What to do about North Korea?

Politics International Politics
1

so to take a break from iraq for a sec, what should we do about north korea? haven’t heard anything about north korea from the anti-us crowd for a while. i think they’re still trying to figure out a way to paint this as the fault of the us. :smiley: dear leader’s making it hard with his daily outbursts, though.

in fact, the us is doing EVERYTHING that the multilateralists have always dreamed of. insisting that the problem be worked out with nk’s neighbors. suggesting courses of action be agreed on through the un and in accordance with china, russia, japan, and south korea. meanwhile, the euros and the asians are like deers staring at headlights. nobody wants to do anything and they all insist that the us resolve it unilaterally. huh?

the south koreans, most of all, are astounding. after all those protests expressing resentment at washington not taking their views into account, the outgoing pres demands that the us talk to the north and solve it by ourselves! i guess they’ll keep doing their part by bribing north korean officials into summits to present a good show. aren’t allies grand?

so what does the “peace is groovy” crowd think should be done? come on, step up, don’t be shy.

*notice i said “should be done” as in suggest a course of action. “it’s all bush’s fault” is not a course of action.

2

Excellent post Flipper. You hit the nail on the head. :sunglasses:

3

they would like us to negotiate with nk again so that when nk ignores their end of any agreement that is made and do whatever they intended to do in the first place the us looks like the bullwinkle the moose of realpolitik again and they take none of the blame. when they percieve the situation as unfavorable to their electoral chances again they will implore us to negotiate again.

4

anyone?

come on cake, embryo, popo…

i know it’s hard to think of something to say when there’s not a big anti-us angle to it, but you can give it a shot.

i mean, cake, you’re bringing up a failed plot by the us against albania in the 40’s. you MUST have some opinion about what to do with north korea. quick, do a google search and see if pilger or chomsky have said anything you can parrot.

dear leader is as perfect a dictator as you can script. his people starve by the millions as he funnels all the country’s money into arms programs and $600 cognac for himself. he rounds up a group of virgins every year to entertain himself and his top aides. he has built a bizzare personality cult unmatched anywhere else on earth. he has threatened to attack various countries in angry, unpredictable outbursts.

you guys care so much about the iraqi people, what about the north korean people? i mean, you’re protesting the deaths of iraqis that might occur in the future, but MILLIONS of north koreans are dying of starvation as we speak!!!

you guys all seem to know what the us has done WRONG in the last 100 years, how about give us some insight on how this should be handled correctly. do you have any constructive ideas or is it all about sitting back and sniping at others?

edit: just correcting some left over grammatical errors…

5

:laughing:

An admirable gauntlet… beautifully thrown, too, I might add.

I fear that the answer may be that the plight of the N. Koreans has something to do with a CIA plot in Antarctica to slaughter large numbers of flatulent Penguins, thereby releasing gases to create a hole in the ozone layer, which they could subsequently drag across to North Asia by overbuilding the Western hemisphere, starving the East, and tilting the axis of the earth. The N. Korean’s having got wind of the plot on www.rense.com quite sensibly retreated to their opulent underground palaces, where they live in self-sufficient, communal splendour and are not starving at all thank you very much.

6

what i’d like the US to do is hold up its end of the agreement they made with north korea in 1994 that ended the previous crisis. [link here]

just to run down the Geneva Agreed Framework, the US, in return for a freezing of the North Korean nuclear program (as would be determined by the International Atomic Energy Agency), were to build light-water reactors for North Korea. those reactors were to be used to provide energy for the country but were not to be capable of creating weapons-grade materials. in addition, both countries were to work towards normalizing relations yet, as THIS article emphasizes, not only did the US not hold up its end of the bargain on building the reactors, they (we :-() also did wonders for international relations by announcing that north korea was part of the so-called ‘axis of evil’. bush wouldn’t even state that nukes were out of the question.

once the US reneged on its part of the deal, north korea did the same. as they stared at that hole in the ground that was to be a nuclear reactor with power by 2004, they did what i believe they did b4 the 1994 accord: they resumed their nuclear program to force the west to help them out.

so, to avoid this political hotseat, this threat to humanity, i’d like for the US to do what millions of people around this world do daily: keep their word. they said they’d build the reactors, so build them! this shouldn’t even have come to this, and if bush wasn’t talking s$#@ all the time…

and then again, when has the US had a habit of respecting the treaties it makes? the only thing guaranteed coming from the gov’t. is police surveillance and a meager return on treasury bonds.

7

I think you have to delve a little more into the details of the problems with the agreement.

The US did put together a consortium. Work did start on the reactors. In the meantime, the international community agreed to supply shipments of oil to meet heating and fuel needs. Nevertheless, there were constant arguments with the North korean government over costs for the work on the reactors (what infrastructure project does not suffer from delays/budget suqabbles?) the N. Korean Government cited these delays as a breach of the agreement and thus refused inspections of the new plants, which were required under the treaty before any of the “serious hardware” was installed.

Then N. Korea restarted its nuclear weapons programme, which was later discovered by the US and led to the suspension of fuel shipments.

Does this amount to a serious, unprincipled breach of its agreement with N. Korea by the international consortium? One that could not have been sorted out without the N. Koreans secretly restarting their nuclear weapons programme?

I had a look at the site to which you posted alink - and it seems quite interesting - so thanks for that. In another editorial on that same site, it suggests that the international consortium may have been “dithering over our end of the bargain” precisely because there was already evidence that N. Korea had IMMEDIATELY restarted a uranium enrichment programme.

So, I think it is a bit rich to say that the US simply reneged on the deal and caused all the problems. It is certainly not borne out by other evidence and comment from the very site that you visted. So, why the (highly) selective link?

8

so the course of action you advocate is to have the us build 2 light water nuclear reactors and the crisis is solved? fair enough(though confused on the facts since groundbreaking on the sites for the reactors has already taken place).

btw, it was the south koreans who were supposed to build the reactors(the us was supposed to facilitate the process as agreed under the framework, but the south koreans picked up most of the cost wile negotiating with the us to contribute a token amount). groundbreaking on the reactors took place in august 19, 1997. north korea’s secret nuclear program started in 1995 with the trade of missle technology to pakistan for uranium enrichment technology.:

fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/

fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/IB91141.pdf

i think it would help the discourse if you could link things which contain facts and figures instead of analysis or editorials written by college professors. funny you didn’t bother quoting the rest of the fas.org site since there’s a wealth of items on there that contain facts and figures.

9

I thought NK threaten of nuclear war if UN decided to involve in the debate. It seems that NK wants to deal only with US.

10

ok, so the situatinn is more complex than i had thought. frankly, just having arrived here, i haven’t had the time to read up on it as much as i should have to discuss this. can you direct me to any texts on the development?

now as far as dealing with this…for one, i’d have bush stop talking all this ‘axis of evil’ nonesense…that dope who came up with that phrase, to encourage people to engage in simplistic thinking of this sort…well, that’s all in the past now.

well, of course, i’d say there’s no room for war here. as far as what needs to happen to the north korean citizens…something needs to be done. but military conquest is not one of them. and if the u.s. had a CONSISTENT history of military action for humanitarian purposes, i’d say go ahead and go in. but there is unrest and mass murder happening worldwide, including within its borders (with a poverty level unbefitting of its wealth), and so the US, as it has the prerogative to do, is choosy when it enters a foray in another land.

and with n. koreans formidable army, it makes any kind of military entrance, even for a humanitarian purpose (if one can call war humanitarian), questionable. and since the n. korean leader seems to be none too pleased to stay in his position…

i’d support a covert coup, i’d support even an assassination (i can’t believe i’m even writing this) because the crimes he’s committed against his people are horrifying. but i wouldn’t support nuking the place, come on! if the US can orchestrate coups worldwide, it could depose a leader if it so desired. at that point, let the people - who’d perhaps feel empowered to fight for their own freedom, rather than let the u.s. create their freedom for them - decide their own course of action.

11

I insert part of a report of a 1998 joint US-South Korea comminique to show the sorts of problems that the US had getting N. Korea to adhere to its side of the bargain:

[quote]AT A JOINT NEWS CONFERENCE, MR. KIM – SPEAKING THROUGH A TRANSLATOR – AND MR. CLINTON MADE CLEAR THEY ARE TROUBLED BY PYONGYANG’S RECENT DECISION TO BAR INSPECTION OF A SUSPECTED UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR SITE AND ITS LAUNCH OF A MISSILE OVER JAPAN LAST AUGUST.

                       // KIM ACTUALITY //

     WE, THE TWO HEADS OF STATE, WE MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE 
     WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY POSSIBLE ATTEMPT OF NORTH KOREA TO
     PROLIFERATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, MISSILES AN OTHER WEAPONS 
     OF MASS DESTRUCTION. 

                     // CLINTON ACTUALITY //

     NORTH KOREA'S RECENT ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE TAEPODONG 
     MISSILE LAUNCH  AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SUSPECT 
     UNDERGROUND FACILITY, ARE CAUSE FOR  DEEP CONCERN.  WE 
     HAVE MADE IT CLEAR TO PYONGYANG THAT IT MUST  SATISFY 
     OUR CONCERNS AND THAT FURTHER PROVOCATIONS WILL  THREATEN THE PROGRESS WE HAVE MADE.

                         // END ACTS //

PYONGYANG – WHICH SAYS THE UNDERGROUND FACILITY IS FOR CIVILIAN, NON-NUCLEAR PURPOSES – HAS OFFERED TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE SITE ONLY IF IT IS PAID SOME 300 MILLION DOLLARS, A CONDITION U-S OFFICIALS HAVE REJECTED.

THE UNITED STATES AND SOUTH KOREA FEAR THE NORTH MAY BE RESUMING A NUCLEAR PROGRAM IN VIOLATION OF A 1994 AGREEMENT. UNDER THE PACT, NORTH KOREA HAS AGREED TO FREEZE ITS NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES IN EXCHANGE FOR FREE FUEL AND TWO NUCLEAR REACTORS SUPPLIED BY A GLOBAL CONSORTIUM.[/quote]

12

Tough, as the intelligence on either side is poor. One person who seems to have a good grasp of North korea (and is by no means blindly anatgonistic to them is Donald Gregg, a former US Ambassador. I am not aware if he has written any public articles recently.

Michael Breen also writes about the North koreans - the historical context.

For an unappreciative look at Korean society (North or South) try P.J. O’Rourke. Very funny - funny enough to get him banned from travelling there though.

13

Well, I saw Die Another Day, and I can tell you on good authority that the North Koreans have all these diamonds, right? and they have this thing that can make them into white people, right? And they’re really dead hard and they have these great big rifles that can blow up buildings, and Jaguar convertibles that have rocket launchers in the boot and they can even use satellites to reflect the sun like a giant magnifying glass, so they really don’t even need nukes at all. Its just a ploy to take the heat off their real agenda.

14

:wink: …to empty out a few of the feathers stuffing your tummy, Flipper, I would take you to task over the notion that I represent a typically anti-American attitude. In fact, so long as I live, some of my favorite human beings are likely to remain quite at home in America, etc… And please: neither would I approve if you made me out as one who seeks to fulfill somebody’s concept of the prophet of doom; nor, indeed, would I wilfully try to cast a spell, or weave my opinions above the tattered shrouds of somebody else’s “wisdom.”

In fact, I would slip in Cicero’s shoes and smile as I listened to beautiful Catullus bequeath his faith to a foreign whore… …Yes, the same old divisions wrack the minds of mortal men. What’s his name, old Anthony Quinn used to complain of American women, for example: he often said that he wouldn’t want to waste his time with such bitches… Well, now, I would disagree sharply with dead Anthony, just so long as you could get the girls over to Europe for a few months, to get gang-banged by some obliging middle eastern refugees… Then bring 'em back and feed me up the spice of yer life, dear flip… I am telling you, have you ever read Dos Passos? His book America is fun to read, and you can get through all 1200 pages in less than 45 days, at a leisurely pace; 20, if you read a few hours a day…

Since I am asked, I must contribute an opinion pertinent to this column. I hope that my idea fulfills all your preconceptions to a Teeee, all of you darling wisemen, who so deeply understand the true-fighting nature of all red-blooded sapiens…

I declare, forthwith, the united states should immediatley withdraw all the american boys getting bored on the NK and SK border. Let them go home to hang-out in strip clubs and pork a few blondes for a change. I say, let the soldiers go home so that the NK and SKoreans can be given some breathing space to defuse their conflict naturally. I think that the presence of all those foreign soldiers is a great hindrance to the ultimate resolution of the stale deadlock that is frustrating both (the same) Korean peoples, north and south…

Okay, flip-mode! Over and – I’m still out!

Gimme free-loving Helen,
limby & liberal,
a long mess of blonde!
and I’ll hock Troy cheaper than you’all,
even Jimbo’s old dad!

PPPPPPOOOOOPPPPPPPOOOOOPPPPPPPPOOOOOOPPPPPPPOOOOOOPPPPP

15

Wow! You are really smart!

And you would continue to hold this opinion despite the fact that the South Korean President has asked the Americans to stay and the North Koreans currently want to deal only with the US?

16

Yes, of course… I really think that the presence of the American troop greatly inflames the chances of conflict in the region. They should go home as soon as possible!

17

Bomb the country with packets of beans and rice. The packets could have messages written on them such as “from your friends in the USA/Japan/other country”. Once the North Korean people aren’t starving anymore they might be able to realise how crazy their government is and overthrow it!!!

18

Yeah, yeah so N Korea is a big military threat (bigger that Iraq), they do have scary WMD shit happening (worse than Iraq), they are really repressive and nasty (worse than Iraq), they do supply weapons to loads of bad guys (worse than Iraq), something does need to be done (much mroe urgently than with Iraq. So Flipper, DaltonGang etc you guys are bringing this up to prove what? That the US should go to war with Iraq while conveniently sidelining this more serious problem? And what about China? (and so many more)

And who’s your ‘we’ in “what should we do?”

We the Segue community, we the USA, we the UN or We (are) the World?

Give me your answers to these questions and I’ll give you my already carefully thought out answer to your question (I’ll give you a clue. It starts with an ‘F’ and ends with a ‘uck Knows’.

Brian

19

Sounds like someone had a bit of poster’s envy. Not seeing your name up there enough are you?

20

[quote=“Sir Donald Bradman”] …something does need to be done (much mroe urgently than with Iraq. So Flipper, DaltonGang etc you guys are bringing this up to prove what?..
[/quote]

that’s the point. all the people who are saying “north korea is the bigger problem, we should deal with that first” have no good suggestions for what exactly we should be doing. in fact, the “deal with north korea first” people are all avid multilateralists and avoid mentioning the fact that EVERY country in the world has decided that north korea is a us problem and have been pushing the us to deal with it ourselves.

the fact that you would get annoyed that i bring this up is odd. you want us to deal with north korea first, so i asked for suggestions on what we should do.

“we” as in the united states since every other country in the world, including south korea, has abdicated responsibility on the issue.