Diplomatic progress with North Korea

North Korea has vowed to disable much of its controversial nuclear program following intense diplomatic work over the past few months.

North Korea has agreed to declare all its nuclear programmes and disable its main atomic reactor by the end of the year under US supervision, according to a six-nation agreement released Wednesday.

The deal -- the second phase of a long-running process aimed at ending the North's atomic weapons drive -- was immediately welcomed by US President George W. Bush, as well as other six-party participants Japan and South Korea.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who is South Korean, also welcomed the move and appealed to all the parties concerned "to step up their work for denuclearisation".

The United States recently pledged millions in food aid to the country, and last summer a main nuclear reactor was shut down, albeit not permanently. However, as we are dealing with often-deceptive North Korea, it's important not to become too happy about this perceived progress until the 'denuclearisation' is indeed accomplished. Diplomacy looks to be on the right track with North Korea, with even the US helping it along.

Even though skepticism should not be ceased at North Korea's motives, this latest move is one of great importance. Not only has North Korea made progress, but so have China and America, who have both learnt valuable lessons from this very long N Korea nuclear series. While it is not over yet, it is remarkable how progress was made so fast, and how far we are from one year ago. The most important thing in diplomacy, besides being open, diplomatic, and fair, is persistence. The New York Times praised the six-party diplomacy that resulted in the North Korean deal in an editorial today.

From the beginning, the North Koreans wanted two things from their nuclear program: not weapons to threaten the world or for power purposes, but money and financial incentives and leverage for getting those kinds of gains. Iran will want at least just as sweet a deal. Given its meddling in other foreign affairs, it will want to grandstand for as long as possible before it level-headidly sits down to the negotiating table. Oddly enough, the US will do roughly the same thing. But instead of painting itself as the best as Iran does, it will try to paint Iran in a negative light, and sound objective doing so (something which the Iranian hard-liners cannot do well).

However, people are wondering whether the same slow diplomacy that worked with North Korea will work with Iran in solving its nuclear weapons dispute. Still, a majority of experts believe that North Korea with nukes is far more dangerous than Iran, given its great poverty and lack of economic wealth (whereas Iran has oil); in addition, its regime is even more rogue and might be more open with giving nuclear information and technology to terrorists than even the notoriously terrorist-supporting Iran. North Korea is also far more advanced in its nuclear development than Iran.

The Korean peninsula was also in the news due to a much-awaited meeting between the leaders of North and South Korea. The meeting resulted in an agreement of mutual peace and cooperation today, which is probably more than most analysts were expecting (many viewed the meeting to be purely symbolic and more of a help to North Korea's dictator Kim Jong-il than South Korea's president Roh Moo-hyun).

A year ago North Korea was acting as rebellious and dangerous as ever, testing missiles and touting its nukes. Today, the situation has changed dramatically. China's use of influence and America's new-found diplomatic openness contributed to the successes of today. But the nuclear game with North Korea is not over yet.

Nuclear news, good and bad

Trouble, progress, and contradictions of nuclear proportions this past Sunday.

Good
North Korea apparently has agreed to nuclear shutdown, says respectable US envoy Christopher Hill. This follows the closure of one of the despotic republic's reactors earlier this year.


Bad
Iran is moving forward with its nuclear plans, even though the IAEA reports conflict with 'official' statements about how far the Islamic republic really is in the development of nuclear weapons — oops, I mean totally peaceful civilian energy (of course). The announcement that Iran is operating 3,000 centrifuges followed an IAEA statement saying Iran has been cooperating.

Methinks Ahmedinejad's bark is far worse than his bite. How could Iran be slowing down, as the IAEA insists, if it is making the rapid progress its president speaks of? Ahmedinejad, who is, I might add, not actually at the top of Iran's hierarchy (even though he's president), remains defiant to UN sanctions and pressure from the West. He is losing support.

The worst move a foreign state could make (*cough*, *cough* Israel and America) could make would be to attack Iran militarily. Study after study has shown that bombing Iran would be counter-productive, would only increase hate of America abroad, and would empower Ahmedinejad and radical Iranians. It's one of the stupidest things a western regime — or Israel — could do right now. Iran is a threat, but we dealt with North Korea diplomatically, didn't we? It tales patience.

N Korea... gone good?

...Well, not good per se, but definitely better than it was a few months ago. The world was in shock after North Korea tested its first ever nuclear weapon — though the specific details are skewed (i.e. everyone says a different thing about how the tests went, if there were any). At any rate, things did not look good. Somewhere along the road America stuck its tail between its legs and started working more closely with the international community, and China in particular, to try to defuse the North Korean nuke situation. The Bush administrations nearly militant, cowboy diplomacy was not appropriate in this situation (or most others, for that matter...). US envoy Christopher Hill did a good job; it appears that diplomacy and cooperation — not as much unilateral war — works after all.

The North Koreans, impoverished and poor, have long been in isolation. China is the only they can turn too, but China worries that a collapse of the authoritarian state would spark a mass exodus into China, thus hurting its infrastructure and economy. After the nuke tests, a defiant as ever North Korea lost much of the foreign aid that keeps it from imploding. As negotiations inched forward the N Koreans steadily brought in the benefits as the international community conceded that to secure and eventually shut down the nuclear program they would need to give benefits — whether fuel or food — to the Stalinist pariah state, officially known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, quite possibly the most factually-incorrect name of any nation-state on the planet.

The worry was not that N Korea would use the nuclear weapons, but that it would sell the resources and technologies to, say, Al Qaeda. Because of the semi-developed state of the nuclear program, North Korea has always been a bigger threat than the showy Iran, which has more ties to the outside world, not to mention resources. A February deal was the result of these negotiations.

So, you might be asking yourself, why all this background information? Well, because another major development in the nuclear diplomacy between North Korea and others is upon us. Just recently the process appeared to be stalled following some wrangling between the United States and N Korea over a frozen bank account in Macau. After that was cleared up the next step was for North Korea to begin shutting down its nuclear reactor(s). Now...

UN inspectors have begun verifying that North Korea has really closed down its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, the top US nuclear envoy has said.

Christopher Hill's comments come a day after Pyongyang told Washington it had shut the reactor.

North Korea's announcement was welcomed by both the US and South Korea.

North Korea agreed to close the reactor in February in return for economic aid. Under the deal, Pyongyang got its first heavy fuel oil shipments on Saturday.

The nuclear team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrived in North Korea on Saturday to start the Yongbyon inspection.

If confirmed, the shut-down would be the first stage in disabling the North's nuclear programme.
...
N KOREA NUCLEAR DEAL
N Korea to "shut down and seal" Yongbyon reactor, then disable all nuclear facilities
In return, will be given 1m tons of heavy fuel oil
N Korea to invite IAEA back to monitor deal
Under earlier 2005 deal, N Korea agreed to end nuclear programme and return to non-proliferation treaty
N Korea's demand for light water reactor to be discussed at "appropriate time"
...
Mr Hill has emphasised that the closure of the Yongbyon reactor is only the first step in decommissioning North Korea's nuclear programme.

He has said he expects a full list of the country's nuclear facilities within months - as agreed in the February deal.
...
The participating countries - South and North Korea, Russia, Japan, the US - are expected to negotiate the details of the next phase of the North's decommissioning process, namely the declaration of its nuclear programme and disabling the facilities.

North Korea isn't expected to really "up the ante", as one Columbia University expert said (qtd. from an interview on the BBC World Service), but it may look like it wants more because the February diplomatic deal with the N Koreans was "incomplete". It was hard to get all parties to agree on some essential requirements, so the deal ended up having holes in it. (Nonetheless it's better to have it than not.) As it stands the North Koreans really aren't getting much from the West in this deal. However they are complying and working towards shutting down their nuclear devises, as per the deal. We need to look beyond just shutting down the nuclear facilities, said the expert, focusing in the larger picture of totally disabling them so the nuclear program cannot be restarted with a flick of a switch — especially considering the inevitable instability in Kim Jong-il's nation. Just like in the case of Pakistan and Iran, extremists and terrorists cannot get their hands on this nuclear material, but state instability makes it all the more dangerous that they could. Unlike even the most renegade state, terrorists won't hesitate to use nuclear weapons.

By any means the supposed shutting down of the Yongbyon reactor is a triumph for diplomacy and a testing example for future cases of nuclear diplomacy, like the one that may develop more seriously with Iran. Any kind of precedent his helpful; hopefully it won't be needed. Hint to world leaders: this is as good a time as ever to talk about nuclear nonproliferation and push it on a global scale, stop being so hypocritical on the issue — yes I'm talking to you, major powers —, and emphasize that often slow and steady, i.e. diplomacy, often wins the race.


On a totally different note, In Perspective won the "Super Saturday" Blog of the Day award.

Rhetorical questions from recent news

Supermassive (legal) black hole
Amnesty International says new conditions in Guantanamo are even worse.
Could it be any worse?

It’s getting hotter in here
Climate change striking sooner than expected, says the new UN IPCC report — which is not good news. The impact is vast too.
Can you feel it now?

Bush asks Congress to allow more eavesdropping
Reuters: "The Bush administration asked Congress on Friday to expand the number of people it can subject to electronic surveillance...also protects companies that cooperate with spy operations." Such a change would modify the existing 1978 law.
Isn't there enough already?

Deal or no deal on nukes
North Korea's got the money it wanted from a frozen bank account, and everything about the oft-rogue state's deal with the international community to close down some of its nuclear facilities seems to be going alright, except the whole closing down the facilities part.
DPRK: Compliant or defiant?

And an irreverently irrelevant question:
What if Bush was a Democrat?

US lets N Korea violate sanctions

Another nation's supposed fight against 'terrorism' trumps N Korea restrictions over nukes in Bush administration's priorities
The New York Times reports:

Three months after the United States successfully pressed the United Nations to impose strict sanctions on North Korea because of the country’s nuclear test, Bush administration officials allowed Ethiopia to complete a secret arms purchase from the North, in what appears to be a violation of the restrictions, according to senior American officials.

The United States allowed the arms delivery to go through in January in part because Ethiopia was in the midst of a military offensive against Islamic militias inside Somalia, a campaign that aided the American policy of combating religious extremists in the Horn of Africa.

American officials said that they were still encouraging Ethiopia to wean itself from its longstanding reliance on North Korea for cheap Soviet-era military equipment to supply its armed forces and that Ethiopian officials appeared receptive. But the arms deal is an example of the compromises that result from the clash of two foreign policy absolutes: the Bush administration’s commitment to fighting Islamic radicalism and its effort to starve the North Korean government of money it could use to build up its nuclear weapons program.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, as the administration has made counterterrorism its top foreign policy concern, the White House has sometimes shown a willingness to tolerate misconduct by allies that it might otherwise criticize, like human rights violations in Central Asia and antidemocratic crackdowns in a number of Arab nations.

It is also not the first time that the Bush administration has made an exception for allies in their dealings with North Korea.

How can the Bush administration expect any nation, including the sanctioned party, to observe and comply with international UN sanctions if itself does not do so? What's worse is this is a case in which they help one 'enemy' fight the other 'enemy'.
This is bad precedent.

All this done in the name of fighting a war that is basically political (the "war on terrorism"). There is no proof that North Korea's weapons sold to Ethiopia for its fight against the Islamic extremists in Somalia will even help fight terrorism, it might just make it worse or perhaps it had no effect. Or maybe North Korea's weapons sales have helped Ethiopia's fight, but what damage has it done to the insofar followed sanctions on N Korea? Isn't it proof for the despotic regime that there will always be ways around international restrictions?

This is nothing compared to what Pelosi did: visit a country the Bush administration does not like, although they aren't sanctioned internationally, they are no North Korea, and other members of Congress did the same thing as Speaker Pelosi. This incident is much worse and will certainly not help diplomatic relations between any countries.

This latest hypocritical action made by an administration whose head seems to have a Manichean paranoia of sorts is one that should receive more attention. Bush and domestic politics asice, any government that makes these kinds of actions is not exercising the right policy decisions. I don't care if Barak Obama was president, these kinds of actions are far from acceptable, indeed so considering the circumstances.

Help an authoritarians regime with a history of taking military action in the turmoil-ridden Somalia against groups using tactics that might (see the fire paradox) increase public support and power of such groups. Extremists love a way to get the public and others to convert to their cause, and an occupier and perceived enemy is a perfect 'enemy' to do just that. We've seem the same happen in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The administration already showed the world what it thought of the United Nations, and international community as a whole, with other unilateral (or nearly unilateral) moves in the 'war on terror'.

Want a surprise? Our [least] favorite former ambassador had some good things to say...

John R. Bolton, who helped to push the resolution imposing sanctions on North Korea through the Security Council in October, before stepping down as United Nations ambassador, said that the Ethiopians had long known that Washington was concerned about their arms purchases from North Korea and that the Bush administration should not have tolerated the January shipment.

But, naturally, put the blame all on the State Department. (Bolton was one of the necons, like Rumsfeld, who despised State — not least its diplomacy.)

It is not State caving in to N Korea and Ethiopia, its the administration at its core. It seems it will do anything to fight the undefined 'terrorist' and Islamic extremist enemy. Proof that many tactics are unlawful or counterintuitive won't hinder the 'war on terror'.

Restrictions against a country with proven nukes/nuclear program versus unproven fight against terrorism. Hmm...

The experts have already agreed: North Korea is a huge threat. Who knows whether Ethiopia's fight against extremists in Somalia helps or hurts the broader, true front against terrorism, but considering the Ethiopia-Somalia history and the counterterror precedent, it probably just helps the terrorists, and the North Koreans.

technorati tags: north+korea, ethiopia, war+on+terrorism, bush, somalia, foreign+policy, diplomacy, united+states, korea+nuke+sanctions, bush+ethiopia+somalia

The grain of salt nuke deal

There have been more developments in the North Korean nuclear program story. Following reports of successful talks between N Korea and the West — with N Korea's goal being incentives and political leverage and the West's goal being to stop N Korea's nuclear weapons program — there are signs of hope, though that hope is taken with a grain of salt.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seems pleased with the deal, as was President Bush (also "pleased"), though US Ambassador John Bolton was not. I guess he would rather the US nuke N Korea or something like that. Rice also indicated the deal should send a message to Iran over its nuclear program that the West is willing to deal; Iran certainly already knows that. Rice has shown worry that Iran would follow North Korea's defiant footsteps in the past.

One aspect of this deal is actually a breakthrough: the ability of North Korea and the United States to potentially lessen the hostility felt mutually between them. I agree with the International Crisis Group's Peter Beck in that, "After years of mistakes the United States has decided to stop digging a hole for itself". In the days of President Clinton the US worked on making progress with N Korean relations. However, since Bush took the helm, North Korea has been ignored and the policy has led to more aggressiveness from the North Koreans, including their excuse for making nuclear weapons: the US's unchecked aggression. For all Clinton's faults, at least he did not make an "axis of evil" (Wikipedia), list already unfriendly nations on it without a real argument for doing so, imply they are all working together in an evil way, and thus making those countries even more peeved at the US — and increasing provocation and response.

Bush has been heavily criticized for his nuclear diplomacy, whether it be hostile in re to weapons with Iran or N Korea, or friendly but still proliferating like with India. His cowboy style has dominated his failed foreign policy, but the White House seems to have finally caught a break. I wonder which parties had took the most initiatives in these talks. Often, in the case of both Iran and N Korea, two-way talks are wanted from the non-US side, though, ironically of the US because of its often unilateral approach, those calls for direct talks are turned down.

So is it the end of the secret state of North Korea's nuclear program?, you may ask. Probably not. It is only the main reactor being closed as a result of this deal, who knows what other technology they have, and they're not too trustworthy.

CFR has a good interactive guide to the Korean peninsula crisis. It offers much needed background on how North and South Korea got to where they are today, and more.

Many pundits and analysts say the US should push for full dismantlement of the N Korea's nukes; some state the state is too closed and rogue to trust, and that makes dismantlement and enforcement of any deals made all the more harder.

technorati tags: Condoleezza+Rice, bush, john+bolton, rice, north+korea, n+korea, nuke, north+korea+nuclear+program, cfr, korea, news, international+relations, politics, world+politics, iran

Breakthrough in North Korean nuke talks

I was skeptical of this news at first when CNN reported it earlier today, but it seems to be making the press rounds now...

BBC News:

Delegates at the six-party North Korea talks have reached a tentative deal, the US nuclear negotiator has said.

A "final text" outlining initial steps for disarming North Korea was now being referred to each government for approval, Christopher Hill said.

His comments followed late-night meetings on what was meant to be the last day of the talks in Beijing.

If approved, a deal would be a significant step forward in a process stalled since September 2005.

There has been no comment from North Korea.

The BBC's Daniel Griffiths in Beijing says the deal has yet to be approved by the leaders of each country involved.

Even then it would only mark the first step in what is likely to be a very long, slow process with further delays almost inevitable, he says.

The current round of talks - aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up its nuclear programme - began on Thursday with a renewed sense of optimism from all sides.

But negotiations faltered over the amount of energy aid the North was demanding in exchange for disarming.

Reports suggest North Korea is seeking large-scale deliveries of heavy fuel oil in return for shutting down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor.

If only we could get this seeming progress on Iran's nuclear program. N Korea tested a nuclear missile back in October and there was plenty of reaction from the international community. As one might guess, the reaction was one of scorn and dismay as one of the world's most brutal closed states tested the most powerful weapons. What is really worrying is not that N Korea possibly could nuke a barren area in Alaska, but their other motives. N Korea is not well off financially — at all — so their best moves are to use nukes as leverage from incentives from the international community and sell nuclear technology, whether it be to al-Qaeda or Libya. The whole nuclear missile incident was confusing to say the least.

China has played a major role in the while issue. Obviously they do not want their neighbor to collapse for a number of reasons; the fact that both North Korea and China are supposedly communist is really not a factor at this point.

Three cheers for diplomacy — in re to North Korean nukes? We will have to see.

technorati tags: news, north+korea, nukes, north+korea+nuclear

The Iran nuke story continues...

Not only is there drama between the West and Iran over Iraq, but also over Iran's nuclear program (Wikipedia). This little dance has been going on for years, with the main parties being the United States, United Kingdom, and the rest of the UN Security Council, Germany, the UN itself (IAEA), and, of course, on the other side of the room, Iran. Developments in the news on the Iranian program and the western response have come and gone over the years, but there is some new news now...

Washington Post:

Facing the prospect of broader international sanctions, Iran's president and national security chief on Sunday offered to resume negotiations over their country's nuclear program and eased up on some of the contentious rhetoric of the past, including threats to destroy Israel.

In Munich, Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, briefly met with European diplomats for the first time since talks collapsed in September and said Iran was willing to return to formal discussions.

He also said his country had "no intention of aggression against any country," adding that Iran "posed no threat to Israel" in particular, despite past vows from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel "off the map."

Meanwhile in Tehran, Ahmadinejad also said that Iran was willing to resume negotiations, although both he and Larijani rejected a condition for talks set by the U.N. Security Council that Iran first freeze its uranium enrichment program. "We are prepared for dialogue but won't suspend our activities," Ahmadinejad said.

In an address commemorating the 28th anniversary of the Islamic revolution that overthrew the shah of Iran, Ahmadinejad said his government had made recent progress in its nuclear development but did not give specifics. Some diplomats and analysts had expected him to announce that Iran had made a breakthrough in its efforts to enrich uranium.

U.S. and European officials expressed doubt about the sincerity of Iran's stated willingness to talk. "Offering to negotiate but saying suspension's off the table raises a real question about the sincerity of what he said," U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt told reporters in Germany after Larijani's appearance at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, an annual gathering of top defense officials and diplomats from around the world.

In Paris, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said it would be "unacceptable" to hold negotiations unless Iran first agrees to freeze its nuclear activities. "We have to be exceedingly clear and very rigorous on this proposition," he said.
...
Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, but U.S. and European officials say Tehran is pushing to develop atomic weapons in violation of international treaties.

On Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency suspended some technical aid to Iran, which is under a Feb. 21 deadline from the Security Council to stop enriching uranium or face more international sanctions.
...
Larijani also said Iran was a force for regional stability in the Middle East and had no designs on any of its neighbors, including Iraq and Israel. "We pose no threat, and if we are conducting nuclear research and development, we are no threat to Israel," he said.

Instead, Larijani blamed the United States for bringing chaos to the Middle East and South Asia, noting that it had invaded two of Iran's neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan. He echoed some of the criticism leveled a day earlier in Munich by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who harshly accused the United States of making the world more dangerous than at any point during the Cold War.

On the Putin topic, see this post.

In addition, the European Union is toughening its approach on Iran by setting sanctions. At least they remain open to talks, something the US should do with Iran on both the important topics of Iraq and nukes.

Keep in mind Ahmadinejad is not doing so hot politically, and the government, part-democracy, part-theocracy, is divided on the nuclear situation.

Funny how this segway has led from Iran, Iraq, and the US to Iran, their nuclear program, and the West, but there are more developments on North Korea, its nukes, and the West also — more on that soon. Whereas Iran's nuclear program is in relatively early stages, North Korea's is more advanced (remember the missile tests?) and they are less economically lucky as Iran, meaning they are more dangerous with nukes, using them as leverage and selling technology to harmful forces (terrorists, rogue states, etc.). Iran, on the other hand, has less of an authoritarian government as North Korea, does have something to loose, has wealth, its oil, and other factors making North Korea certainly more serious than Iran — at least on the nuclear weapons topic. Iran also has plenty of young people who probably do not want to be totally blocked off from the rest of the world, all North Korea has is a maniacal leader and millions of starving civilians.

It all comes down to: the world does not need a nuclear-armed Iran — or another nuclear power period — but it certainly doesn't need another Iraq catastrophe either, especially one spearheaded by the current US president's administration.

technorati tags: iran, iran+nuclear+program, iran+nukes, news, politics, ahmadinejad, north+korea, nukes, IAEA

North Korea, Iraq situations: an analysis (part 1)

North Korea problem, conflict in Iraq: an analysis.
Part 1 of ?

With the Rep. Mark Foley scandal in the US and the North Korea nuclear issue internationally (as well as Madonna's adoption... don't get me started on that one), the struggle in Iraq has been greatly overshadowed in recent weeks. No worries! The record violence — still growing in veracity and frequency — has yet to subside. In addition, Iraq has been given a boost in the news headlines thanks to policy changes (or lack of changes) and statements coming from the White House and, on a smaller (in number of changes/statements and significance) note, Downing Street. A whole spew of talk coming from generals, politicians, spin doctors, advisors, and journalists themselves has been released onto the river of news stories (current events, if you will).

In this series of posts on both the problem of North Korean nukes and of Iraq in general, I will do my best to analyze the situations in North Korea and Iraq, focussing mostly on the latter since I have already given much attention to the former. The strife in Iraq, unlike the situation N. Korea, is more deadly, regionally destabilizing, problematic for Iraq and the parties involved or bordering the nation, a calling point for cultural (i.e. Islamic) extremists and terrorist organizations, and an international problem; North Korea is largely an international and regional problem. Both the situation in North Korea and in Iraq have major ties in three ways: international relations, US foreign policy, and the 'axis of evil' link — including [regional strife inciting] international destabilization.

Since, as I mentioned earlier, I have focused so much on the North Korean issue I intend to have this series of pieces largely be on Iraq. They will deal largely with the current state of both situations, but also give background to why the current state of affairs exists.

Parts 2 and 3 will be coming in the next several days.
Check Google News for the latest news and subscribe to In Perspective's enhanced (Feedburner) RSS feed here.

technorati tags: iraq, kim+jong-il, bush, news, politics, current+events, current+affairs, foreign+policy, international+relations, north+korea, korea, usa, united+states, axis+of+evil, war+on+terror, islamic+extremism, nuke, nuclear+missile, in+the+news, news+media, analysis, in+perspective, clearthought, blog, blogging, foley, mark+foley

Profiling NK leader Kim Jong-il...

So you want to know more about Kim Jong-il?

Kim Jong-il. From Wikipedia

Hankering to learn more about reclusive and nuke-holding North Korea's short and odd haired dictator? Well, you're in luck! Not only is there the usual stuff, Wikipedia and BBC News as well as GlobalSecurity.org but also this US News and World Report article giving us 10 fun facts about Kim.

I think I found a partial explanation for his odd hair and lack of height (from the US News article):

He sleeps only four hours per day.

Hey, you have to give him some credit for that!

Back to the more pressing issues in the news. Analyses of the situations in North Korea and Iraq are coming soon (today or tomorrow); here are some previous posts on the N. Korean issue: HERE and HERE and here and here.

technorati tags: north+korea, n+korea, korea, korean, NK, nuke, nuclear, kim, kim+jong-il, jong-il, Iraq, us+news, us+news+and+world+report, globalsecurity, bbc+news, wikipedia, news, in+the+news, current+affairs, current+events, leader, profile, dictator, profiling, people, society, world, international, blogging, blog, in+perspective, clearthought, fact

Direct current NK nuke problem blame towards China?

This post makes references to the North Korean nuclear situation, prior blog posts on this issue can be found HERE, here, and here.

This Slate piece is a bit one sided, quite self-serving and possibly isolationist, and puts the international blame game into play. Doesn't the author recognize that China is basically North Korea's lifeline, shutting down food supplies would hurt the people the most (which Kim Jong-il has been shown to not care about too much) as well as cause chaos politically, militarily, and from a humanitarian standpoint for Russia, China, and South Korea.

Not only is the article saying that China should effectively collapse North Korea, but it goes further:

I am, of course, playing devil's advocate here: I realize that the United States has long-standing obligations to Japan and that our half-century-plus presence on the Korean Peninsula has placed us at the center of this discussion.

What about the global powers' obligation to stability? What about North Korea's neighbours having the right to make decisions about their regional interests, along with the global discourse (which includes the US, obviously) over the North Korean problem? This article seems to have a bit of 'they need our help, let's not care about who suffers from a nation's collapse... we need to focus on the issue at hand' kind of mentality that brought down the eon-long imperialistic European hegemony and is causing much dismay for the United States in Iraq. (Although, I might add, I doubt the author intended it to give off that kind of tone and message.)

Possibly the most ludicrous part of the article is:

Or, to make things even quicker and simpler, China could deploy the same tactic that once upon a time led to the collapse of East Germany: Instead of closing the 800-mile Chinese-North Korean border to goods, the Chinese could open it to people.

The mass influx of people if North Korea were to collapse is one of the things China is hesitant about! That is one of the reasons they are not shutting off supplies and giving North Koreans an incentive to come to China (even fewer food and essential supplies) plus opening the gates wide would make the problem — and source of some of China's apprehension — so much larger.

Just as you think the article is getting a bit more worldly, this comes along:

China also is ... one of the countries most under threat from North Korean nukes. After all, it is China, not the United States, that will be at the center of the new Asian arms race if Japan and South Korea feel compelled to get the bomb. ... Although it isn't clear whether North Korean missiles can reach Hawaii, it's obvious that Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong are well within range. So, shouldn't this be China's problem, not ours?

The moment President Bush called North Korea 'evil' ("axis of evil") and many were starting to lean towards possible changes in North Korea's governance was the moment leader Kim had a huge excuse for testing. So shouldn't this be the region and international community's problem, not just China's of the United States'? No matter what China or others do, the US government is always asking for more, when will enough be enough?

The piece's author, Anne Applebaum, is a writer I admire. However, her latest piece is not well thought out and — if she did think it out — she needs to work on her logic in the delicate sphere of international politics, governmental and regional stability, and foreign relations.

technorati tags: anne+applebaum, china, north+korea, korea, chinese, border, immigration, united+states, usa, slate, foreign+policy, international+relations, hegemony, imperialism, nuclear, stability, regime+change, kim+jong-il, kim, il, east+germany, aid, politics, news, opinion, commentary, in+perspective, clearthought, international, blog, sanctions

Confusion swirls around N. Korean nuclear test(s); plus a recap

The North Korean nuclear test (background here and here): big (i.e. successful), small (i.e. possibly flawed), failed, not at all (i.e. faked or bad reporting)? The status of the test is pondered as yet another conundrum, the diplomatic action aspect, is also laboured over. Russia has now stepped into the arena, along with (mainly) the United States, China, Japan, and, to a certain extent, South Korea (which is also wanting to become part of the nuclear club now). Obviously, the United Nations Security Council is deliberating and, as usually, it is the nitty gritty that is holding up the conclusion of that actions are to be taken in the North Korea problem that is holding making the process less and less decisive [looking]. North Korea, in the mean time, has threatened the US with war.

While the UNSC and other bodies still have their doors closed and hands in the air at each other, Japan has proposed sanctions of its own towards North Korea. A problem also faced by nations cutting off aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian [Authority] government, the European Union said that sanctions should be at North Korea (i.e. the government), not the people. Unlike with the PA, it is even closer to impossible (if that) to aid the people but not the government in the reclusive, tightly-wound nation that is North Korea.

Into the mix is China, a fellow 'communist' state known as an ally to N. Korea, who is — to put it lightly — quite annoyed at its neighbour's behaviour.
Speaking of North Korea's neighbours, how about that South Korean diplomat (Ban Ki-Moon) being pretty much guaranteed as the next UN Secretary-General? Talk about irony.

And President Bush has the plan of... well, staying the same course. He does know that he has tried and is trying that in Iraq right? *Oh, wait, nothing bad is happening there...* One ironic quote from Bush: "I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures", once again I give you Iraq and the lack of diplomatic process taken in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.

Not to be an Iraq-Bush maniac, but he had yet another ironic quote, that North Korea is a "threat to international peace". What have you done that has been more than a 'threat to international peace', Mr. President? (Hint: Iraq and related 'war on terror' sprees). Bush has been saying much monologue (rhetoric) today, stating that there will be "serious repercussions" for the alleged North Korean nuclear test.

Also, current UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wants there to be dialogue between N. Korea and the rest. And France has said that the test failed (see first paragraph).

This issue will be tough — on multiple levels — to solve. Well, former US President Jimmy Carter has a plan.

technorati tags: north+korea, korea, bush, george+bush, president, us, USA, united+states, un, united+nations, kofi+annan, annan, secretary, general, secreatry-general, secretary+general, iraq, international, politics, news, world, war+on+terror, rhetoric, china, japan, n+korea, nuke, missile, nuclear, test, jimmy+carter, quote, south+korea, japan, sanctions, war, EU, european+union, palestine, PA, hamas, aid, communist, security+council, UNSC, russia, japan, ban, ban+ki-moon, secretary-general

North Korean nuclear test followup

Last night North Korea evidently did an underground test of a nuclear missile. BBC News has some good coverage of the recent nuclear weapon test by North Korea (see this post). As could be anticipated, basically no country except N. Korea is happy about this latest development coming from the nation defiant to international pressure (especially from the US, and recently even more from China and Japan... South Korea has remained relatively silent and has tried to remain neutral, for a good reason). Many analysts have said that the North Korean government, led by the supposed-mainac Kim Jong-il, is looking a mass package of incentives (including cutting sanctions, which they ironically will get more of) much larger than the ones offered to Iran — another nuclear problem, albeit less pressing, developed, or presently dangerous, that the global community has tried to stop. North Korea, however, already has be nerve and material to make a weapon, and has shown that they have made a workable nuclear scud missile. What will happen next in this super-dramatic series of developments?

technorati tags: north+korea, korea, missile, international, news, politics, relations, nuke, nuclear, scud, missile, kim, kim+jong-il, north+korean, weapon, nuclear+weapon, nuclear+missile, test, conflict, iran, china, usa, international

N. Korea tests nuke?

Breaking news:
North Korean state media (who first reported it), joined by South Korean media reports, have stated that the communist nation has launched its first ever nuclear weapon tests. The story is surely making its rounds in the international news wires and bureaux. Darn North Koreans, I didn't have time to finish my special report on their nuclear programme! Good news for me and many others, the report is still a bit shaky, confirmation wise. (I know my reports are much less important than the pressing military and diplomatic issue of a country like North Korea possessing and testing weapons of mass destruction.)

Earlier, China and Japan had met and have been unanimous (along with the rest of the global community) in telling the North Koreans to not go through with testing their nuclear capabilities. North Korea is one of the poorest, most troubled — and odd — nations on Earth.

It is scary to think of how the US may react to this new development in their cross-Pacific 'axis of evil' enemy (who says it is making the weapons to fend of American threats, a great terrifying irony for both sides).

The primary news link for this post has some more facts and background information linked to it on North Korea, nukes, and its programme.

Since it is Sunday night, I would like to point out a cool new BBC News feature showing what is expected to be in the news headlines for the next week.

Coming soon: Multiple stories relating to US politics (including Foley scandal, foreign policy, elections, and more), a feature on journalism's current troubles (from President Bush's reporter-bashing to the death of a renounced Russian journalist), and more in-depth posts.

technorati tags: politics, news, blogging, north+korea, korea, south+korea, china, nuclear, japan, hu, foley, bush, usa, bbc+news, bbc, weapon, test, breaking, diplomacy, wmd

Middle East conflict, North Korean nukes, Foley scandal, and more...

Briefly, in the news this week; conflict — internal and external — in Iraq, Palestine, and the other areas of the Middle East, American political news including the Rep. Mark Foley scandal, school shootings and plane situations, the Nobel Prize, another sad slash at gay rights, US border plan, and North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

I may be taking a creative break for the next couple days. I am preparing entries on American elections, the interrogation/torture deal (also US politic-related), and international issues such as the nuclear situation with Iran and N. Korea, "war on terror" topics, and Iraq (need I say more?).

technorati tags: news, politics, foley, scandal, usa, united+states, mark+foley, gay, nobel+prize, iraq, north+korea, korea, nuke, war+on+terror, Amish, school+shooting, plane+crash, current+affairs, blogging, middle east