Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms NORTH KOREA NUCLEAR AGREEMENT: Sign of Hope When even the Bush administration gets down to real diplomacy, it's a sign of hope. The announcement in mid-February of a deal in which North Korea will take the first steps towards dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for large supplies of fuel oil and eventual political recognition sounds like a "man bites dog" story. What moved the Bush administration to talk rather than fight? Various theories have been proposed. One is that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice convinced President Bush that this could be a major foreign policy achievement. In contrast to the war in Iraq and the administration's feeble efforts to promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians, there is no question that the North Korea deal shines brightly as a real accomplishment -- if it sticks. Other, more realist factors may have come into play as well. U.S. military planners have long noted that military force is not a viable option in the North Korean case. Absent far better intelligence than currently exists, air strikes to destroy all of Pyongyang's nuclear facilities would almost surely fail. Nor could they address North Korea's existing stocks of bomb making materials, which are believed to be enough to build as many as eight to ten nuclear weapons. A war to force "regime change" in North Korea could be won by the U.S., but it would come at far too high a price - the South Korean capital of Seoul is close to the North Korean border, and Pyongyang's non-nuclear arsenal could kill several hundred thousand South Koreans in such a conflict. Furthermore, the other parties to the talks - China, Japan, South Korea and Russia - were all supportive of a diplomatic solution, and helped keep the talks alive during periods of U.S. opposition to or disinterest in moving forward. The fact that South Korea, the country arguably most at risk from a North Korean bomb, was a firm supporter of a practical diplomatic solution made it harder for the administration to avoid negotiating. And it can't be overlooked that Christopher Hill, the U.S. representative to the talks, did a good job once he was free to negotiate, which meant in part being allowed to work around hardliners like Vice President Dick Cheney and the neocons sprinkled throughout the administration's foreign policy and national security bureaucracies. The first phase of the agreement calls for North Korea to take concrete steps within 60 days, including closing down its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, getting inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground, and beginning to reveal the locations of its other nuclear facilities. In exchange it will receive 50,000 tons of fuel oil at the end of the 60-day period. Conservatives inside and outside of the Bush administration have already been vigorously attacking the deal, not only in its own right but because they fear, in the words of Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler, that "the administration's willingness to bend on North Korea does not bode well for hard-line policies toward Iran, Palestinians or other issues." Let's hope they're right. USEFUL RESOURCES ON NORTH KOREA: "U.S. Envoy Christopher Hill Discusses North Korea Nuke Deal," Lehrer Newshour, February 15, 2007, transcript: www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-june07/hill_02-15.html Joseph Cirincione, "North Korean Pressure Points: New Nuclear Accord Reflects New Realities," February 13, 2007, available at: www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/north_korea.html George Perkovich, "Imperfect Progress," Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2007, available at www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=print&id=19025 Leon V. Sigal, "Tug of War with Shorter Rope: Hard-liners Working to Trip Up Nuclear Talks," Chicago Tribune, February 15, 2007, available at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0702150074feb15,1,789675.story?ctrack=1&cset=true ____________________ The Arms Trade Resource Center was established in 1993 to engage in public education and policy advocacy aimed at promoting restraint in the international arms trade. _____________________________ Note: This message comes from the peace-justice-news e-mail mailing list of articles and commentaries about peace and social justice issues, activism, etc. If you do not regularly receive mailings from this list or have received this message as a forward from someone else and would like to be added to the list, send a blank e-mail with the subject "subscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or you can visit: http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news Go to that same web address to view the list's archives or to unsubscribe. E-mail accounts that become full, inactive or out of order for more than a few days will become disabled or deleted from this list. FAIR USE NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the information in this e-mail is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of copyrighted material as provided for in the US Copyright Law.
