South Korea is a first world Democracy, and North Korea is a communist sh*thole. The Dictator of North Korea, in my opinion, is guilty of genocide. Where are the compassionate voices of the American Liberal on this matter? Perhaps they are planning a peace rally to keep the murderous governments of North Korea and Iraq from being replaced. North Korea- countless MILLIONS dead from starvation. Iraq- according to Amnesty International, 750,000 Iraqis have disappeared from a government purge of dissidants. Should America fight to prevent genocide on planet Earth? Should we have intervened in Rwanda? What about Tibet? I say there is NO better use of our tax dollars. By Jasper Becker in Beijing 05 January 2003 The United Nations food agency warned yesterday that supplies for some seven million people, a third of North Korea's population, will run out early next month without furtheraid. The news could worsen the crisis over North Korea's nuclear threats. "We only have firm commitments for 35,000 tons. This will be finished in early February, and then we might have to close shop," said Gerald Bourke, the spokesman for the UN World Food Programme (WFP) in Beijing. South Korea stopped food deliveries two months ago, after Pyongyang admitted running a secret nuclear weapons programme. Japan suspended aid after North Korea admitted kidnapping Japanese citizens. The WFP has cut three million people off from its aid programme. The hardest-hit are townspeople who can expect to get only 270 grams a day through North Korea's public distribution system, half the standard emergency food ration. The UN scaled back its 2003 appeal for North Korea by 16 per cent, to 512,000 tons of grain, but only the European Union and Italy individually have so far responded. North Korea has suffered from famine for a decade, and at least two million people have died of starvation. The US has been the largest contributor to emergency food deliveries over the past seven years which have fed nine million people a year. Although George Bush has said the US will not withhold food, the US Agency for International Development began insisting last June that North Korea meet the same conditions for aid that are mandatory elsewhere, such as providing a list of beneficiaries and unimpeded access for aid monitors. On this issue, however, as with efforts to defuse the nuclear crisis, there is deadlock. Last month North Korea expelled International Atomic Energy Authority monitors and restarted its Yongbyon plant, signalling its intention to build a nuclear arsenal. As the regime slips further into isolation, with just two flights a week to Pyongyang, South Korea has begun a round of diplomatic meetings to find a solution. It held talks yesterday in Moscow and has also dispatched a mission to Washington. According to a South Korean newspaper, Munhwa Ilbo, Seoul is presenting a "three-stage" mediation proposal – a US guarantee of the North's security and fuel oil supplies in return for an end to the nuclear weapons programme; international economic assistance; and a multinational security guarantee for the North, including from China and Russia. But the Bush administration has repeated that it will not negotiate another deal with North Korea, which it says cheated on a 1994 pact. "We have no intention to sit down and bargain again, to pay for this horse again," said the State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher. "We are not entering into negotiations ... to get them to commit to something that they've already committed to." North Korea blames the US for the dispute, which it said yesterday was serious and unpredictable. Its ambassador to China repeated demands that Washington agree to a non-aggression treaty.
I agree that the people in North Korea shouldn't be made to suffer for the sins of their government. The problem is that we can't simply go into North Korea with six-shooters blazing. This is a delicate part of the world and we must consider China. We need to get backing from our allies and from the neighbors of North Korea. After that...we should do what needs to be done...whatever is decided it should be.
Somehow it's always America's fault... The North Korean party line sounds like a drug addict who complains about not getting enough welfare. Only a drug addict doesn't have control over millions of people who are scared and disillusioned. Invading N. Korea isn't as easy as it sounds. If we were to blitz the North Koreans and end their miserable Communist existance on one sunny day with no casualties, there still would be reprecautions. The people are dirt poor and need billions to reconstruct its infrastructure. Think of Japan without the unity or the educated masses. The ones footing the bill is mostly going to be from the conquering army. Reconstruction means that there's a constant millitary presence. To this day, the funding for Afghanistan is considered underfunded considering the size of Afghanistan (close to Texas) and the scope of their squalor. The US only has so much that they can fund. Other nations will bristle at the problem that they didn't want and was brought upon them, just like Afghanistan. Everytime we invade someone, the neighbors will worry. The fact that we invaded someone and are still there, even for the cause of reconstruction, will offend every neighbor who thinks this could've been solved "diplomatically". They aren't crying over diplomacy. They're crying for the sake of their hides. There's a rivalry growing between China and US. Don't assume that the Chinese will ignore their nice little buffer between Japan is gone. Or the fact that a hundred thousand or so American troops will be stationed near their border for an undisclosed number of time. It would be scarier to them than the possibility of N. Korean nukes. Oh yeah, the nukes. I said if we invaded on a "sunny day". Not on a day when the desperate N. Korean millitary unleashes their plutonium on our soldiers in some form or another. The difference between Iraq and N. Korea is that the aftermath for conquering Iraq is more containable than it is for N. Korea. Iraqis have huge oil reserves that can fund their reconstruction. The N. Koreans have nothing but illegal weapons that only has value in the black market. In other words, they have no commodity to build on whatsoever.
Where is the compassionate voice of the American President who favors regime change in Iraq and "negotiation" with North Korea?
The North Korean government asked to negotiate and Bush told them that there would be no negotiations. So the facts you base your opinion on here are faulty.
The North Korean government asked to negotiate and Bush told them that there would be no negotiations. So the facts you base your opinion on here are faulty. What?? The Bush admin keeps saying they aren't going to negotiate, but at the same time, they say this will be resolved diplomatically. Someone forgot to tell Bush that diplomacy IS negotiation. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030105/ap_wo_en_po/as_gen_japan_us_nkorea_1 Japan, U.S. agree to resolve North Korea crisis through diplomacy, official says
uh I think Bush means that N. Korea isn't going to "win" anything because of these programs they have and that his idea of diplomacy is that in return for N. Korea tearing down their weapons programs, they will be not be wiped of the map
<i>The Agreed Framework</i> in 1994 had the KEDO group provide things to DPRK in return for their nuclear program being neutered. <A HREF="http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/koreaaf.htm">Agreed Framework Between the United States of America and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea October 21, 1994</A> <i>Delegations of the Governments of the United States of America (U.S.) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) held talks in Geneva from September 23 to October 17, 1994, to negotiate an overall resolution of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. Both sides reaffirmed the importance of attaining the objectives contained in the August 12, 1994 Agreed Statement between the U.S. and the DPRK and upholding the principles of the June 11, 1993 Joint Statement of the U.S. and the DPRK to achieve peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. The U.S. and the DPRK decided to take the following actions for the resolution of the nuclear issue: I. Both sides will cooperate to replace the DPRK's graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities with light-water reactor (LWR) power plants. 1) In accordance with the October 20, 1994 letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S. will undertake to make arrangements for the provision to the DPRK of a LWR project with a total generating capacity of approximately 2,000 MW(e) by a target date of 2003. -- The U.S. will organize under its leadership an international consortium to finance and supply the LWR project to be provided to the DPRK. The U.S., representing the international consortium, will serve as the principal point of contact with the DPRK for the LWR project. -- The U.S., representing the consortium, will make best efforts to secure the conclusion of a supply contract with the DPRK within six months of the date of this Document for the provision of the LWR project. Contract talks will begin as soon as possible after the date of this Document. -- As necessary, the U.S. and the DPRK will conclude a bilateral agreement for cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. 2) In accordance with the October 20, 1994 letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S., representing the consortium, will make arrangements to offset the energy foregone due to the freeze of the DPRK's graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities, pending completion of the first LWR unit. -- Alternative energy will be provided in the form of heavy oil for heating and electricity production. -- Deliveries of heavy oil will begin within three months of the date of this Document and will reach a rate of 500,000 tons annually, in accordance with an agreed schedule of deliveries. 3) Upon receipt of U.S. assurances for the provision of LWR's and for arrangements for interim energy alternatives, the DPRK will freeze its graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities and will eventually dismantle these reactors and related facilities. -- The freeze on the DPRK's graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities will be fully implemented within one month of the date of this Document. During this one-month period, and throughout the freeze, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be allowed to monitor this freeze, and the DPRK will provide full cooperation to the IAEA for this purpose. -- Dismantlement of the DPRK's graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities will be completed when the LWR project is completed. -- The U.S. and DPRK will cooperated in finding a method to store safely the spent fuel from the 5 MW(e) experimental reactor during the construction of the LWR project, and to dispose of the fuel in a safe manner that does not involve reprocessing in the DPRK. 4) As soon as possible after the date of this document. U.S. and DPRK experts will hold two sets of experts talks. -- At one set of talks, experts will discuss issues related to alternative energy and the replacement of the graphite-moderated reactor program with the LWR project. -- At the other set of talks, experts will discuss specific arrangements for spent fuel storage and ultimate disposition. II. The two sides will move toward full normalization of political and economic relations. 1) Within three months of the date of this Document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions. 2) Each side will open a liaison office in the other's capital following resolution of consular and other technical issues through expert level discussions. 3) As progress is made on issues of concern to each side, the U.S. and DPRK will upgrade bilateral relations to the Ambassadorial level. III. Both sides will work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. 1) The U.S. will provide formal assurances to the DPRK, against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. 2) The DPRK will consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. 3) The DPRK will engage in North-South dialogue, as this Agreed Framework will help create an atmosphere that promotes such dialogue. IV. Both sides will work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. 1) The DPRK will remain a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and will allow implementation of its safeguards agreement under the Treaty. 2) Upon conclusion of the supply contract for the provision of the LWR project, ad hoc and routine inspections will resume under the DPRK's safeguards agreement with the IAEA with respect to the facilities not subject to the freeze. Pending conclusion of the supply contract, inspections required by the IAEA for the continuity of safeguards will continue at the facilities not subject to the freeze. 3) When a significant portion of the LWR project is completed, but before delivery of key nuclear components, the DPRK will come into full compliance with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA (INFCIRC/403), including taking all steps that may be deemed necessary by the IAEA, following consultations with the Agency with regard to verifying the accuracy and completeness of the DPRK's initial report on all nuclear material in the DPRK. Kang Sok Ju- Head of the Delegation for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, First Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Robert L. Gallucci- Head of the Delegation of United States of America, Ambassador at Large of the United States of America </i> .........According to a South Korean newspaper, Munhwa Ilbo, Seoul is presenting a "three-stage" mediation proposal – a US guarantee of the North's security and fuel oil supplies in return for an end to the nuclear weapons programme; international economic assistance; and a multinational security guarantee for the North, including from China and Russia. Major, The part about guaranteeing the security of DPRK is a no-brainer because conquering DPRK would be messy and the winner would be stuck with the bill as noted previously in this thread and by many foreign policy analysts over the years. I fail to see how that is negotiating something that was already implicitly known. The part about fuel oil shipments to offset the shuttered reactor was already in place in the 1994 agreement, so nothing new there. Exactly what is the <b>United States</b> providing in the proposal from <b>Seoul</b> that wasn't already provided for in the 1994 <i>Agreed Framework</i>? If the U.S. agreed to withdraw forces or made a <b>new economic concession</b>, then I would agree they were cutting a new deal (negotiating). with DPRK.
When Rumsfeld signs deployment orders for a build up of troops in South Korea to force regime change then maybe you'll be right.
