japan's desire to acquire missile defense is understandable. Can you blame them for wanting missile defense when they have a maniacal dictator shooting missiles over their heads (just for practice of course ) )

What else... Comparisons between the former USSR and North Korea are, IMO, weak.

I presume when you say this

I think there situation is similar to the soviet union in 1950-1970 stalin was not an agrresor he was trying to protect his power.

that you mean Stalinist USSR and not Stalin himself, since Stalin died in 1953. I am beginning to better understand the position you take tbeal, yet I can't help but disagree. I still firmly believe that the US did not want a Cold War. I still haven't bought into Chomsky counter culture history. The initial act of aggression (irregardless of the underlying motives) was committed by the Soviets when they refused to leave the occuppied territories of what came to be known as the Eastern Bloc.

Sometimes, even though we want to understand the other sides point of view, we must also come to grips with the fact that some governments/leaders have malicious intent. You can not justify the actions of such vicious dictators as Kim, Stalin, and Hitler by saying "we provoked them". This is my attempt at being middle ground.

Kissinger

[Lazarus Long]

The problem is that the conflict is NBC from the get go. It is the official baptism of Nuclear Fire that will write this as WW-III into the history books. I nevertheless think WW-III has already begun as an age of continuous Third World War.

The fronts are increasing and the skirmish lines are more distributed throughout technocratic society. This is the basis of a popular strategy against Super Powers and the operative political meme word is terrorism. Recently the political activist Arhundhati Roy define the existence of a second Super Power that has been created as a backlash against the Bush Administrations policies; Global Popular opinion against the United States. Well of course it isn't really just the United States and herein lies the rub.

Korea is a classic "flash point" and as of yet we are not privy to secret alliances that are already dividing the region and the world at large but we do see some large scale ones. NATO is here to stay but it will be domestic squabbling for some time yet, India has found reason to walk a careful line with respect to Iran that it prefers much over Pakistan as a neighbor and China of course has treaties to protect N. Korea but with that promise in China's case comes responsibility and power; yet even China is reluctant to take responsibility for Kim Jong Il.

Nevertheless the situation is a fuse that will contribute to widespread destabilization if it ever is forced to battle. There is little doubt that we can obliterate N. Korea the problem is that is about the only option if negotiations fail. That is why the conflict has always been more important than Iraq and in fact I argue we are worse off for having negotiated in the manner we did for our allies are less confident that we will exhaust the rational options for peace. Few as they are.

The most likely occurrence is one of a limited set of options to begin with but I suspect Kim Jong Il has trouble sleeping and eating. I expect he is starting to obsess with the idea of being assassinated and the real trick is to discover what failsafe mechanisms he has created in that event. He is after all vengeful and thus likely to have set up a fire on response mode for even a few WMD weapons then there will be an exchange drawing the military's of the region into battle.

If he is removed by the Chinese which is generally their option less than ours and no violence occurs as a result then the Chinese would likely occupy the North for the rebuilding and stabilization as we claim to be in Iraq. The trick is however that they will probably use this option as a quid pro quo to reclaim Taiwan in exchange for turning the North over to the South.

If there is a military exchange it will set back social development decades around the world as people are forced to become highly structured in response to shifting local conditions. If the North disrupts the South's economy by attacking production and population directly instead of military targets it will ripple effect to us and the entire region. The repercussions could be worse than losing military assets strategically speaking. This is no neighborhood brawl but it could turn into the largest scale riot in history of the human species as domestic populations around the world go ballistic in response to the destruction and exchange of nuclear weaponry.

You see Ahrandatti is right, mass opinion is a "Super Power" and it uses the same webs to communicate but there is no hiding what would be going on no matter how hard they would try to spin it this time. The targets wouldn't just be the banks and the effect in parts of the world could make the French Revolution look like a another Royal Gala event. You want to see a set back to progress this one will be and it will be just the start.

If we use nukes on the Korean peninsula all bets are off for rapprochement between China and the west and probably India as well, even the Russians are too close to this for comfort and may decide to attack someone too, just to get a piece of what is happening as they have done in the past, or more likely as a result of just digging in as their borders are not too far away either.

I wish that instead of shooting his mouth off for public edification that all the President's men had been paying attention to this first because the reason Mr. Il went nuts was the damn Axis of Evil speech and all we did was tip our hand and turn our back. We talked way too much and then set the wrong example for negotiations with someone like Kim Jong Il. This isn't Liberia.

It would be nice if the Chinese just offered the man a palace somewhere (we could promise to send some money for the maintenance) with lots of games and girls, maybe they could get him to just leave and stay away but I think he is too caught up with himself for exile, even so we could hope.

In all seriousness rebellion is lower down the list than every peaceful option I listed. Let me tell you a serious and little known statistic. There never was a single successful escape by any of our US troops from N. Korea's POW camps during the Korean War. It was when we made the concept of Psychological War official; and Kim's daddy was a master.

Since that conflict while there have been defections the other side has used every trick in the book to turn its army in particular and the people in general into automatons in the most Orwellian of manners. Nothing about this conflict bodes well.

Japan is defending what it recognizes as legitimate social and economic interests throughout the region and they along with Australia are solidly allied with our interests. The Japanese people are in a big quandary though over the militarization of their society and the now real prospect of suddenly becoming a nuclear military power as we turn over some of our stockpile to them if they agree to receive the weapons.

Missile defense? It should be so simple an affair.

[DJS]

Laz, sometimes you drop bombs like Hiroshima. This is a devastating post.

The problem is that the conflict is NBC from the get go.  It is the official baptism of Nuclear Fire that will write this as WW-III into the history books.  I nevertheless think WW-III has already begun as an age of continuous Third World War.

Woolsey would call this WWIV, but I guess you just lump the whole "Proxy war" thing together.

The fronts are increasing and the skirmish lines are more distributed throughout technocratic society.  This is the basis of a popular strategy against Super Powers and the operative political meme word is terrorism.  Recently the political activist Arhundhati Roy define the existence of a second Super Power that has been created as a backlash against the Bush Administrations policies; Global Popular opinion against the United States.

Global Popular Opinion...empowered by the alternative of the Euro??

Well of course it isn't really just the United States and herein lies the rub.

Korea is a classic "flash point"  and as of yet we are not privy to secret alliances that are already dividing the region and the world at large but we do see some large scale ones.  NATO is here to stay but it will be domestic squabbling for some time yet, India has found reason to walk a careful line with respect to Iran that it prefers much over Pakistan as a neighbor and China of course has treaties to protect N. Korea but with that promise in China's case comes responsibility and power; yet even China is reluctant to take responsibility for Kim Jong Il.

India, as of late, seems to have their hands in everything. Have you noticed that they are in bed with the Israelis?? How do they get away juggling Iran and Israel? I guess they have marriages not of love, but of convenience.

If he is removed by the Chinese which is generally their option less than ours and no violence occurs as a result then the Chinese would likely occupy the North for the rebuilding and stabilization as we claim to be in Iraq.  The trick is however that they will probably use this option as a quid pro quo to reclaim Taiwan in exchange for turning the North over to the South.

This is a novel idea... a quid pro quo for Taiwan. Now that's some Real politik.

If there is a military exchange it will set back social development decades around the world as people are forced to become highly structured in response to shifting local conditions.  If the North disrupts the South's economy by attacking production and population directly instead of military targets it will ripple effect to us and the entire region.  The repercussions could be worse than losing military assets strategically speaking.  This is no neighborhood brawl but it could turn into the largest scale riot in history of the human species as domestic populations around the world go ballistic in response to the destruction and exchange of nuclear weaponry.

Now this is a little too much doom and gloom for me. One mushroom cloud over Pyongyang isn't going to be the end of the world. Would such a detonation be disruptive to world economic/political activity? Absolutely, but if the exchange was the result of MAD and the DPRK threat was eliminated, I think "world domestic populations" would be understanding of the fact that our hand was forced. Maybe this is wishful thinking...

If we use nukes on the Korean peninsula all bets are off for rapprochement between China and the west and probably India as well, even the Russians are too close to this for comfort and may decide to attack someone too, just to get a piece of what is happening as they have done in the past, or more likely as a result of just digging in as their borders are not too far away either.

I take it from all of your warnings against using nukes on the Korean peninsula that you view it as a realistic possibility. I do also. The policy options available in Korea are very limited. Its one of those geo-political situations where I don't see a winning combination.

I wish that instead of shooting his mouth off for public edification that all the President's men had been paying attention to this first because the reason Mr. Il went nuts was the damn  Axis of Evil speech and all we did was tip our hand and turn our back.  We talked way too much and then set the wrong example for negotiations with someone like Kim Jong Il.  This isn't Liberia.

I used to think that Kim Jong Il was using the axis of evil speech as an excuse to force more concessions. Now I am not so sure. I think he really is a paranoid nut case, in which case you are right, labeling the DPRK part of the Axis of Evil was not practicing real politik by the Bush Administration.

It would be nice if the Chinese just offered the man a palace somewhere (we could promise to send some money for the maintenance) with lots of games and girls, maybe they could get him to just leave and stay away but I think he is too caught up with himself for exile, even so we could hope.

And too paranoid of betrayal.

Since that conflict while there have been defections the other side has used every trick in the book to turn its army in particular and the people in general into automatons in the most Orwellian of manners.  Nothing about this conflict bodes well

.

I've always said North Korea is not Iraq. The DPRK's soldiers will fight to the death.

Japan is defending what it recognizes as legitimate social and economic interests throughout the region and they along with Australia are solidly allied with our interests.  The Japanese people are in a big quandary though over the militarization of their society and the now real prospect of suddenly becoming a nuclear military power as we turn over some of our stockpile to them if they agree to receive the weapons.

Missile defense?  It should be so simple an affair.

I wasn't suggesting this was only a matter of missile defense. However, I do think that missile defense will become an integral part of the "new balance of power" in the region over the next ten years. It seems as if Japan is opting for an MD system. As I asked in my previous post, can you blame them?

Kissinger

[Lazarus Long]

Laz, sometimes you drop bombs like Hiroshima. This is a devastating post.

I don't want to sound quite so gloom & doomish but the risks are real and downplaying them is bad policy.

Woolsey would call this WWIV, but I guess you just lump the whole "Proxy war" thing together.

Agreed, on both Woolsey and that I lump them together. I see us incrementally entering into full conflict (not inevitably with good leadership)but the global players are behaving more like pre-WWI than WWII.

Global Popular Opinion...empowered by the alternative of the Euro??

Yes, and among other things, 2004 is a global election year and already some in this country think that the Administration is going to try and declare some type of emergency to postpone elections till some "future date".

Practically everyone from Khatami to Blair is up for re-election in '04. I fully expect the level of street violence and political activism to rival the 1968 election domestically with all the heightened angst of '71 after Kent State and the anti-war demonstrations after the Cambodia bombings your namesake finessed.

If Kim is still "Supreme Commander" we can expect him to play into the global chaos and as he is probably already armed with nukes we can expect some kind of "launch on warning" strategic command decision with the weapons secreted in various locations to prevent exactly the strategy you expect. BTW, yes I think he is a paranoid delusional egomaniac and my suggestions were open options for all the powers that be to play what avenue of alternative they have but as we both acknowledge the options are very, VERY limited.

India, as of late, seems to have their hands in everything. Have you noticed that they are in bed with the Israelis?? How do they get away juggling Iran and Israel? I guess they have marriages not of love, but of convenience.

Including a joint strategic accord they are negotiating with China as well as major new technological economic trade agreements where they will provide expertise for building China's manufacturing capability. India does business with Iran because it always has and they are frankly pretty good neighbors and they do business with Israel because that is the nature of business and Israel spends our money there. There are even more complex and arcane issues too. That Israel hates the current regime in Iran there is no question, but Iranians are not Arabs and these peoples know the difference. Iranians are Persians and have long had complex ties with Israel since the beginning of the nation, both in modern times and biblical.

Also Iran has had Jewish populations living inside its borders since biblical times and they haven't turned them out, though they have been persecuted at times and lead a low profile life style. Iran claims true religious freedom is a guarantee of the Qur'an and protects all religious practice their nation is much more complex than either Iraq or Saudi Arabia and they do not practice Wahabbi. The Mullahs are the equivalent of the Judiciary in our system of governance WITH an untenable amount of executive privilege.

This discussion belongs in the other thread on Iran but reference these:
http://www.iranexper...ers13august.htm

http://www.iranexper...led12august.htm

http://www.iranexper...key12august.htm

http://www.iranexper...rea10august.htm

http://www.iranexper...nge10august.htm

http://www.iranexper...yzed9august.htm

This is a novel idea... a quid pro quo for Taiwan. Now that's some Real politik.

I thought you might like this but I was just trying to anticipate the other side's strategy and this one makes a lot of sense.

Now this is a little too much doom and gloom for me. One mushroom cloud over Pyongyang isn't going to be the end of the world. Would such a detonation be disruptive to world economic/political activity? Absolutely, but if the exchange was the result of MAD and the DPRK threat was eliminated, I think "world domestic populations" would be understanding of the fact that our hand was forced. Maybe this is wishful thinking...

First off it doesn't have to play out this way but there is no way his weapons are in Pyongyang and if he launches on warning then Seoul is lost as well as a lot of economic disruption in the entire region as well as manufacturing ability lost and economic repercussions. But I am firmly convinced that we would see domestic insurgency around the globe that would take it to the streets much more than after the bombing of Cambodia in '71. Now multiply the rioting that took place that year a hundred fold as businesses are literally burned to the ground and every imaginable assault is made on the centers of production and wealthy neighborhoods simultaneously.

I take it from all of your warnings against using nukes on the Korean peninsula that you view it as a realistic possibility. I do also. The policy options available in Korea are very limited. Its one of those geo-political situations where I don't see a winning combination.

It is all too real a possibility frankly. It is a much less promising situation then we are willing to play. If we use the nuclear option it won't be a single city, it will either be a close in ground support of massive tactical application of neutron bombs, EMP's and some small H-bombs that open up a serious invasion corridor for military assault and occupation (which the Chinese will not tolerate) or it will be a sit back and reduce the North to rubble with blanketed nukes that are an attempt to cover our bases and will leave well over a million dead in a day (maybe much more). Now do you see why I anticipate the social uproar?

We can cry "he did it" all we want but most people will hold us to blame all around the world and we will lose the ability to negotiate with China and many other states afterward. We would be much better off figuring out what is in their interest to do our dirty work for us and encourage them to do it. But Kim is right to be paranoid, everybody IS out to kill him.

I used to think that Kim Jong Il was using the axis of evil speech as an excuse to force more concessions. Now I am not so sure. I think he really is a paranoid nut case, in which case you are right, labeling the DPRK part of the Axis of Evil was not practicing real politik by the Bush Administration.

Yep, uh uh, that is what I was saying since before the invasion of Iraq and now our forces are spread thinner than ever giving the crazed loon the idea that maybe he can survive a ground war in his own neighborhood. Did you ever see the movie "The Mouse That Roared"?

It is a very funny comedy about post WWII and the necessity to declare war on the US in order to be beaten and receive economic assistance as in the "Marshall Plan". The DPRK is attempting to negotiate a similar dance but with vastly more serious gaming. You see Kim is also a fanatic obsessive compulsive gambler and yes the administration was briefed beforehand that the man is not stable. That speech was for our electorate but a President of the United States cannot afford that luxury, especially after 9/11; it was incompetent self serving political pandering to manipulate the American public with a total disregard of the real world at large.

QUOTE 
It would be nice if the Chinese just offered the man a palace somewhere (we could promise to send some money for the maintenance) with lots of games and girls, maybe they could get him to just leave and stay away but I think he is too caught up with himself for exile, even so we could hope.

And too paranoid of betrayal.

Too bad you are probably correct I was basically saying the same thing. It could be made so easy this way but Kim would figure that without his nukes sooner or later the Chinese would get tired of footing the bill. Sad but true, they would; and who could blame them?

I've always said North Korea is not Iraq. The DPRK's soldiers will fight to the death.

Again it is a sad state of affairs. Maybe we could airdrop a bunch of Satellite TV's to influence public opinion but then we would have to build the electric power facilities to make them work and we haven't done a great job in this respect in Iraq.

I wasn't suggesting this was only a matter of missile defense. However, I do think that missile defense will become an integral part of the "new balance of power" in the region over the next ten years. It seems as if Japan is opting for an MD system. As I asked in my previous post, can you blame them?

No I can't, in this case I don't blame them at all. Kim has already fired missiles across their bow and is clearly targeting them. The distances are too small for any other strategy but a defensive shield and there it makes a lot more sense than domestically here. The protagonist doesn't have a large number of decoys and MIRVs, the altitudes are less, and the ability to react to launch will only provide moments but it is a big difference between a detonation off shore and over land.

And lest we forget Japan is the only nation in the world that has ever suffered from a nuclear attack and they are truly concerned to not repeat history. They will gladly work for the system and contribute heavily to its building, design, maintenance, and cost. It won't be a continental shield however and there is already a lot of tech that will meet this demand as well as ringing the DPRK with down look radar, satellite surveillance, and stealth drones that hopefully would see the first spark of ignition or better yet catch the missiles on prep to launch mode.

The problem is that it appears they will have to face a constitutional crisis because we are trying to convince them to take up nuclear arms for a true joint defense posture vis a vis China and they tacitly recognize the mainland's claim on Tawain while doing gang buster's business with them.

The real politik way out of this is with China's help but how do we make them a proposal that they will see as in their best interest?

[DJS]

Here's a comprehensive link for the situation in North Korea. Granted, nautilus is based at Berkley, but they are fairly representative of both sides of the issue.

Nautilus.org

Here's one of the many policy options supplied at the site:

Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies, 2003

What follows is a framework of policy "Options" that address the current debate about North Korea. These options are designed to help you think about a range of possible policies and the ramifications of each. The four options provided are not intended as a menu of choices. Rather, they are framed in stark terms to highlight very different policy approaches. Each option includes a set of criticisms against it. These are designed to help you think carefully about the risks and trade-offs of each. After you have had a chance to consider each of the options presented, we encourage you to articulate your own considered judgment on this issue. You may want to borrow heavily from one of the options presented, combine ideas from several, or take a new approach altogether. As you frame your "Option 5," think about the following questions:

What U.S. interests are at stake in this issue?
What is the history of U.S. relations with North Korea?
What is motivating North Korea to take this path?
How pressing is the issue of North Korea compared to other security priorities?
How does the war on terrorism fit into discussion about this issue?
How does our relationship with China, South Korea, and Japan fit into this issue?
What steps should the United States take in the coming weeks and months?
What should our long-term goals be?
What values are important to you?
What are the pros and cons of this option?
Option 1: Launch a Preemptive Military Strike

The security of the United States is in jeopardy as long as this regime in North Korea is in power. In order to eliminate the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, we must act quickly and decisively. A speedy, surgical attack on nuclear weapons development sites will destroy North Korea's ability to make nuclear bombs, initiate the downfall of Kim Jong-Il's regime, and send a clear message that the United States will not accept nuclear proliferation. Waiting much longer before taking action will ensure that North Korea will have at least one nuclear bomb that it could use against its neighbors, if not against the United States. Weapons-grade fissile material is also easy to transport. Once North Korea has what it feels is enough to gain leverage, it could begin to sell its nuclear power to whomever it wants. If we choose to negotiate with the North Koreans, it will give them time and we will never know how much weapons-grade nuclear material was squirreled away in the interim. Therefore, we will never be able to remove North Korea from the list of countries possessing nuclear weapons. This uncertainty could compel Japan or Taiwan to develop their own nuclear weapons program as a deterrent. Nuclear proliferation in Asia could, in turn, set off an arms race that could go world-wide. We must act now to prevent this possibility. Our only option for peace and security in the future is to take military action now.
Goals

Eliminate North Korea's threat of nuclear war by destroying the reactors and processors that are producing weapons-grade plutonium and uranium.
Communicate to other states that nuclear proliferation is unacceptable. U.S. Policies
Use the U.S. military to destroy North Korea's nuclear weapons production facilities.
Prepare to respond to any North Korean attacks.
Underlying Beliefs

Military might is the only language Kim Jong Il understands. We should not negotiate with irrational, evil people.
The molasses-like speed with which the international community can deal with problems such as these will not meet the requirements of the timetable in this case.
The containment policy in use since 1994 has failed.
Criticisms

A pre-emptive unilateral attack on North Korea would violate international law.
To bypass negotiation in favor of plans for military action will only increase North Korea's determination to build a nuclear capability as quickly as possible as a deterrence.
It is very possible that the North Korean nuclear weapons development facilities are not all above ground. We are sure to miss some of them in a conventional airstrike.
In response to a military strike North Korea could launch strikes of its own against Japan, China, or South Korea, or our bases in those countries. Such a war could mean the deaths of millions.
A war could also mean economic disaster resulting from the possible destruction of the Tokyo, Beijing, and Seoul stock markets.
The radiation released from attacks against nuclear weapons facilities could kill thousands and be deadly for years to come.
In order to prevent North Korean retaliation, the United States may be forced to threaten the use of nuclear weapons. Invoking such a threat would put the United States in the position of threatening to kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Our allies in the region are opposed to military action against North Korea.
If this pre-emptive military option leads to war, or even widespread destruction, the United States would be blamed. This would heighten resentment of the United States throughout the rest of the world.
Our presence in the Koreas is already unwanted by many in South Korea. Engaging in a war with their neighbor would destroy an already fragile relationship between the United States and South Korea.
Return to Top

Option 2: Contain and Deter North Korea

North Korea's long-range missiles and their arsenal of weapons of mass destruction are of the utmost concern, but we have no reason to give in to their attempts to blackmail us. We have successfully contained the threat from North Korea for the past fifty years, and we can continue to do so now. North Korea's recent announcement about its nuclear weapons program is part of an attempt to gain international leverage with the United States. North Korea has attempted to provoke us in the past, just as they are doing today by restarting their nuclear weapons program. The people of North Korea are starving; providing aid in return for false promises from the North Koreans only prolongs the existence of a regime that will create another crisis in the future when it needs more assistance. If we make deals now, the North Koreans will only be back later asking for more. Tyrants like Kim Jong Il understand force and power and he will take advantage of what he perceives to be weakness. We cannot afford to appear weak. We have a successful model for dealing with a hostile nuclear power - the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviet Union was deterred successfully from using its tens of thousands of nuclear warheads by the threat of massive retaliation from the United States. Today, North Korea has one or two weapons and the ability to begin producing one or two a month, far fewer than the Soviet Union. If our goal is security for the region and the world, the wisest course of action is continued containment of the North Korean danger coupled with the threat of massive retaliation.
Goals

Contain the threat from North Korea and deter its use of weapons of mass destruction.
Contain the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Protect U.S. interests in the region.
U.S. Policies

Provide strong U.S. support for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections.
Make it very clear that we will counter with comparable force - alone or with others - any aggressive actions on the part of North Korea.
Reinvigorate negotiations between North Korea and other states in the region to provide other avenues for revenue and support for North Korea.
Do not reward North Korea's threatening behavior with aid.
Underlying Beliefs

Kim Jong Il is a dangerous dictator but he is not insane. He will not use weapons of mass destruction if he faces the risk of complete annihilation.
The United States plays an essential role in containing and deterring threats to regional security. Peace and security on the Korean peninsula are critical to maintaining stability throughout Asia.
Tyrannical dictators understand the equations of power and force. Negotiations and deals that reward bad behavior will only produce more problems for the United States in the long run.
Criticisms

Containment by itself is not enough; if we do not take additional action with North Korea, we or our allies will eventually become targets of North Korea's weapons of mass destruction.
Nothing short of a military attack can guarantee U.S. security. Unless we destroy their weapons facilities, they will continue to build nuclear weapons.
Containment of North Korea will not address the underlying problem which is North Korea's fears that its national security is at risk.
The policy of deterrence (and its potential consequences) is morally repugnant when there are alternatives like diplomacy and negotiation.
Containment would not facilitate the dialogue between North Korea and South Korea that is desired by most Koreans and other Asians as the best long term guarantor of peace and security on the peninsula.
Deterrence depends on rationality. Counting on Kim Jong Il to act rationally could be a huge miscalculation with horrific consequences.
Deterrence may not work. North Korea's weapons could find their way into the hands of terrorists or other states willing to use them.
Containing North Korea will not do anything for the people of North Korea. Millions are starving and oppressed. It is time for a regime change in North Korea.
How can we guarantee that other states in the region will join the United States in a substantive way in a campaign to contain North Korea? Why should we bear the bulk of the burden?
We are unwelcome in South Korea and Asia. Why should we risk American lives or spend our defense dollars for nations whose politicians gain popularity by exploiting public resentment of the United States, but rely on us to protect their countries?
Return to Top

Option 3: Engage North Korea in Negotiations

We must confront the issue of North Korea's weapons with diplomacy. The countries in the region are asking the U.S. to talk directly with the North Koreans. The United States should remain flexible in its negotiation tactics, offering to work with others in the region. The UN Security Council or other international organizations or figures could help mediate discussions. However, it is essential to impress upon the countries surrounding North Korea that North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons threatens the countries of the region and their own national interests. We must encourage South Korea, in particular, to see the North as a threat, not simply a wayward relative. If the United States enters into negotiations with the North Koreans, the support the U.S. would receive from its allies in the region would significantly diminish tensions between the United States and its Asian allies. The United States should begin negotiations with North Korea immediately. We should be willing to conduct talks anywhere that North Korea is willing to meet us. We should be willing to engage in diplomatic give-and-take to ensure that North Korea ends its nuclear program. Promoting talks is the best and safest way to halt the growing crisis with North Korea and promote peace and security for the region.
Goals

End the development of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in North Korea.
Engage North Korea in the community of nations in order to remove its motivation to build weapons of mass destruction.
Promote regional peace and strengthen diplomatic relationships with regional powers.
U.S. Policies

Impress upon regional powers the severity of the crisis.
Begin negotiations with North Korea. Offer significant, diplomatic carrots and sticks so that North Koreans recognize the benefits of halting their nuclear weapons program.
Underlying Beliefs

North Korea does not want to engage in a suicidal war. It simply wants to get the world's attention, be given the aid it was promised by the United States in 1994, and feel secure.
Negotiation is less expensive than war.
Negotiation is the logical first step to resolving international problems.
Criticisms

Initiating talks will be submitting to nuclear blackmail and will weaken the United States in the eyes of the world.
If we negotiate, small countries will learn that they can get what they want from the United States by using "provocations."
History has shown that negotiating with North Korea does not work.
The time it takes to bring all the actors to the table - or even some of them - is too long. In the interim, North Korea may launch nuclear weapons against the United States or others in the region.
While we negotiate, North Korea could sell its weaponry to terrorists.
A policy of engagement will suggest to other rogue leaders that the possession of nuclear weapons will not result in strong action from the United States. Such an outcome would surely lead to further security threats to the United States.
Our presence in the Koreas is unwelcome. Meddling in the affairs of the region will only subject us to further danger.
Negotiating with North Korea, while simultaneously refusing to do so with Iraq, may be seen as a double standard.
Return to Top

Option 4: Withdraw from Korea

The smartest thing that the United States can do at this point is get off of the Korean Peninsula. Our 37,000 troops - costing us 100 [more like $5 billion/year for USFK alone, $25 billion for other forces in Western Pacific dedicated to supporting war in Korea] million dollars a year - are neither wanted there nor necessary to protect our Asian allies or ourselves. South Korea, with its own army of 600,000, has been hosting many anti-American rallies, as have other Asian countries. Our presence on the peninsula is no longer necessary as a military deterrent and we are clearly not welcome. It seems that all our presence on the Korean peninsula only serves to increase anti-American sentiment. Why should we risk American time, money, lives or reputation to protect countries that do not like us or want us there, yet cower and hide behind our might during tense moments, all the while criticizing our decisions

Pulling our troops off of the peninsula will force other Asian countries to accept that they need to stand up to North Korea. North Korea's weapons program is a breach of world security and international treaties. The United States should not be the only country to take a stance against them. The whole world should take collective action. Until others accept some responsibility, we should remove ourselves from the peninsula, lower our profile, and use our time, money, and efforts elsewhere.
Goals

Eliminate what appears to be a growing pattern of manipulation and threat by the North Korean government.
Lower our profile on the peninsula and in Asia in general.
U.S. Policies

Remove American troops from the peninsula.
Encourage China, Japan, and Russia to play a more significant role in Asian security.
Underlying Beliefs

North Korea does not want to go to war with the United States. It just wants publicity and attention.
Our limited military presence in South Korea does not add to either our or South Korea's security. If a real threat emerges, we have bases in Japan, Guam, and Hawaii to protect our interests in Asia.
Attacking North Korea, or levying stricter sanctions, will only lead to increased resentment toward our country by greatly exacerbating the humanitarian crisis there.
Criticisms

By withdrawing, the United States would allow North Korea to develop nuclear weapons - a reality that endangers the world and weakens our image in the war on terror.
By withdrawing from the peninsula, the United States might be seen as walking away from a clear and present danger. Some may see this is a contradictory move as we prepare for a war against Iraq.
As the world's lone superpower, it is our responsibility to help ensure the safety of smaller countries. South Korea will be rendered nearly defenseless if the United States withdraws.
If the United States withdraws, any hope of successful North Korean/South Korean dialogue would be undermined, reducing the potential for reconciliation between the two Koreas.
By ending all aid to North Korea and refusing to discuss a new aid package, the already horrific humanitarian situation in North Korea could be greatly exacerbated, leading to increased starvation and poverty as well as more anti-American sentiment.
Leaving North Korea's neighbors to fend for themselves may cause them to adopt their own nuclear weapons programs due to feelings of vulnerability.
The United States must remain engaged around the world if it hopes to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and terror.
Withdrawing from the peninsula could be perceived by other countries as a sign of U.S. weakness. The message will be: If you just make enough of the right kind of noise the United States will pick up and leave.
North Korea, with its desperate economic condition, might sell some of its products to anyone who will pay a pretty penny, including terrorists.

[Lazarus Long]

That is an interesting site you suggest but here is a take from a recent op-ed and it implies that diplomacy is working and paying dividends. The problem with pulling out your sword and drawing blood is that as we see in Iraq, it never goes back into its sheath as easily as it came out.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087174/

How Kim Lost the Russians
Is this the end of North Korea's diplomatic games?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 2:50 PM PT

Kim: Playing Russian roulette?

In the latest sign that the North Korean nuclear crisis might be on the verge of settlement, Russia has embarked on a joint, 10-day naval exercise with South Korea and Japan. In addition, this Saturday, 30,000 Russian soldiers will carry out a drill simulating a response to a massive flow of North Korean refugees that might take place as a result of a war or a collapse of Kim Jong-il's regime.

The significance of these events, both reported in Tuesday's New York Times, is potentially staggering. Russia (which has long been one of North Korea's chief allies and suppliers) has never taken part in naval exercises with South Korea and Japan (which have long been North Korea's chief foes). Add to that the border drill—which suggests that Russia is figuring out how to deal with, but not necessarily to prevent, the possibility of Kim's downfall—and the "Dear Leader" of Pyongyang must be getting a tad nervous.

These developments come on the eve of six-power talks concerning North Korea's nuclear-weapons program, to take place Aug. 25-27 in Beijing, involving the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan, and Russia.

In previous multilateral negotiations—for that matter, throughout its half-century history—North Korea has played other, larger powers off one another, often quite shrewdly. A "shrimp among whales," a nation founded on guerrilla tactics at the height of the Cold War, North Korea sees this sort of manipulation as essential to survival.

The importance of Russia's unprecedented involvement in this week's military exercises—the signal that it appears quite pointedly to be sending—is that Kim Jong-il will no longer, or at least not so easily, be able to play this game. At this negotiation, on this issue, Russia stands aligned with all the other foreign powers.

While tensions have occasionally seeped into Russian-North Korean relations since the end of the Cold War and Moscow's subsequent recognition of South Korea, Kim Jong-il still clearly values Russia as an ally (one of its very few). In 2000, the two governments signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation. In 2001, while on a train ride through Russia (one of his favorite summer-vacation activities, until this year), Kim dreamed up the idea of building a Russian Orthodox Church in Pyongyang. As recently as May 2002, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, in a meeting with his North Korean counterpart, praised the "dynamic development of relations" between the two countries. Earlier this year, Kim reached out to Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, to help break the stalemate with Washington over the whole nuclear issue.

In other words, Russia's latest movements must constitute, in Kim's eyes, a huge obstacle to his traditional diplomatic MO.

Putin has tangible reasons for taking these steps. First, no Russian leader, even going back to Soviet days, has wanted a neighboring country to possess nuclear weapons. This has to do, in part, with the traditional desire for centralized control and, in part, with simple security. Earlier this year, the administration in Russia's Prymorie region—an eastern section, near the Korean peninsula, which includes Vladivostok and Khabarovsk—conducted a civil defense exercise to determine the effectiveness of the nuclear fallout shelters that had been built in the region decades ago. The results, as the Bangkok Post reported, were "not reassuring."

Second, Putin seems very keen on re-establishing a special relationship with the United States. (Russian security officials and the Moscow press made a very big deal over the recent joint sting operation against an arms dealer who was seeking to sell anti-aircraft weapons in Newark, N.J.) What's more, the desire for this relationship goes both ways. The Russia specialists in Bush's National Security Council—not least the national security adviser herself, Condoleezza Rice, who used to be a Russian-studies scholar at Stanford—reportedly believe that many of today's knottier international problems can most easily be solved with cooperation from Russia.

There is much basis for this view—not because Russians possess some special diplomatic brilliance or offer some unique material lever, but rather because, by joining America's side on a crisis, Russia declares that it will not be helping the other side. Consider the war over Kosovo: NATO dropped a lot of bombs trying to coerce a surrender from Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian leader. But the war didn't end until Boris Yeltsin sent an emissary to tell Milosevic that Russia was withdrawing its support.

Russia has been instrumental in other crises, as well. Russian special forces trained the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan well before U.S. troops arrived and provided crucial intelligence when the war got underway. During preparations for the expansion of NATO, Moscow at least remained neutral, when its opposition could have put the plan in serious jeopardy. In the mid-'90s, Moscow stopped selling India gyroscopes—which could have been used for nuclear-warhead guidance systems—when the Clinton administration offered to revitalize Russia's own space industry by arranging to let Russian rockets launch American satellites.

It may well have been Russia's belated involvement in North Korean negotiations that persuaded Bush, via Rice, to get the United States involved, too. Last April, Kim dropped his demands for strictly face-to-face talks with the United States and acceded to the idea of multilateral, five-power talks. Late last month, Putin proposed six-power talks, which would include Russia. Only at that point did Bush say the negotiations would take place and even accepted a North Korean demand for informal bilateral side-talks during the session.

So, next week's talks begin on a clear note. That does not mean the peace will proceed in fine harmony. First, never underestimate the ability of North Korean diplomats to wreak great havoc. Kim may comprehend the unusually united front he faces; that doesn't mean he'll bow down before it. Second, the Bush administration is still divided between those who want to solve this crisis through diplomacy and those who want to solve it by getting rid of Kim, through either military force or economic pressure. The talks are taking place at all, in part, because even Bush's hawks realize that the military options are too risky and economic pressure takes too long. North Korea has said it needs economic assistance and a non-aggression pact in exchange for giving up its nukes. The question for Bush to decide—and that next week's talks may reveal—is whether he wants a deal.

[Lazarus Long]

Well this bodes ill while most people are looking the other way.


http://story.news.ya...gainstmoretalks
North Korea Says It Is Against More Talks
Sat Aug 30, 8:55 AM ET - New York Times
By JOSEPH KAHN The New York Times

BEIJING, Aug. 30 - North Korea declared today that it sees no need to continue nuclear talks with the six nations it met in Beijing last week and has no choice but to strengthen its nuclear deterrent, sharply contradicting an agreement announced by China and potentially escalating the nuclear crisis. A North Korean foreign ministry spokesman quoted by the official KCNA news agency in Pyongyang dismissed the just-concluded six-party negotiations in Beijing as a trick designed to disarm the North. The spokesman said such negotiations were of no use to the Communist state.

"The talks have made us believe that we have no other choice but to strengthen our nuclear deterrent force as a self-defensive means," the spokesman was quoted as saying. "We are not interested at all in this kind of talks and do not have any hopes," for continuing the negotiations, he said.

The comments were echoed by an unidentified member of North Korea's glum-faced negotiating team who told reporters as he left the Chinese capital that the talks were a failure. "We're not longer interested," he said.

It was not immediately clear if the statements were meant to reflect a formal change in policy by Pyongyang or were an attempt to increase its leverage ahead of the next negotiations. Pyongyang regularly issues barbed statements and vows to inflict harsh punishments on its enemies, but it often does not deliver on its threats.

North Korea discovered in the six-party talks that it had no allies willing to take its side against pressure from the United States to dismantle its nuclear program, Bush administration officials and Asian diplomats said after the talks ended. Analysts said the North may have decided that it has nothing to gain by extending the dialogue, or may simply be seeking to change the venue, the format, or the negotiating partners in the next round, which China declared would be held by October.

Pyongyang's diplomats also made provocative threats during the talks. Kim Yong-Il, the country¹s chief representative at the discussions, said his country had nuclear weapons and may stage a nuclear test to prove that they work if the United States did not offer it a nonaggression treaty.

The United States has ruled out offering North Korea a nonaggression treaty until it verifiably dismantles its nuclear program. Bush administration officials said that if North Korea were to stage a nuclear test, the United States would move quickly to impose international sanctions and would begin interdicting North Korean ships at sea, among other measures. It is not clear what the administration would do if North Korea formally dropped out of multilateral negotiations. Even if today's statement turns out to be more posturing rather than a rejection of the diplomatic process, it raises fresh questions about North Korea's once tight relationship with China, its largest aid donor and trading partner and the only country that has successfully mediated its relations with the United States.

At the conclusion of negotiations Friday, North Korea joined the United States, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia in pledging to hold another round of six-party negotiations within two months and to refrain from taking any provocative steps to escalate the situation in the meantime.

China announced the agreement amid some fanfare, and Beijing's state-controlled newspapers trumpeted the arrangement for new talks as a sign that China's efforts to bring about a diplomatic solution had borne fruit.

North Korea's quick disavowal "is a major slap in the face to China," said a leading political analyst here, who noted that Beijing would have been certain to make sure North Korea supported the text of Friday's announcement before issuing it.

Chinese foreign policy experts say that Beijing treated the talks as a test of North Korea's sincerity in seeking a peaceful solution to the nuclear problem. Beijing has been lobbying hard to keep the United States for pursuing more aggressive actions against the North while diplomatic channels remain open.

Shi Yinhong, an international affairs expert at People's University in Beijing, said it was too early to tell how China will react, especially given Pyongyang¹s long history of using "fierce language." But he added that China has economic tools to bring pressure on Pyongyang and may consider using them if the country backs away from the talks.

"If it turns out that North Korea wants to destroy the talks, then China may stop taking soft steps," he said. Chinese officials made no comment on the North Korean statement today.

Japan's chief negotiator at the talks, Mitoji Yamanaka, was quoted as saying by the Kyodo news agency that he expected the talks to continue despite the North's comments.

"The meeting was the first round on the nuclear problem, and I believe a movement in the direction of denuclearization clearly emerged," he said on his arrival in Japan.

At the least, the North's angry reaction would appear to support the contention by Bush administration officials that the talks succeeded in putting fresh pressure on North Korea, making it clear that it had no rational choice but to scrap its nuclear program. The officials said they hoped that when negotiators relayed the details of the talks to Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, the country would reassess its strategy.

[Lazarus Long]

So now the talks have failed and according to reports the N Koreans have successfully detonated their first nuclear test. I guess we have the newest official and unwelcome member of the nuclear club. The world just got a bit more complicated and we are now going to be a little more extended.


North Korea confirms nuclear test
POSTED: 0310 GMT (1110 HKT), October 8, 2006

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported Monday the country has performed a successful nuclear test.

South Korean government officials also said North Korea performed its first nuclear test, the South's Yonhap news agency reported

According to KCNA, there was no radioactive leakage from the site.

South Korean officials could not immediately confirm the Yonhap report.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun convened an urgent meeting of security advisers over the issue, Yonhap reported.

The North said last week it would conduct a nuclear test as part of its deterrent against a possible U.S. invasion.

The report of the test came as Japan's new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe arrived in Seoul for meetings with President Roh Moo-hyun to address the nuclear issue as well as address strains in relations between the two countries over territorial and historical disputes.
(excerpt)

[RighteousReason]

whoa... this slipped under my radar. well it was 2 hours ago.

hm


we really need china on our side

[marcus]

LL,

I knew something was up when I checked the currencies and every other trade was the won and on the downside. I wonder if the UN will finally get tough with North Korea on this one? At some point you need to draw a firm line on nuclear proliferation. My bet is there will be more talk of sanctions and no real action.

Marcus