Not unexpected, but certainly not encouraging. ______________________ North Korea Pulls Out of Non-Proliferation Treaty U.S., Allies Condemn Move, Work to Stem Crisis By Peter S. Goodman Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, January 10, 2003; 1:06 PM SEOUL, Jan. 10-North Korea today asserted that it was pulling out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the cornerstone of global efforts to halt the spread of atomic weapons, while rebuffing demands that it allow a return of U.N. inspectors to a reactor capable of producing nuclear materials that could be used to build a bomb. In a statement released by North Korea's official news agency this afternoon, the insular communist country claimed "freedom from the binding force of the safeguards accord with the International Atomic Energy Agency," the U.N. watchdog that monitors the 1970 treaty, which has more than 180 countries as signatories. North Korea's neighbors quickly condemned its announcement, and South Korea reinforced its policy of engagement, asserting that dialogue remains the most prudent way to pursue a peaceful end to the crisis. "The nuclear issue is tied to our life and death," said South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, whose "Sunshine Policy" of reconciliation with the North has placed him at odds with the Bush administration. "We must have the patience to resolve the issue peacefully." Shortly after making its announcement, North Korea unleashed a fresh barrage of sharp rhetoric, daring the United States to "a fire-to-fire standoff," while warning that "a new Korean War will finally lead to the Third World War," in a newspaper article carried in the official state press. The article cast U.S. effort to force North Korea to abandon its nuclear aspirations as part of its "strategy for domination" and it urged North Koreans to employ "vigilance against the reckless military and political moves of the U.S. warmongers." [ President Bush talked by phone Friday with President Jiang Zemin of China, one of North Korea's key allies, about the situation, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters in Washington, according to the Associated Press. "This binds us in common purpose," Bush told Jiang in the 15-minute conversation, Fleischer said. [For his part, Jiang "reiterated China's commitment to a non-nuclear Korean peninsula," he added.] Amid deepening concern over the unfolding confrontation on the Korean peninsula, officials from France and Britain today said the time had come to refer the matter to the Security Council for action. The council could impose consequences ranging from economic sanctions to force. "France condemns the decision of North Korea," Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said in a statement, before making a speech in Shanghai. "We have to make sure that North Korea will comply with its non-proliferation commitments. This is a critical condition, for the security and the stability in the Korean peninsula, in the region and in the world. The U.N. Security Council will have to address this new development." Speaking to reporters in Malaysia, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "We deplore the decision that's been announced today." An IAEA spokesman said today that North Korea's announcement "would surely trigger some reaction" from the agency, which has the ability to refer cases to the Security Council. On Monday, at an emergency meeting in Vienna, the IAEA extended North Korea a final chance to readmit its inspectors or face potential action from the Security Council. North Korea this evening rejected a report that it was prepared to reconsider its decision if the United States resumes shipments of fuel oil -- a formulation that had been reported as possible by a Seoul television station, citing a North Korean diplomat in Beijing. "That report is wrong," said a North Korean diplomat in Beijing. In its announcement, North Korea cast its actions as non-aggressive. "Though we pull out of the NPT, we have no intention to produce nuclear weapons and our nuclear activities at this stage will be confined only to peaceful purposes such as the production of electricity," it said. The practical impact of North Korea's withdrawal from the treaty, which it joined in 1985, would be to remove its nuclear programs from the monitoring authority of the United Nations, joining states such as Israel, Pakistan and India, which have nuclear weapons but are not signatories. The announcement followed a turn toward a more conciliatory stance from the Bush administration, which had previously renounced any negotiations unless North Korea first verifiably abandoned its nuclear programs and agreed to submit to inspections, but this week said it was prepared to enter into direct talks. But analysts pronounced the apparent mixed messages from Pyongyang as consistent with a North Korean pattern of engagement with the outside in which it escalates to force the attention of its adversaries, then offers to talk while continuing the escalation to keep the pressure on. The confrontation began when North Korea began reviving the Yongbyon plant last month, then dismantled U.N. monitoring cameras, expelling the inspectors and declaring its intent to begin reprocessing plutonium. "It is rather surprising that they are playing their cards so quickly," said Kim Tae Woo an arms control expert at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, a research group affiliated with the South Korean Defense Ministry. "This is almost the last card." The decision came as a particular surprise because North Korea made its announcement as its envoys were holding talks in Santa Fe, N.M., with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat and former U.N. ambassador, who has a history of negotiation with North Korea. "It's a typical North Korean negotiating strategy," said Kim Sung Han, a North Korea expert at the Institute for Foreign Affairs Security, a research group affiliated with the South Korean Foreign Ministry in Seoul. "At the very last minute, when everyone thinks it's time for them to accept, they escalate one last time to try to improve their bargaining position." North Korea's action also pushed the issue to unprecedented terrain: Never before has a country withdrawn from the treaty, although North Korea announced it would do so a decade ago, before a last-minute compromise with the United States. Still, diplomats and analysts here in South Korea's capital said the action, while alarming, fell short of taking North Korea beyond the so-called red line that would force the United States and its allies to seek the imposition of some form of punishment -- perhaps even military force -- via the Security Council. While the threat of that action has now been invoked, most read it as a way to pressure North Korea to bend. Two weeks ago, as North Korea began to revive its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, a Western diplomat speaking on condition that he not be named said North Korea would cross the red line were it to actually begin a step known as "reprocessing" -- that is, taking spent fuel rods removed from the reactor and extracting the plutonium they contain. North Korea has already said it plans to take that step, but so far, no information has emerged that it has. Asked on Thursday whether turning on the reprocessing plant still constituted the red line, a United States diplomat said: "It would be a very serious step. It would take us into a new dimension." Russia and China, North Korea's most important allies, have curtly dismissed as unproductive previous discussions from Washington about seeking to impose sanctions. Neither country seemed any more open to such an approach today, although both criticized North Korea's decision to pull out of the treaty. The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed "deep concern" about North Korea's decision and offered "hopes Pyongyang will listen to the single opinion of the world community, its neighbors and partners." A spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry said Beijing would "continue working to promote a peaceful solution." A North Korea expert at Beijing University, Jin Jingyi, said North Korea's decision to withdraw from the treaty, while unwelcome, would not be construed by Beijing as a step that warrants sanctions. "I don't think it's going to change China's policy," Jin said. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, in the midst of a state visit to Russia, called the development "very serious," adding that Japan planned to cooperate with South Korea, the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency to "demand that North Korea goes back on its decision." John Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of State for arms control and international security who is traveling in Thailand, said North Korea's decision was "not at all unexpected. The North Koreans were not adhering to the treaty when they were still a part of it." In a statement released tonight following a meeting of the Security Council, South Korea's Foreign Ministry said, "The government strongly warns of the danger of this move," and urged North Korea "to repeal immediately" its "withdrawal declaration and resolve this issue through dialogue." Some analysts suggested that North Korea's decision dealt a blow to South Korea's prestige, perhaps undermining its efforts to mediate a settlement. While South Korea has traditionally deferred to the United States on such matters, it has been particularly aggressive in trying to persuade the Bush administration to engage North Korea in dialogue this time, despite the president's refusal to negotiate. President-elect Roh Moo Hyun, who claimed a mandate to continue the "Sunshine Policy," has indicated that he intends to release a compromise plan aimed at resolving the dispute before he takes office on Feb. 25. "Unfortunately, before it even tries, North Korea has gone in a direction where the incoming South Korean government is irrelevant," said Lee Chung Min, an arms control expert at Yonsei University in Seoul. "I mean, what can they do at this juncture? All they ever had was the perception that they could persuade North Korea. That's obviously gone now." Australia, one of the few Western countries to maintain relations with North Korea, said it would send a delegation to Pyongyang next week to convey its concerns. At the IAEA, which monitors compliance with the treaty, North Korea's announcement occasioned examination of the fine print. Under the terms of the treaty, a country that wants to withdraw must inform other member countries and the Security Council, then wait 90 days before the withdrawal takes effect. In asserting today that its withdrawal takes effect immediately, North Korea appeared to be relying on its previous notification of its intent to withdraw in March 1993, according to a U.N. official. On the 89th day after that announcement, North Korea agreed to a compromise that allowed the inspectors to return. It then suspended its withdrawal notice. Now, North Korea is asserting that it can simply restart the clock on that final day and declare its withdrawal effective Saturday. Some U.N. authorities take issue with that argument and interpret the rules to mean that the treaty continues to apply to North Korea until a new 90-day period expires, the official said. Until then, the treaty could be used by the Security Council to justify action aimed at brining North Korea back into compliance. But ultimately, the official said, it is probably a moot point: The treaty lacks a permanent secretariat to hash out such issues. In the end, it comes down to the will of the members of the Security Council to decide what to do.
I dunno. As much as North Korea is creating a big f***ing mess, I can't say I'm surprised. Look at it from their perspective: (1) They were recently called an axis of evil by a very powerful country that has 40,000 troops on their border. (2) If they don't believe the Iraq WMD issue, then they see the US as trying to create a war against Iraq, who was also called an axis of evil country. (3) They probably figure they are next, and they damn well want to have some means to defend themselves. Nukes are their key to holding off the US. It's stupid, but from an outside perspective, it's not all unrealistic. They live in a part of the world that has been dominated by imperialist countries in the past (China, Japan) - it's not surprising they might see us the same way, right or wrong.
Krauthammer nails it again: When the secretary of state goes on five Sunday morning talk shows to deny that something is a crisis, it is a crisis. The administration has been playing down the gravity of North Korea's nuclear breakout, and for good reason. For now, there is little the administration can do. No point, therefore, in advertising our helplessness. But there is no overestimating the seriousness of the problem. If we did not have so many of our military assets tied up in the Persian Gulf, we would today have carriers off the coast of Korea and be mobilizing reinforcements for our garrison there. North Korea is about to go from a rogue state that may have one or two nuclear bombs hidden somewhere to one that is in the nuclear manufacturing business. And North Korea sells everything it gets its hands on. This is serious stuff. And the clock is ticking. We have no idea how far along the North Koreans are on their uranium enrichment program. But we know that when they fire up their plutonium reprocessing plant, they will be months away from creating a real nuclear arsenal. The problem is that we have few cards to play. Militarily we are not even in position to bluff. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was duty-bound to affirm America's capacity to fight two wars at once. Unfortunately, that capacity went by the boards at least a decade ago, and the North Koreans know it. It is precisely because they know it that they are using this window of opportunity, this moment of Iraqi distraction, to brazenly go nuclear. Moreover, even if we were not preoccupied in Iraq, we might find ourselves self-deterred from doing anything militarily against North Korea. Yes, we could bomb the nuclear processing plant in Yongbyon. Problem is, that would not destroy Pyongyang's entire capacity for producing nuclear weapons, the way the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor destroyed Iraq's. And given North Korea's propensity for using special operations, infiltration and sleeper agents (techniques it has used with success against South Korea), we have to imagine that it might retaliate with a smuggled nuclear weapon against American facilities or perhaps even against the American homeland. It might be suicidal. It is improbable. It is not impossible. That alone might deter us from a preemptive attack on Yongbyon. But even if nukes were not a consideration, we would be deterred by North Korea's conventional military capacity. Unlike Iraq, it has a serious army, a million strong and possessing thousands of artillery tubes, many hidden in caves, many that can reach -- and reduce -- Seoul. In other words, North Korea may already have passed the threshold to invulnerability from American attack. So, the administration has chosen a strategy of economic and diplomatic isolation. The idea is to squeeze the North Korean regime to the point where it can no longer function. That could be done. China supplies nearly all of North Korea's energy and 40 percent of its foodstuffs. South Korea has significant investments in North Korea. International organizations provide a huge amount of food aid. Moreover, North Korea has only a few major harbors. They could be blockaded. If China and South Korea were to cut off North Korea, it could not survive. The problem with this scenario is that South Korea and China do not want to play ball. They fear the chaos that might ensue. The American containment strategy was already falling apart on Day One, when both the South Korean president and the president-elect criticized it. The Chinese have been even more recalcitrant. They show no inclination to deny North Korea what it needs to survive. Even more ominously, Bill Gertz of the Washington Times reports that the Chinese have just shipped 20 tons of highly specialized chemicals used in extracting plutonium from spent reactor fuel. What to do when your hand is so poor? Play the trump. We do have one, but we dare not speak its name: a nuclear Japan. Japan cannot long tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea. Having once lobbed a missile over Japan, North Korea could easily hit any city in Japan with a nuclear-tipped weapon. Japan does not want to live under that threat. We should go to the Chinese and tell them plainly that if they do not join us in squeezing North Korea and thus stopping its march to go nuclear, we will endorse any Japanese attempt to create a nuclear deterrent of its own. Even better, we would sympathetically regard any request by Japan to acquire American nuclear missiles as an immediate and interim deterrent. If our nightmare is a nuclear North Korea, China's is a nuclear Japan. It's time to share the nightmares. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3921-2003Jan2.html
That's all great, Major. Except they effectively withdrew from the Treaty years ago when they built their first bomb, long before they were branded as part of the Axis.
While I agree with Major, this almost sounds like they want this to happen. Excuse me while I go dig a fallout shelter under my house.
In other words, North Korea may already have passed the threshold to invulnerability from American attack. So, the administration has chosen a strategy of economic and diplomatic isolation. The idea is to squeeze the North Korean regime to the point where it can no longer function. I agree with that guy's article. In the quote above, besides the issues he pointed out, I don't think this is a good idea because it's like poking a bear. If North Korea is crumbling, there's no incentive NOT to use their weapons or attack South Korea or whatnot. I think the solution is the exact opposite of what we're doing with Cuba & North Korea, and instead follow the philosophy we use with China. Engage them. Open up trading with them, immerse them in American products and American culture. If they are economically tied with us, they will never consider attacking us - trading partners generally don't want to screw up their economies. As American influence seeps in, it will hopefully cause social and political changes as we are seeing in China. It should be obvious at this point that sanctions & isolation don't create political change very well (Iraq, Cuba, North Korea).
I say give them what they want. I say just start bombing the **** out of them. Kill a few million, show the other countrys that we are not to be taken lightly.
That's all great, Major. Except they effectively withdrew from the Treaty years ago when they built their first bomb, long before they were branded as part of the Axis. True, but they did that quietly and covertly. It wasn't like they were trying to create a political mess. Keep in mind - they started this mess by coming out and saying "we have nuclear capability". It's not like we discovered this - it's almost like this is a pre-emptive "leave us the hell alone" statement / manuever. Just my opinion, though.
I say give them what they want. I say just start bombing the **** out of them. Kill a few million, show the other countrys that we are not to be taken lightly. If they drop a nuclear bomb on Seoul or Los Angeles, was it worth it?
I second this. I think the lesson is that pieces of paper are not going to deter anyone. They were probably building bombs while Carter was on his peace mission and while Clinton was buddying up wth them. As fas as what options the world has now, it doesn't look good. An attack could trigger retaliaton, isolation is too slow, and giving then normal relations is just rewarding them.
That's plausible. After all, we don't really know much about this government or what the heck their intentions are. He might really just want to be paid off.
Major, I don't think N. Korea wants to open up at all, do they? Good question -- I had just assumed we were isolating them with our policies, but perhaps not. That does take away that option if this is the case. They don't have the capability to do so in L.A. Not shooting one at us -- but the article pointed out the covert way of doing it. I don't know how possible it might be: <I>And given North Korea's propensity for using special operations, infiltration and sleeper agents (techniques it has used with success against South Korea), we have to imagine that it might retaliate with a smuggled nuclear weapon against American facilities or perhaps even against the American homeland. It might be suicidal. It is improbable. It is not impossible.</I>
Very unlikely given our superior monitoring intelligence...but that is probably their best avenue to do so.
