What's up with North Korea?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: It was in all the News Luvian, North Korea publicly admitted it to international press, some 20 or 30 tourists had been abducted over several years. Some were children, some young women, some middle age men...it was quite the international scandal..I think it was announced in november or december. You can do a google search..I have a lunch date in 5 minutes or would hunt for a link for you.

It happened 30 YEARS AGO! Which by my reckoning is a long time before the 1994 agreement - or even before the US first approached North Korea in the 80's over its nuclear power program.

What's more - North Korea admitted to the fact of the abductions and allowed the abductees to return home (recently) - as a direct result of the 'sunshine policy'. Thanks to GWB that reform process is now dead in the water...[/QUOTE]Although I don't ignore what your saying, I must say that regarding the kidnappings.....

While the kidnappings were 30 years ago, as you meantion, they only recently admitted the acts and allowed those taken to return to their homes. That means that they've held them illegally for the past 30 years. Just as bad or worse than the initial kidnapping I'd say, and it went on during the entire timeline you've outlined.

Are you trying to say because they took them 30 years ago, it was ok to keep them and shouldn't matter because they've let some go now?

Originally posted by Memnoch: Now now, let's not lose our cools, eh? And Majik, I don't think that Ar-Cunin and Skunk are necessarily trying to stir the pot - I'll be the judge of that. They just happen to share an opposing viewpoint to yours (don't worry, I've reading a few threads). Their viewpoint may be unpopular and is probably ill-informed and naive, but they are entitled to it, as long as they don't flame anybody. I'm sure they wouldn't stir the pot by using exaggeration or disinformation, knowing the dire consequences of such actions. Skunk and Ar-Cunin: you guys wouldn't be trying to stir the pot now, would you? I didn't think so. Cool heads, please, from everyone. We're doing well with a touchy topic - let's not ruin it, eh? [img]smile.gif[/img]

No heat was intended, I was actually just giving up in frustration. I apologize if it sounded angry, but it wasn't. No more debate from me, at least for a while on the issues.

[Skunk]

And Majik, I don't think that Ar-Cunin and Skunk are necessarily trying to stir the pot - I'll be the judge of that. They just happen to share an opposing viewpoint to yours (don't worry, I've reading a few threads). Their viewpoint may be unpopular and is probably ill-informed and naive, but they are entitled to it, as long as they don't flame anybody. I'm sure they wouldn't stir the pot by using exaggeration or disinformation, knowing the dire consequences of such actions. Skunk and Ar-Cunin: you guys wouldn't be trying to stir the pot now, would you?

Cetainly not stirring. I am merely trying to put the 'crisis' into perspective. My argument is that by simply taking the crisis starting-point as October 2002, we fail to get a full picture of the events that led to it.
Neither am I demonising the US - it certainly has reasonable grounds for fearing a nuclear-armed North Korea.
However, my argument is that it is a policy of 'containment' (which involved breaking the 1994 agreement), followed by GWB's public anti-NK rhetoric which led to this crisis.

After being provided with evidence, didn't the NKs admit to continuing their program almost immediately after the '94 agreement?

Before you go on to read my response, you will need to study the text of the 1994 Agreed Framework. You can find the text here: http://www.kedo.org/pdfs/AgreedFramework.pdf

You might also want to refer to the text of the THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
( NPT ) Available here: http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html

Firstly, let's deal with your point. North Korea has NEVER denied that it has mothballed nuclear research facilities nor that it has never destroyed the research that it had carried out in the past. Under the terms of the NPT, this is not illegal - only further research work would be. To date there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of North Korea continuing the research of nuclear weapons either. Can we agree that so far all of this is true?

OK, your sticking point - the 'revelation' of current weapons research.
"The North Korean official then shocked Kelly when he looked at him and said "something to the effect of, 'Your president called us a member of the axis of evil. ... Your troops are deployed on the Korean peninsula. ... Of course, we have a nuclear program,'" according to the senior administration source, who was briefed on the meeting."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea/

North Korea later OFFICIALLY denies it:
"The claim that we admitted developing nuclear weapons is an invention fabricated by the U.S. with sinister intentions," South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted the official Rodong Sinmun newspaper as saying.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/stories...112korea.shtml

So what is going on here? Do they or don't they have a current weapons research program. Let's look at what the offical is supposed to have said once more:
"'Your president called us a member of the axis of evil. ... Your troops are deployed on the Korean peninsula. ... Of course, we have a nuclear program,'"

South East Asian Culture, whether you're talking about Hong Kong, North/South Korea, Japan etc have one thing in common - the importance of 'face'. When you insult someone from this culture PUBLICLY or threaten them PUBLICLY - their reaction (by Western standards) is quite abbreviated. Whatever happens they will do all that they can to ensure that there no loss of public 'face'.
(There is an interesting article you might want to read about this from the South East Asian Times (Korea crisis: Straight shooter and loss of face)
This official (to my mind) felt that he had lost 'face' and reacted as most people from this culture tend to do under similar circumstances - he said whatever he thought that he thought was neccessary to regain 'face' - even if it was a lie. He reaction was certainly angry.

Right now, we do NOT know whether North Korea had re-opened it's research facilities or not. We do NOT know whether they have since re-opened them. North Korea denies it.

But what caused all the irritation (apart from the 'Axis of Evil' rhetoric) in the first place? Let's turn to the Agreed Framework treaty and go through it clause by clause and see who has lived up to their side of the agreement (or not, as the case may be). We will for the moment leave the question of the nuclear research to one side.

Article 1.1
This states that the US will lead a consortium to build to Light Water Reactors. So far, only the foundations have been laid.

Article 1.2
Provides that 500,000 tons of fuel oil will be given to NK pending the completion of the LWR's. This part was lived up to (althouth shipments WERE OFTEN held up - causing 'brown-outs' in NK).

Article 1.3
North Korea was to mothball its Heavy Water nuclear plants, and store the spent fuel rods. NK was to allow monitoring of these sites by the IAEA.
North Korea did comply.
(North Korea is later to dismantle it's old plants when the LWR plants are complete - not done, since LWR's are not complete)

Article 2.1
The US and NK will move towards normal trade and political relations.
The US did not live up to this side of the bargain - normal trade relations have not been implemented - there are still many areas where US companies may not operate within. Many goods and services may not be supplied to NK

Article 3.1
The US will provide NK with formal assurances against nuclear threat.
Not sure about this one - but I've never heard of such assurances or treaties. Can someone counter this?

Article 3.2
NK will make the region nuclear weapons free.
So far there is no physical evidence that this has not been done (yeah I know, this one you contest based on the official's 'statement')

Article 3.3
NK will invoke peace dialogue with South
NK lived up to this part (until Oct at least)

Article 4
Apart from living up to the NPT (contested by yourself), NK is to only allow full IAEA inspections compliance when a significant part of the LWR project is complete. Since only the foundations have been laid, NK has only allowed monitoring and inspections of its experiemental reactor, the reprocessing facilitiy and the rod storage facility (until OCT that is).
So North Korea was in compliance.

From the NK point of view,
1. The US did not provide the oil in a timely fashion, linking it to various constraints that fell outside of the agreement
2. It didn't normalise trading relations
3. (and most importantly) the US never built the promised LWR reactors...

But why wouldn't the US be interested in living up to its part of the agreement? Probably becausee it already has what it wanted.
North Korea had shut down its nuclear plant - so no further weapons grade nuclear material was being produced.
It shut down its nuclear weapons reasearch programme - so no threat there either.

North Korea was effectively 'contained'. What's more, without the cheap LWR's North Korea's economy was 'boxed in' - it could not supply enough electricity to keep the wheels of industry turning - thus making it weaker in the long run.
Naturally, the US wanted to keep this state of affairs going for as long as possible.

Equally natural for NK, this state of affairs could not be tolerated for ever.

[ 01-24-2003, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Skunk]

Although I don't ignore what your saying, I must say that regarding the kidnappings..... While the kidnappings were 30 years ago, as you meantion, they only recently admitted the acts and allowed those taken to return to their homes. That means that they've held them illegally for the past 30 years. Just as bad or worse than the initial kidnapping I'd say, and it went on during the entire timeline you've outlined. Are you trying to say because they took them 30 years ago, it was ok to keep them and shouldn't matter because they've let some go now?

I missed this post. I couldn't agree with you more that NK's kidnapping was a disgusting and indefensible violation of human rights. Their release was 30 years OVERDUE. The fact that they finally released them DOES NOT LET THEM OFF THE HOOK!! (not by my standards anyway).

But I do think that the very fact that they publically admitted to it (never mind releasing them), is an enormous step forward for North Korea. A breakthrough of proportions that no-one could have believed possible a mere 10 years ago. It seemed to be the start of something postive, a postitve action - rather than just rhetoric.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: South East Asian Culture, whether you're talking about Hong Kong, North/South Korea, Japan etc have one thing in common - the importance of 'face'. When you insult someone from this culture PUBLICLY or threaten them PUBLICLY - their reaction (by Western standards) is quite abbreviated. Whatever happens they will do all that they can to ensure that there no loss of public 'face'. (There is an interesting article you might want to read about this from the South East Asian Times (Korea crisis: Straight shooter and loss of face) This official (to my mind) felt that he had lost 'face' and reacted as most people from this culture tend to do under similar circumstances - he said whatever he thought that he thought was neccessary to regain 'face' - even if it was a lie. He reaction was certainly angry. Right now, we do NOT know whether North Korea had re-opened it's research facilities or not. We do NOT know whether they have since re-opened them. North Korea denies it.

We don't know, and they deny it, but they also admitted to it, so while I think the cultural aspect is interesting, I don't think it a good excuse or explanation.

Aren't their international politicians suppose to understand things beyond their way of thinking as well? Shouldn't those officials who deal with the US have some understanding of the way to negotiate with us versus a negotiation with China versus a negotiation with France?

We should understand this aspect of their culture, but they can't be expected to understand the effect the statement would have here based on our culture?

Wouldn't lying cause a bigger loss of "face" for the politician amongst his peers if they knew he was lying?

[Skunk]

Wouldn't lying cause a bigger loss of "face" for the politician amongst his peers if they knew he was lying?

You would think so wouldn't you? But no, they probably would have patted him on the back and said: "I can understand why you said that - had it been me, I would have done the same".

Some years ago, I was working on a major project in Singapore. One of the engineers submitted changes to the designs to me, explaining that the changes were neccessary. Because of a number of problems their was no 'reserve time' left for the changes - the project would over-run by one day (according to this engineer). He me told twice - in front of his colleagues - that he would need just that extra day. I went back to the UK for a meeting - and returned four days later to an extremely 'unhappy' client - because the changes actually ended up taking an extra 3 days.

So I went back to the engineer 'bristling with anger' and shouted at him in front of his colleauges (BAD MOVE - shouldn't do that ever - but I was inexperienced): "Why the *&^%! is it late? Why didn't you *&^%##!@ing call me to let me know and to explain!!!!"
He denied ever saying that it would only take a one day - his colleauges agreed with him - we ALL knew he was lying. Then they went on a 'go-slow' - threatening other projects in the pipeline. It was only when another (Asian) manager pulled me aside and gave me some grounding in culture that I understood my mistake - and what to do about it.
I had to apologise to him - in public - and say that I must have been mistaken (it hurt - but I didn't want to lose my bonus or my job) - and I learnt a lesson in labour relations.

I do not know what happened with North Korea and its alleged weapons program - maybe its true and maybe it isn't.

We should understand this aspect of their culture, but they can't be expected to understand the effect the statement would have here based on our culture?

That's true - they should. But Bush should have been warned by his political advisors just how the 'Axis-of-Evil' label would have been recieved by North Korea too. It was the equivilent of my "Why the *&^%! is it late? Why didn't you *&^%##!@ing call me to let me know and to explain!!!!" sound-off.
It was said in public and it hurt and left them bitter...

[Ronn_Bman]

I appreciate your responce, and the personal experience reference because my question was sincere, and I do find your point interesting, but again, just as we should understand them, they have to understand us.

"Of course we have nuclear weapons" isn't too much easier to swallow than being part of the "Axis of Evil".

The Axis of Evil speach itself? I cringed when I heard it.

[skywalker]

On a side note:

Speechwriter David Frum who wrote the Axis speech for Bush wrote it as "axis of hate" which is subtlely different than "axis of evil". He claims someone else changed it.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2062571/

and updated here:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2076552/

At least it wasn't Mr. Bush that changed it to evil, that makes him look a little less politically incorrect! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark

[ 01-25-2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Skunk: There seems to be this bizzare idea that the North Korean issue started in October - it didn't - it started much further back. There also seems to be an idea that North Korea is entirely to blame for what's happening and that the US is the injured party. That isn't true either. Allow me to provide you with a history lesson: In the 1980's, North Korea started to build a cheap Nuclear plant at Yongbyon. This plant, by it's very design, was capable of producing fuel for Nuclear weapons. North Korea was also planning to build two even larger reactors (of the same type) to meet its energy needs. Nuclear power is much cheaper than fossil fuel and N.Korea was/is not exactly a wealthy nation. At the time, N.Korea had not signed the Non-Nuclear weapons Proliferation Treaty - so it was perfectly within its rights. It's main objection to signing the NPT was that the treaty calls for various monitoring practices that signigicantly adds to the costs of building and maintaining the plants (very heavy inspections and monitoring goes on - resulting in big delays of any new and ongoing project). In walks the US with an attractive deal. Sign the NPT, abandon your weapons reasearch and allow monitoring of the reactors and we will guarantee that: 1. The US, South Korea and Japan will provide you (for free) with the Nuclear reactors. 2. We will open up our markets and allow free economic assistance and aid. As a result of the deal, North Korea signs the NPT in 1985. What went wrong: 1. The US delayed the constuction of the nuclear plants and did not provide the promised economic assistance (the US went even further by maintaining economic sanctions) - so N.Korea only mothballed its weapons and nuclear research and building programs, holding out until the completion of the plants. In 1992, irritated by the delay and broken promises, N.Korea hands in its notice to withdraw from the NPT (its legal right). Carter rushes in to sooth the pain and broker a deal, and the US offers an interim deal (signed two years later in 1994): While said reactors are being built, we (The US, South Korea and Japan) will provide you with free fuel oil to power your fossil fuel plants. Since 1994, the promised nuclear plants *still* have not been constructed (construction has barely moved) and N.Korea is *still* under economic sanctions from the US. Because the construction was sooo far behind schedule, N.Korea denies the inspectors regular (costly and time consuming) spot visits on the grounds that nothing has changed in those sites and that the inspections would lead to yet further delays (currently 6 years behind schedule). Another issue that North Korea was getting angry with was Washington unilateral addtional conditions being attached on the fuel shipments, notably on attaching budgetary conditions on the fuel aid (which in turn led to that being delayed too), and demands for 'political reform' (also outside the agreement). Notwithstanding, North Korea did allow the sites to be monitored and did allow permanent monitoring equipment to be installed. It also allowed the international monitors a permenant office in the capitol. Bill Clinton goes, Bush comes to office and 9/11 becomes reality. US policy towards N.Korea becomes even harsher calling it part of an 'Axis of Evil'. One can only guess why N.Korea admits to its mothballed nuclear weapons program recently, but I would guess that it was to be a reminder to the US that the problem has not gone away - North Korea wants the US to fulfill its part of the 1994 agreement - the public 'disclosure' of the nuclear weapons program is there to remind it. (The US almost certainly knew of its existence). Bush reacts (October) by withdrawing the fuel aid guaranteed by the 1994 agreement. After a month's delay and the fuel shipment not arriving, North Korea begins anew its nuclear plant construction itself. Guess it was tired of broken promises and brown-outs for 20 years...

I don't understand how people can think Bush is infallible when his skills as a diplomat are obviously questionable.

Anyway, Thank you for this post, it reinforces my own opiniated arguement that the U.S. is partly to blame for the recent Korean conflict. It originated over in the general discussion forum in the "should U.S. be world's policeman" thread.

[ 01-25-2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Chewie you are right, the US is partly to blame for North Korea being assholes. When they threatened to roll over south Korea we could have told the South Koreans to piss off and ignored the whole event...of course, the UN had a bit to play in the Korea scuffle too....and if I am not mistaken they still have a presence there, so how come we don't hear about members of the UN bitchin and moaning that NK is being a bad country?