http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9375104/ Now this is great news. _________________________________________________________ In breakthrough, Pyongyang vows to rejoin arms treaty, allow inspectors Updated: 1:55 a.m. ET Sept. 19, 2005 BEIJING - North Korea pledged to drop its nuclear weapons development and rejoin international arms treaties in a unanimous agreement Monday at six-party arms talks, the first ever after more than two years of negotiations. The North “committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date” to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, according to the agreement by the six countries at the talks. Negotiators agreed to hold more talks in November, where they were expected to move on to concrete discussions about implementing the broad principles outlined in Monday’s agreement. The main U.S. envoy, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, has warned that could still be a long process. “The six parties unanimously reaffirmed that the goal of the six-party talks is the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner,” the statement said. New pledges on sovereignty North Korea and the United States also pledged in the agreement to respect each other’s sovereignty and right to peaceful coexistence, and to take steps to normalize relations. “The United States affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade (North Korea) with nuclear or conventional weapons,” according to the statement, in assurances echoed by South Korea. The negotiations had been deadlocked over North Korea’s demand that it retain the right to civilian nuclear programs after it disarms, and the statement acknowledges the North has made such an assertion but doesn’t go beyond that. Request for nuclear power on hold The North Korean delegation had also demanded the country be given a light-water nuclear reactor at the latest talks — a type believed to be less easily diverted for weapons use — but Washington had said it and other countries at the talks wouldn’t meet that request. Putting aside the question for now, the joint statement said: “The other parties expressed their respect and agreed to discuss at an appropriate time the subject of the provision of light-water reactor” to North Korea. North Korea has also refused to totally disarm without getting concessions along the way, while Washington has said it wants to see the weapons programs totally dismantled before granting rewards. The statement, however, says the sides agreed to take steps to implement the agreement “in a phased manner in line with the principle of ‘commitment for commitment, action for action.”’ The other countries at the talks said they were willing give energy assistance to the North, including a South Korean plan to deliver electricity across the heavily armed border dividing the peninsula. Developments hailed as a breakthrough “This is the most important result since the six-party talks started more than two years ago,” said Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, Beijing’s envoy. The talks, which began in August 2003, include China, Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas. North Korea was promised two light-water reactors under a 1994 deal with Washington to abandon its nuclear weapons. That agreement fell apart in late 2002 with the outbreak of the latest nuclear crisis, when U.S. officials say North Korea admitted having a secret uranium enrichment program. The North is believed to have enough radioactive material for about a half-dozen bombs from its publicly acknowledged plutonium program, but hasn’t performed any known nuclear tests to prove its capability. In February, the North claimed it had nuclear weapons.
Good stuff. It was obvious the Koreans were not crazy and just wanted money. They didn't start a special economic zone and reforms for nothing. Unlike the ME, they don't have any ideologies that would lead them to call for war against the civilized world.
Their #1 goal for 3 or 4 years now, and what the US would never give them, was a written pledge that we would not invade them. I think they wanted a treaty of some sort, we wouldn't give them anything but verbal assurances. I'm guessing the final result was something in between - some kind of written document, but not a treaty.
I agree. When I saw the headline I was more hopeful but reading through the news on it it still seems like there is a lot of stuff that is very unclear. i'm far from being a hawk but I think anything coming out of Pyongyang should be taken with a more than a grain of salt.
you'd think this would've been bigger news than tropical storm Rita, but not to CNN...if it pans out, it's a huge deal, and quite a diplomatic coup for team bush.
It's the result of a six-party talk held in Beijing, Commie China - "team bush" gets at most 1/6th of credit.
More for "team bush" to worry about: News Analysis: As coalitions shift, Bush is confounded http://iht.com/articles/2005/09/18/news/global.php By David E. Sanger The New York Times MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 WASHINGTON At the opening of the United Nations General Assembly session last week, President George W. Bush said the United States could get much more done building coalitions than acting as the world's Lone Ranger. Behind the scenes, though, his aides were scrambling to put out a fire: Countries that Bush considers partners - China, Russia and India - were banding together to stymie a U.S. and European effort to bring sanctions against Iran for its suspected nuclear weapons program. Washington backed down, at least for now. But what may be more important is the unusual configuration of countries that broke with Bush and that may prove troublesome to the United States in the future. What Bush faced from the well of the United Nations on Wednesday morning was a strange new geopolitical world, in which your allies on one issue are ganging up on you in the next room. When Bush started coalition-building after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he expected the United States to be the linchpin. But now, post-Iraq, the president is increasingly facing what might be called coalitions of the unwilling, pursuing their own interests or pushing back U.S. goals around the world, issue by issue. Without question, this push-back was beginning well before Bush was president. Europe sought a common military strategy independent of Washington's in an experiment with mixed results, and Asian and Latin American countries gathered together, mostly to negotiate trade accords. But the years after Sept. 11, 2001, masked a lot of these tensions. Countries cast their lot with a president who said that nations had to choose to be "with us or against us." Four years later, Bush no longer seems as unassailable; the temptations for nations to form ad-hoc partnerships seem irresistible. Here is a look at a few of the most unusual. China, Russia and India: The effort to adopt sanctions against Iran has failed so far, mostly because of this troika. China and India are growing at rates that have made them voracious consumers of oil - and thus friends of the Iranians. Russia has been a major supplier to Iran's multibillion-dollar effort to build a large nuclear reactor. None wants to jeopardize its relations with Iran over a nuclear weapons program that Tehran denies exists. These countries have leverage because Russia and China could veto any sanctions in the UN Security Council. So Bush is reluctant to force a vote he could lose, perhaps emboldening Iran to speed ahead with its nuclear development. The Iranian case has created another unlikely partnership-of-the-moment: India and Pakistan. Both spent decades building secret nuclear arsenals, which they aimed at each other, but now, Pakistan and India both oppose any effort to penalize Iran. No one seems to think that this sudden agreement between Pakistan and India reduces their rivalry. But to many in the Bush administration, it is stunning. They are surprised that Pakistan, which Bush declared a "major non-NATO ally," and India, which just struck a deal with Washington on cooperation in civilian nuclear technology, are working together to oppose one of Bush's most urgent counter-proliferation goals. China and South Korea vs. The United States and Japan: The Cold War kept alliances simple. In the Pacific, the United States stood with Japan and South Korea. North Korea's lifeline was China. Then came the 1990s boom, when the Chinese decided that capitalism was not all bad and opened diplomatic relations with South Korea. Now, in the negotiations over disarming North Korea, the relationship between Seoul and Beijing goes far beyond sharing the secrets of making microprocessors. To Washington and Tokyo, disarming North Korea - believed to have upward of six or eight atomic weapons - is job one. If that means sanctions and pressure that topples Kim Jong Il's North Korean government, well, that is life. But the South Koreans and Chinese desperately want stability first. "Our biggest fear is that if the central government collapses," in North Korea, then "we will have millions of angry, hungry Koreans coming over our border," a senior Chinese official said in a recent interview. The South Koreans have a similar fear. So they are happy to have talks, talks and more talks, so long as they head off any risk that the United States will take unilateral action. Could this mark the beginning of the end of the U.S.-South Korean alliance? In two recent speeches, President Roh Moo Hyun of South Korea talked openly about a new role for his country, one far less dependent on the United States. South Korea, he said, would play a "balancing role" in the region. Russia and Europe: Standing in the East Room of the White House with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on Friday afternoon, Bush said he had stopped counting how many times he had met the Russian leader "because I've run out of fingers on my hands." And he never fails to praise Putin as a partner in the U.S. fight against terrorism. But the reality is that many in the White House are deeply suspicious of Putin's motives and his centralization of power. So at critical moments Putin has sought succor in Europe, particularly on issues that the Europeans and the Bush administration see very differently: the war in Iraq, the Middle East and global warming, to name three. And, like many Europeans, Putin has not exactly embraced Bush's call for spreading democracy around the world. He has chafed at periodic U.S. condemnations of his own moves to re-empower the Kremlin.
LOL - liberals are quick to downplay this good news and throw in some perceived bad news. I don't understand how you all get by day to day - always focusing on something negative, whether true or not. Sad. Blinded by bias.
This just means Kim did a cost analysis and came to the conclusion it's cheaper to just buy the stuff from the Iranians than make it himself
So I suppose that bias played no role in criticism of the Clinton Admin for having a "breakthrough" with NK.
The fact this is the outcome of the six-nation talk doesn't imply one bit that a direct two-way talk would yield less positive results. I'd be among the 1st to give Bush credit if it were the latter case. Moreover, although this is achieved under Bush administration, there isn't a slight indication that Bush himself had a handle on it. Contrasting to Richard Nixon's painstaking personal effort in rectifying the Sino-American relationship during the Cold War, the success (if it turns out to be true) should be more of a tribute to the career diplomats. Bush, if anthing, did quite the opposite when he declared North Korea was part of the Axis of Evil.
