1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Bush suddenly looking to negotiate on N. Korea crisis----

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by underoverup, Oct 20, 2003.

Tags:
Page 1 of 2
  1. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75
    N. Korea certainly has strange methods of replying to seemingly peaceful gestures by the US/ S. Korea/ Japan during times of crisis. :confused:

    Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun called for a fresh round of six-party talks with Pyongyang on its nuclear program at an early date and urged reclusive North Korea to refrain from any action that could exacerbate the crisis.

    This would fall short of the communique issued at APEC last year that contained a specific demand to North Korea to drop its nuclear ambitions.

    Within hours, North Korea fired a surface-to-ship missile in the sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan in what South Korea said appeared to be part of military exercises by the isolated communist country.


    Bush, S.Korea Urge Early Talks on N.Korea Crisis
    Mon Oct 20, 1:15 PM ET
    By Steve Holland and Jane Macartney

    BANGKOK, Thailand (Reuters) - President Bush, in a policy shift to re-energize talks with North Korea, joined his South Korean counterpart Monday in calling for a new round as Pyongyang test-fired a short-range missile.

    A top aide to Bush, however, cautioned that consultations were just beginning and it would take some time to come up with security guarantees to offer North Korea in exchange for it abandoning its nuclear weapons program.

    Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun called for a fresh round of six-party talks with Pyongyang on its nuclear program at an early date and urged reclusive North Korea to refrain from any action that could exacerbate the crisis. "We're making good progress on peacefully solving the issue with North Korea," Bush said before meeting Roh on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Bangkok.

    Within hours, North Korea fired a surface-to-ship missile in the sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan in what South Korea said appeared to be part of military exercises by the isolated communist country.

    U.S. officials said they regarded the North Korean move as a provocative action aimed at grabbing attention during the APEC summit, but they contended it would only serve to further isolate Pyongyang. "We do not take this as a positive attitude on the part of North Korea," a Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman in Bangkok said.

    Bush has ruled out the formal non-aggression pact North Korea wants but has said the United States was exploring a possible compromise with its allies in the talks, which include China, South Korea, Russia and Japan. North Korea is the only participant not at APEC.
    However, officials had no details of possible assurances and said none had been outlined by Bush in any meetings.

    SOUTH KOREA WANTS U.S. GESTURE
    South Korea's Roh has wanted the United States to make a gesture to jump start the talks on the nuclear crisis that erupted a year ago when Washington said North Korea had admitted to developing atomic weapons. "The two Presidents shared the view that it is desirable to hold the next round of the talks at an early date and to make concrete progress," they said in a statement after their meeting.

    The first round of six-party talks was held in Beijing in August. But they ended inconclusively and officials say China is anxious to hold another round before the end of the year. Mid-November is seen as a target period.

    "The two Presidents also urged North Korea to respond positively to the other parties' diplomatic efforts and to refrain from any action which would exacerbate the situation," the U.S.-South Korean statement said. North Korea has been reluctant to commit itself to new talks and has issued a series of increasingly inflammatory statements, including a threat to prove it possesses a "nuclear deterrent."

    Besides Roh, Bush has discussed North Korea with the leaders of Japan and China. His national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Bush would also raise the issue with Russia. A senior Russian diplomat in Bangkok said: "All states have agreed on the wording of a final statement on North Korea, including Japan, the United States and South Korea.

    "Several countries have voiced proposals to approve a very strong statement on the North Korean nuclear problem. We, along with China, believe that a strong statement is not appropriate at this time when we should carefully bring North Korea to resumed talks. "All parties have therefore concluded that there should not be a written statement. The text will be read out tomorrow by a Thai chairman," he said.

    'BALANCED STATEMENT'
    "It will be a very balanced statement. It will say that we support a peaceful solution which takes into consideration the interests of all sides involved, including North Korea. It will also say that the final aim is to bring peace and stability and to ensure the non-nuclear status of the Korean peninsula," the diplomat added.

    This would fall short of the communique issued at APEC last year that contained a specific demand to North Korea to drop its nuclear ambitions. Senior Bush administration officials said North Korea could get some of what it was seeking before its nuclear program was completely dismantled, so long as it made "verifiable progress" toward meeting U.S. demands.

    Secretary of State Colin Powell was consulting his counterparts from China, Japan, Russia and South Korea on what form the security assurances should take. One possibility was a simple written statement signed by all six parties.

    "We want to discuss this with our partners. We are not going to go in all guns blazing and say 'take it or leave it, this is it'," Rice said, adding that the key would be a North Korean commitment to implement verifiable actions.

    Bush, whose war with Iraq has led to a deadly postwar period of daily attacks on U.S. troops despite efforts to reconstruct the country, has been pursuing a diplomatic approach to North Korea over its nuclear policy. The CIA believes the North has produced at least one or two nuclear weapons.

    (Additional reporting by Adam Entous)
     
    #1 underoverup, Oct 20, 2003
  2. Mulder

    Mulder Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 1999
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    81
    "We want to discuss this with our partners. We are not going to go in all guns blazing and say 'take it or leave it, this is it'," Rice said

    Looks like the Bush administration is starting to understand the difference between Iraq and North Korea. They may lump together in this whole 'axis of evil' category but the real difference is that North Korea is a serious threat to it's neighbors and there is no doubt that they have weapons of mass destruction. There is no way in the world that we can strong-arm North Korea militarily like we did Iraq without killing hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, American soldiers, and probably Japanese and Chinese civilians as well.
    This needs to be handled very delicately, with an olive branch rather than a bayonet. Is Kim Jung Il an 'evil' man? You betcha. Will the North Koreans openly discuss this with us? Probably not at first. They will posture and prance around like they are the super power. They have that whole "we're just crazy enough to blow all this sh*t up" card going for them. It's a pretty unnerving ace in the hole.
     
    #2 Mulder, Oct 20, 2003
  3. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,080
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    I won't believe that the chickenhawks in Washington are serious till they pledge a non-invasion pact with N. Korea.

    I know that this is humiliating for the war loving chickenhawks. They have to prove the size of their cajones to themselves, since they didn't serve in Vietnam, though they believed wholeheartedly in the war.

    Why should N. Korea disarm when we are threatening to invade them if we feel like it? I know. What gives me the right to assume that they have some sort of right to defend their country? They're N. Koreans., for God's sake, not Americans.
     
    #3 glynch, Oct 21, 2003
  4. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,208
    This isn't really surprising. N. Korea has been playing this game from the start - they know they have the US in a bit of a bind. They'll just keep poking us. Bush really has no choice but to do what he's doing. We'll keep talking tough, but if you analyze each successive statement carefully, we're backing down each time.

    North Korea is after a couple of things - first and foremost, a non-aggression guarantee. Before this is all over with, they'll get it. Along with aid and who knows what else. North Korea's leader may be a bit crazy, but he's not stupid.
     
    #4 Major, Oct 21, 2003
  5. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75
    Knowing that the French were succeeding by using diplomacy in the Iranian nuclear situation possibly helped the Bush team understand the importance of negotiation during a crisis.
     
    #5 underoverup, Oct 21, 2003
  6. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    Please, you guys are blowing this out of proportion. I actually think it's a good move, and that we lose absolutely nothing at all by doing it.

    We have never had any intention of igniting another Korean war. We have never had any intention of starting it by attacking the North. All of our plans have been defensive. The only option we would strike first on is if their nuke program became a direct threat - they started proliferating, rattling nuclear sabers, etc. That in mind, here's the way I see it:

    If the NKs accept this and get rid of their nuke program (unlikely, but one can hope), then awesome, we've accomplished the near-impossible.

    If the NKs accept this and renege on their side (far more likely) by continuing their nuke program, then we can honestly say "We tried", withdraw from the agreement, and then proceed to blast their nuke facilities to hell.

    If they turn it down (most likely), then we can say "Oh well, we tried", and we lose nothing. We can still blast their nuke program to hell.

    In short, we lose nothing from this. If they actually get rid of their nuke program, then the odds of us making a preemprive strike go to zero (of course the odds of thast are pretty close to zero, too). If they don't, then it is always a possibility. That will not change regardless of what we agree to. We have nothing to lose by proposing this.
     
    #6 treeman, Oct 21, 2003
  7. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,208
    Please, you guys are blowing this out of proportion. I actually think it's a good move, and that we lose absolutely nothing at all by doing it.

    Interesting... A couple of weeks ago, you said:

    <I>
    They cannot be trusted. And anyone who trusts them to keep their word is a dangerous fool. And that includes George W. Bush if he tries to negotiate with them.

    I say shut them out.

    ...

    Bowing to their demands is no solution, as they have proven that they will just break their side of the deal and then ask for more. Just as in Iraq, regime change is the only solution to this dilemma.
    </I>

    A couple of weeks ago, negotiation was absolutely out of the question in your mind. Now, suddenly, negotiating a little is a good thing? Regime change is not the only solution anymore?
     
    #7 Major, Oct 21, 2003
  8. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,208
    More fun from a few weeks ago...

    <I>Really? You think so? Well then why didn't they jump on that several months ago when Powell offered it to them???

    The non-agression treaty is already on the table, has been for months. They aren't interested.
    </I>

    Hmm... From the article:

    <I>Bush has ruled out the formal non-aggression pact North Korea wants but has said the United States was exploring a possible compromise with its allies in the talks, which include China, South Korea, Russia and Japan. North Korea is the only participant not at APEC.

    However, officials had no details of possible assurances and said none had been outlined by Bush in any meetings.</I>

    NK has stated from day #1 that a non-aggression treaty is their #1 objective. If you look at their culture and history and actions, it is very clear that they have a fear of being attacked - irrational or not. That fear got ratcheted up with this administration.
     
    #8 Major, Oct 21, 2003
  9. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    Major:

    You are missing my point completely, and also mischaracterizing what was said.

    In that discussion, you essentially said that we should do exactly the same deal that was done in 1994. You laid out your 'proposal', and I commented that it was a carbon copy of 1994. Obviously, that did not work, and it was a valid point to make that it will not work a second time around.

    We are not talking about a non-aggression treaty here. We are not, in fact, talking about giving up anything at all. There is no discussion of aid here. There is no discussion of accomodation. All the prez has said is that he'd put in writing that we will not preemptively attack NK, as long as they get rid of their nuke program. If they renege, or if their part is not verifiable, then the deal is up.

    What the NKs want is a pact that would preclude preemptive military operations under any circumstances. They are not going to get that, and that is not what we're talking about.

    And as far as a non-aggression treaty being their #1 objective - BS. Their #1 objective, like any dictatorship, is to stay in power. Their #2 objective, like any dictatorship, is to expand their power.

    You have this funny idea that if we just promise not to attack them (under any circumstances is the way they want that promise, and they are never going to get that), then they'll start acting like civilized, rational human beings. I think that is a dumb, and extremely dangerous, assumption to make. Just look at the history that policies of appeasement of dictators- which is what you're proposing - has this century. It is dismal, they do not keep their word, and they do not act like civilized, rational human beings. Because they are not.

    And BTW, this is not a negotiation. The prez has made an offer that loses us nothing, and has made no effort to negotiate. It is not negotiable - it is a take it or leave it affair, and that is not negotiation.
     
    #9 treeman, Oct 21, 2003
  10. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,208
    You have this funny idea that if we just promise not to attack them (under any circumstances is the way they want that promise, and they are never going to get that), then they'll start acting like civilized, rational human beings.

    No, actually you came up with this on your own, because of your inability to see that different types of agreements can take different forms, and your belief that we had a truly verifiable agreement before. Interesting that Condi Rice sees there are ways to make a workable, verifable agreement:

    <I>"We want to discuss this with our partners. We are not going to go in all guns blazing and say 'take it or leave it, this is it'," Rice said, adding that the key would be a North Korean commitment to implement verifiable actions. </I>

    And BTW, this is not a negotiation. The prez has made an offer that loses us nothing, and has made no effort to negotiate. It is not negotiable - it is a take it or leave it affair, and that is not negotiation.

    Nope... no attempt to negotiate at all:

    Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun called for a fresh round of six-party talks with Pyongyang on its nuclear program at an early date and urged reclusive North Korea to refrain from any action that could exacerbate the crisis. "We're making good progress on peacefully solving the issue with North Korea," Bush said before meeting Roh on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Bangkok.
     
    #10 Major, Oct 21, 2003
  11. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    What in God's name are you talking about???

    I said that the agreement was not verifiable (it wasn't, especially since NK kicked the inspectors out), you're the one who seemed to think that it was verifiable. I called you on it then, and now you're attributing it to *me*???

    Ah yes, as opposed to her going on national TV and saying "Well, I just don't think that any agreement will hold, and it will not be completely verifiable since they will just kick the inspectors out like they did last time, so everyone just brace for war..."

    Sure, that would play reeeal well with the masses. :rolleyes:

    Masjor, you're talking apples and oranges. The multilateral talks you're refering to have nothing to do with the proposed "promise in writing"; one is not contingent on the other. Those talks are negotiationsinvolving several countries, this is a direct take it or leave it offer from the US to NK, which no one else is involved in. Don't confuse the two.
     
    #11 treeman, Oct 21, 2003
  12. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75
    Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun called for a fresh round of six-party talks with Pyongyang on its nuclear program at an early date and urged reclusive North Korea to refrain from any action that could exacerbate the crisis. "We're making good progress on peacefully solving the issue with North Korea," Bush said before meeting Roh on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Bangkok.

    Within hours, North Korea fired a surface-to-ship missile in the sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan in what South Korea said appeared to be part of military exercises by the isolated communist country.


    If all N. Korea wants is a non-aggression treaty then why did they answer Bush and Moo-hyun's call for talks on the subject with a missile test? They did the exact opposite of what the Bush administration asked which was not to exacerbate the problem. They want more from the US than a non-aggression treaty and they will get what they want in the end.
     
    #12 underoverup, Oct 21, 2003
  13. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,080
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    You have this funny idea that if we just promise not to attack them (under any circumstances is the way they want that promise, and they are never going to get that), then they'll start acting like civilized, rational human beings.

    Oh no. Back to the . Remember that we just had to invade Iraq for the whole wmd motif because such facts as Sadam didn't use them before didn't matter, nor did the history of successfully dealing with other nuclear enemies, etc. because we were dealing with a completely .crazy man


    You know it does seem to be effective. Look how Treeman deeply believes it every time.
     
    #13 glynch, Oct 21, 2003
  14. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    glynch can't make a single post without throwing in a blatant lie.

    [/I]Remember that we just had to invade Iraq for the whole wmd motif because such facts as Sadam didn't use them before didn't matter[/I]

    http://www.cool.mb.ca/~kakel/halabja.html

    Sure. Never used 'em. I think about 800,000 Iranians would argue with that.
     
    #14 treeman, Oct 21, 2003
  15. GreenVegan76

    GreenVegan76 Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,336
    Likes Received:
    1
    I applaud Bush for making an effort to negotiate through this mess. I don't care what he does -- sanctions, free trade, aid, etc. -- the goal here is peace.

    Though I'm concerned he hasn't offered a no-attack plan, this appears to be the first step in the right direction.
     
    #15 GreenVegan76, Oct 21, 2003
  16. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,080
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    glynch can't make a single post without throwing in a blatant lie. [/I]Remember that we just had to invade Iraq for the whole wmd motif because such facts as Sadam didn't use them before didn't matter[/I]

    Treeman, my bad. He did use gas we gave against the Iranians. As you can recall Rumsfeld and Bush I were so unconcerned tht right after that they pushed for the US to remove restrictions on Sadam so he could get more advanced weapons.

    I was talking about the fact that Sadam didn't use wmd against us in Gulf War I, though I didn't make that clear.

    Surely you're not claiming now that we invaded just to avenge the Iranians from the 1980"s. Although the way things are going with the justifications for the war, maybe that is all we'll be left with.
     
    #16 glynch, Oct 21, 2003
  17. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6


    Well, a couple of weeks ago you said that they were still talking behind the scenes.
     
    #17 Cohen, Oct 21, 2003
  18. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,208
    Well, a couple of weeks ago you said that they were still talking behind the scenes.

    Yes, and?

    I have no doubt they have been and still are. Countries very rarely actually suspend discussions with other countries.

    Masjor, you're talking apples and oranges. The multilateral talks you're refering to have nothing to do with the proposed "promise in writing"; one is not contingent on the other. Those talks are negotiationsinvolving several countries, this is a direct take it or leave it offer from the US to NK, which no one else is involved in. Don't confuse the two.

    No - first of all, the offer isn't on the table yet. Second, the security guarantee involves a number of parties, including Japan, China, and South Korea, and the details are still in the works. It is not a take-it-or-leave-it offer, because the form of the offer hasn't even been determined yet.

    <I>Secretary of State Colin Powell was consulting his counterparts from China, Japan, Russia and South Korea on what form the security assurances should take. One possibility was a simple written statement signed by all six parties.
    </I>
     
    #18 Major, Oct 21, 2003
  19. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75
    "We have asked for the United States to stop its hostile policy and a bilateral treaty between North Korea and the United States, and not for some sort of security guarantee," said KCNA in a Korean-language commentary. "It's laughable and doesn't deserve even any consideration that the United States gives a security guarantee on the condition that we drop our nuclear development."

    North Korea Says U.S. Security Offer Laughable

    SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea derided a U.S. offer to provide multilateral security guarantees in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program as laughable and said it was not worth even considering.

    In a commentary published late on Tuesday, the North's official KCNA news agency said Pyongyang wanted a bilateral treaty with the United States -- a reference to its desire for a non-aggression pact that Washington has ruled out.

    During a summit this week of Asian-Pacific leaders in Bangkok, President Bush made a significant shift in policy by saying he was sharing ideas with other regional leaders on how to give North Korea security guarantees short of a non-aggression treaty.

    "We have asked for the United States to stop its hostile policy and a bilateral treaty between North Korea and the United States, and not for some sort of security guarantee," said KCNA in a Korean-language commentary. "It's laughable and doesn't deserve even any consideration that the United States gives a security guarantee on the condition that we drop our nuclear development."

    The United States joined China, Japan, Russia and South Korea in an inconclusive first round of talks with North Korea on its nuclear ambitions in Beijing in late August.

    A second round has not been arranged yet. The North has a history of raising the bar ahead of talks to try to secure concessions from its negotiating partners.

    "If the United States truly wants to solve the nuclear issue peacefully and hold six-way talks, it should drop its hostile policy toward the North and show its political will to sign a non-aggression treaty," said KCNA.

    During the Bangkok summit, North Korea test-fired at least one short-range missile and leader Kim Jong-il made his first appearance in 40 days when he visited a military farm.
     
    #19 underoverup, Oct 21, 2003
  20. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    And if that happened, what? The media would report that there are presently no discussions... as in now?

    Both countries are posturing. Reports are that there are no discussions. I still don't believe your conjecture.
     
    #20 Cohen, Oct 21, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page