N. Korea: We may halt nuke test if US holds talks

source:  AP
North Korea informed China it may drop its plan to test its first atomic bomb if the United States holds bilateral talks with the communist country, a former South Korean lawmaker said Sunday.

I predict that the proposal will be rejected by the Bush administration.  I hope that i am wrong about my prediction.  Of course, if the administration does reject this proposal, it will certainly tell me that they are more interested in being belligerent than in actually preventing the test.  Oh well, we will see ...

Update: 10:36 A M (0706 IST) in Hwaderi near Kilju city
source: AP

Seoul, Oct. 9 (AP): North Korea said today it has performed its first-ever nuclear weapons test. The country's official Korean Central News Agency said the test was performed and that there had been no radioactive leakage from the site.

Well too bad about that ... looks like they didnt even wait for Bush's response. Perhaps they were listening to Fox news who virtually dared them to do it, asking if they were bluffing.   I shuddered when i heard that.   Oh well ... hopefully nobody but me was listening that way.

Here is a
map of where the test took place.

Update 10-11-06:  Japan imposed draconian sanctions, banning all ships, all imports and most North Korean nationals from entering the country. China hints that they will sign on to some kind of sanctions.  Indications are that the UN will impose some form of sanctions even though Pyongyang has proven to be impervious to outside pressure.  Meanwhile, Pyongyang said it would consider the sanctions, if they were adopted, as a declaration of war ... "If the United States continues to be hostile and apply pressure on us, we will have no other choice but violent measures to confront them".  Bush repeatedly rejects bi-lateral negoitiations and insists that the Six-nation talks are the best stratagy.  Former Secretary of State Jim Baker says "It

Tags

  1. korea
  2. nuke
  3. nuke test
  4. bush administration
  5. ssdd
  6. nukes

Comments


Seth says
M 2006-10-08 12:11:53 4611
source: ... Of course, if the administration does reject this proposal, it will certainly tell me that they are more interested in being belligerent than in actually preventing the test.
... There is a third alternative & that is that this administration is more interested in protecting the people of the USA than keeping N. Korea happy.
But will the administrations actions actually protect us?  Word has it that going into Iraq actually had made us less safe from terrorists.  Personally i will feel safer if NK does not test their nuke (period) ... the paranoia i got from fox news (above) notwistanding.  If all it takes is for us to send Condi over there, then we will have made an excellant move twards safety and a nuclear free South East Asia.

Seth says
Btw, i had considered the argument about giving in to blackmail prior to posting my item.  Like i said above, i do not believe that it qualifies as blackmail, that the administration will probably use that as an excuse notwithstanding.  Talking to countries about what they think is important should (and i believe is) the default diplomatic situation. Withholding that dialogue to pressure a country into some action (or inaction) is the first hostile diplomatic move here.  It is so strange how these things get so truned around ... and  how agression gets to be labeled defense.    

Seth says
M 2006-10-08 11:09:32 4611
... Apparently you don't have a clue as to what the diplomatic situation is here. To give a blackmailer & proliferator the status of an equal by negotiating directly with him is like giving a blackmailer an endless set of down payments for life.  The reason we are in this mess right now is Bill Clinton negotiated directly & gave them all kinds of stuff & they reneged later on.  The US needs to continue to get all the countries of the region involved & say it's a bad idea for N. Korea to blackmail with nukes.  The policy of direct negotiation has already failed!  Triangulation is always possible when you have only 2-party negotiations.
If they conceed what is desired prior to talks, then the dynamics of the situation is different than the blackmail that you describe.  In this case what is desired is that they do not do the test.  That would be like a kid napper giving up the kid prior to getting their money.  Talk is always cheep, nukes actually proliferating is not.  The administrations policy of not talking to regimes which it deems "evil" has been questioned by several profesional diplomats.   That policy may be fundamentally flawed in today's world. 

Mark de LA says
There have been talks with all the countries in the region plus the US. North Korea knows that it can't bullshit them all. It will take it's chances with just the U.S. because it knows that it can always count on China to fuck with the U.S. being another communist nation. Given China's track-record in the UN there is no problem for North Korea.

Mark de LA says
source: ... Of course, if the administration does reject this proposal, it will certainly tell me that they are more interested in being belligerent than in actually preventing the test.
... There is a third alternative & that is that this administration is more interested in protecting the people of the USA than keeping N. Korea happy.


Less Thinklessness says
Nuclear blackmail is still Nuclear blackmail no matter how you slice it. (-*-)

Seth says
Listening to fox news spin on this brought up another more chilling senario.  Given that North Korea's primary exports (which fox says is military hardware and heroine) are currently under a sever sancions from the US, it might just be in our best interest if they went ahead and tested their bomb.  After all that will mean that they have less plutonium to export to terrorists.  Perahps this whole news story is just an elaborate info-mercial ... lookie lookie lookie ... get your hot plutonium here, pobox 666 Soul NK.

Less Thinkiness says
How naive, one-on-one has already failed. Clinton-Albright already failed - something you still fail to acknowledge! Apparently threat of sanctions has already made them take notice. Proceed NOW with the sanctions. 1-on-1 will only puff up a brutal dictator. Look at the same situation in Iran (a little less far along, maybe). If Kim Jhong Sick gets his 1-on-1 he can jerk-off the US until his eyes turn blue laughing all the way because he is stalling sanctions - just like Iran.

Seth says
M 2006-10-08 12:16:56 4611
BTW, what do you think "Give me 2- party talks or I'll test some nukes!" is ?
I know, phrased like that it does sound like a threat.  Yet that was not the way it went down.  Testing bombs is an integral part of making bombs.  Everybody knows that.  NK infomed the world long ago that they are making nukes and now they are planning to proceeded to test them.  Not testing the bomb is a function of not making the bomb.  So if you want to go to nuclear war about this you interpert their words as you have done above.  However, if you want to step back from the breach you interpert those same words as "We will stop developing our bomb, if you just talk with us - one on one".   All we give up is that we acknowledge that they are a player in the field (as you mentioned above: "To give [them] the status of an equal")... we grant them crediability ... we loose a small amount of our image in the world as the big bulley state who can make demands on any nation ... our flag gets lowered as Buckley would say.  But, me thinks, that big bulley image is more of a hiderance to our own security than a advantage.  This too is not just my idea but one that i have gleaned from my reading of wise diplomats on the net (if challenged here i will find you references).

Seth says
Less Thinkiness 2006-10-08 13:39:40 4611
 Apparently threat of sanctions has already made them take notice. Proceed NOW with the sanctions. 
I believe that the US and many nations already has restricted their commerce in many ways.  I see no evidence of those actions altering NK's behavior in the slightest.  If you have such evidence, then please refer to it specifically.  In fact i would be interested in knowing of a single country who altered their intentions in favor of, and in response to, UN sanctions. 

RWG Again says
Nope, they have been fighting sanctions for the last 2 years at least.

RWG Again says
Rather a moot point now anyway - url http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218699,00.html !


Seth says
RWG Again 2006-10-08 21:37:40 4611
Nope, they have been fighting sanctions for the last 2 years at least.
I don't know what proposition your "nope" is a response to.  Obviously the sanctions were not effective in effecting the situation, which, of course was the proposition that i was advancing. As to the timing, i don't know what the controlling event.  I imagine that there will be much speculation about that ... ranging from John Boltons's rejection which must have preceeded the test by only hours ... to raining on South Korean Ki-moon's parade.  Whatever the reason and the timimg it certainly is in defiance of the current sanctions which appear to be yet another failing of the current administration's foreign policy.

Seth says
Less Thinklessness 2006-10-08 14:32:10 4611
seth 2006-10-08 13:48:46 4611
Less Thinkiness 2006-10-08 13:39:40 4611
 Apparently threat of sanctions has already made them take notice. Proceed NOW with the sanctions. 
I believe that the US and many nations already has restricted their commerce in many ways.  I see no evidence of those actions altering NK's behavior in the slightest.  If you have such evidence, then please refer to it specifically.  In fact i would be interested in knowing of a single country who altered their intentions in favor of, and in response to, UN sanctions. 
A simple proof is that N. Korea is worried about it.  Why else would they say they will halt their nuclear test if the US backs off on the threat to go to the UN for sanctions & goes for 1-on-1 talks.  If it was not a problem, why worry ?
Sorry i don't take that as proof of your assertions.  North Korea informed China of the proposal via diplomatic channels almost certainly in respons to China and Japan starting to cooperate in opposition to them.  There is no evidance that this has anything to do with sanctions or the threat of sanctions.

TooDeep in the RWG says
This my last on this absurd subject. If you can't see that having the UN put sanctions on N. Korea would affect N. Korea & put them in further isolation then you will have to remain ignorant of the fact. Blaming Bolton of anything is absurd. He speaks for the president & the secretary. Most of this is a made-up "story" in the minds of the pundits, Bush haters, politicians of the left & the media. The story line is more election time politics. Personally, I do not worry about N. Korea as much as I worry about Iran. N. Korea is surrounded by a massive military machine called China. China benefits from trade with the US. That is a major factor in N. Korea not going too far.

Seth says
TooDeep in the RWG 2006-10-09 06:04:04 4611
 If you can't see that having the UN put sanctions on N. Korea would affect N. Korea & put them in further isolation then you will have to remain ignorant of the fact. 
Well i don't think NK will like the sanctions that the UN will doubtless impose now.   But is there any incident in history where some nation acted according to the will of the UN in response to sanctions being imposed?  I just need that  fact in my knowledge bank.  Has any nation not gone nuclear in response to sanctions being imposed?   IOW, are sanctions effective in detering nuclear proliferation?

My other point is that there was an incident back there where NK changed course and started developing nukes in response to an change in US administration policy.  (Perhaps i will find the time to document that change)  In hind sight me thinks it is fair to say that policy change contributed to NK looking like a nuclear power today.  What was that policy change?  Who was responsible for it?  How did it contribute to the situation we have today?  What kind of policy would have had a different effect?  Those are the kind of questions that need to be answered.

Mark de LA says
Fascinating in what this story says & does not say. It does not say why Russia was so way out of range with the other estimates. Does Russia have a dog in this fight such that it wants the world to think NK made a bigger bomb than it says it did ?  I would worry about a very small bomb more than a big bomb because it takes more technology to make a smaller one that works & then there is suitcase bomb legend to think about.
 


Mark de LA says
Blackmail or NOT Blackmail ? NK talks Blackmail! (in different words). Question ? What does NK's leader expect to gain from all this except attention ?  Even Communist China & Russia trade with the West.  Is he really afraid that he will lose his head if he quits his nuclear ambition & militaristic governance ?


Seth says
Can we credit failures in the Bush amdinistration's foreign policy with the first North Korean nuclear test ? (context)

Seth says
Here is a funny review of the Dear Leader's crap in his pants ...


Mark de LA says

This reminds me of a song. (The UN has..) No balls at all ....



Mark de LA says
I like in particular this quote from the article:
source: But a call to freeze assets from other illicit activities such as "counterfeiting, money-laundering or narcotics" was dropped.
... I guess those must be soverign rights of a country.



Mark de LA says
Someday we should debate the topic of should the US negotiate with terrorists & enemies who have sworn our (the United States of America's) destruction. But not here.


Seth says
M 2006-10-12 07:44:20 4611
Someday we should debate the topic of should the US negotiate with terrorists & enemies who have sworn our (the United States of America's) destruction. But not here.
... and not without pre agreed rules of inquiry.

Seth says
What i don't understand is why China doesn't just march down there and change regimes.  Shy of that they could at least institute draconian sanchions.  If the regime falls, they simply prop up a puppet ... i don't buy this script that thousands of refugees would necessarily flood over the boarder ... me thinks there are other options to that which could be contrived.  They now have a booming economy, is NK not putting that in jeopardy?  Also me thinks that NK's nukes are most threatening to China (and perhaps Japan).  What effect would a regional war that (hopefully the US would stay out of) have on the global economy?  It appears to me that China is the only power in the region who is in a real position to effect change, yet they still stand behind Kim Jung Il. Were i to spend time on an inquiry, that is the kind answers that i woul seek.  Me thinks that any sanctions imposed by the West are going to be ignored anyway ... so anything about that is a pretty academic question.  Nor could the West + Japan + Australia do this alone without acting in concert with China.  So China is the key to the solution here. 

Mark de LA says
U left out Russia.  NK is headed by a madman. China opposes regime change because if they had freedom in their country theirs would get changed. Also, they would seem hypocritical about Iran & Iraq.
Then again, there is the dud-factor!


Seth says
M 2006-10-12 08:05:27 4611
seth 2006-10-12 07:47:34 4611
- snip -
... and not without pre agreed rules of inquiry.
What do you mean ?
Primarialy:
  1. frame propositions to answer - otherwise there is no shared purpose
  2. disallow all adhominem comments
  3. disallow all disrespectful comments
  4. disallow "talking down" to others in the inquiry
  5. disallow all comments that were off the topic of inquiry
  6. disallow usage of "propoganda" language in analysis
That is enough of a start. 

Seth says
M 2006-10-12 09:05:53 4611
PS this is why jews-vs-palestinians can't work nor NK-vs-US won't either. They all demand different rules to start.
Those rules are to be negoitated they are not demands.  (1) is important because it prevides the motivation to converge.  If you don't like the way i stated it, then propose a different way to get to the same place. 

Seth says
M 2006-10-12 08:56:28 4611
source: ...
  1. frame propositions to answer - otherwise there is no shared purpose
  2. disallow all adhominem comments
  3. disallow all disrespectful comments
  4. disallow "talking down" to others in the inquiry
  5. disallow all comments that were off the topic of inquiry
  6. disallow usage of "propoganda" language in analysis
That is enough of a start. 
... That is prolly enough to make it still-born.

1. - that's your shtick
2. - good idea
3. - is in the eye of the beholder
4. -      "
5. - it is a large topic subject to the whims of one participant or the other
6. - definitely in the eye of the beholder - one man's argument is another man's propaganda - I presume you would also disallow analogies, metaphors etc.

Please move this discussion to another item.  This one is about NK nukes.  (1) is necessary otherwise there is no shared purpose ... no shared purpose means no reason to converge ... things go round and round forever.  And, btw, it is not just "my shtick", any formal debate starts out with a proposition that frames the topic.   I'm not really interested in debate, in any case.  Rather i am interested in inquiry.  I want to get to better truths about things.  Convergance is necessary ... ending up with "findings" that are agreed upon by consensis is necessary. 

Mark de LA says
Apparently some report today that NK will rejoin the 6-party talks.  On a more ominous note the Chinese seem to be complicit in just the opposite trend & actually support NK nuclear ambitions and arms proliferation.


See Also

  1. Thought War with North Korea with 190 viewings related by tag "korea".
  2. Thought Copy of - An agreement to avoid an unthinkable war with 139 viewings related by tag "korea".
  3. Thought Satsop Nuclear Plant with 84 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  4. Thought An agreement to avoid an unthinkable war with 59 viewings related by tag "korea".
  5. Thought Language with 13 viewings related by tag "SSDD".
  6. Thought One World or None with 5 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  7. Thought Hmmmm.... with 3 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  8. Thought The drums of war on Iran with 3 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  9. Thought SNUKES with 1 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  10. Thought I Call For A World Initiative to Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons with 1 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  11. Thought #samo-samo or #samoSamo or #SamoSamo or .... with 1 viewings related by tag "ssdd".
  12. Thought about: Iranian official offers glimpse from within: A desire for U.S. ally with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  13. Thought Surprising Build Up In Centrifuges At Natanz with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  14. Thought Scariest Headline Yet with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  15. Thought To what end will negotiations bring us ? with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  16. Thought Obama v Nukes part X with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  17. Thought The Nihilist Perspective with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  18. Thought UN Resolution 1718 with 0 viewings related by tag "korea".
  19. Thought Just In Case you Forgot ... with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  20. Thought The Doomsday Machine - Apocalypse Maybe? with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  21. Thought Nuclear jump list at FastBlogIt with 0 viewings related by tag "nuke".
  22. Thought Lie ... Or No Lie ? with 0 viewings related by tag "ssdd".
  23. Thought about: Iran uses plant as a message of defiance with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  24. Thought SSDD with 0 viewings related by tag "ssdd".
  25. Thought SOCIALISM Step 4 - Give your power away with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  26. Thought Posse Comitatus anyone? with 0 viewings related by tag "bush administration".