*As Bush began to wind down his stay at the Asia-Pacific summit, Roh challenged him to make a declaration to end the Korean War. That conflict ended in a truce in 1953, not a peace treaty, so the two sides technically remain at war. *
**
*“I think I did not hear President Bush mention the—a declaration to end the Korean War just now,” Roh said as cameras clicked and television cameras rolled. *
**
*Bush said he thought he was being clear, but obliged Roh and restated the U.S. position. *
*That wasn’t good enough either. “If you could be a little bit clearer in your message,” Roh said. * Bush, now looking irritated, replied: “I can’t make it any more clear, Mr. President. We look forward to the day when we can end the Korean War. That will end—will happen when Kim verifiably gets rid of his weapons programs and his weapons.” Breitbart News Network
if NK agrees to remove any potential for nuke production and we have verification… I don’t see any reason not to move forward with a treaty. but NK hasn’t shown that they want peace with their actions in the past couple of years. so keeping pressure on them might be the best option.
Anything is possible if Kim Jung Il will start living up to his agreements.
One nuclear facility has been verified as being shut down. Appropriate tribute has been paid. I haven’t heard much about that complete disclosure list that was overdue some months ago. I am guessing it hasn’t been produced.
Best to keep squeezing and move slowly with Kim. We don’t want another 1994 Agreed Framework disaster.
As usual, China is the key to everything. Maybe if we buy enough lead paint toys, the NK problem goes away.
Best to keep squeezing and move slowly with Kim. We don’t want another 1994 Agreed Framework disaster.
Some terms of the 1994 agreed framework:
North Korea shuts down Yongbyon and two other plants, and stops construction on one other reactor.
In return it was promised heavy fuel oil shipments to make up for the nukes, and two light water reactors would be built to replace the nukes they shut down (the light water reactors were never completed).
IAEA and routine inspections would resume for facilities not subject to the freeze.
The two sides would move toward full normalization of political and economic relations
This plan was roundly criticized by the Republicans, McCain called someone a traitor, folks like Richard Perle called it blackmail, etc.
So now the Republicans get a chance. Some terms from the Bush plan hatched in Feb. 2007:
North Korea said it would shut its Yongbyon reactor within 60 days.
In return it was promised 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil.
North Korea was then required to declare and disable all its existing nuclear facilities, in return for which it would receive a further 950,000 tons of fuel.
The North also agreed to invite the IAEA to return to the country to monitor the agreement, and it said it would begin talks to normalise its diplomatic relations with the US and Japan.
I don’t get it. Roh is upset that we haven’t signed a formal peace treaty with North Korea? Since when did he become North Korea’s diplomatic envoy?
Bush should have just told him not to worry about it- we never officially declared war, so it all evens out.
On the other hand, it’s his country on the line, not ours. If they don’t see a problem with signing a peace treaty with NK, let’s do it and get the heck out of there. Not our problem.
This is one of the really irritating parts of empire.
Why is it that the two countries, the US and North Korea, signed an armistice agreement, yet the US insists that NK disarm but doesn’t have to disarm itself? Comparing the list of countries that the US has invaded since 1953 and the list of countries that NK has invaded in that time would lead one to think that NK would be the country insisting on disarming the US.
I heard this on NPR this morning and found the entire exchange to be bizarre. Either something truly was lost in translation (which I doubt) or staffers didn’t do their job making sure that South Korea and the US are on the same page, at least as far as understanding each other’s positions. I’m not a Bush fan at all, but this did seem to come out of left field. I’m also no expert on the Korea issue, but haven’t we been in almost continual talks with North Korea regarding nuclear disarmament and haven’t those talks involved at least to some extent South Korea. Engaging in peace talks separate and apart from the nuclear issue would be a big step and it sounded unfair for Roh to spring this on Bush in such a public forum. There’s more going on here than we’re being told.
Clinton and company gave the North Koreans the tribute and didn’t verify compliance.
We are doing better this time – the reactor has been shut down. Whether we will enforce continued compliance this time is an open question. Not if the State Department has anything to say about it, that is for sure.
My guess is that Kim is betting on another Clinton in the Whitehouse who will pay the tribute and not enforce the agreement. This is not a bad bet on his part. He really doesn’t have all that much to lose. He can always renege and the worst that happens is that the tribute stops for a time.
this would be perfect timing for kim. he can agree to what ever we push. then after a couple of years quietly go back to his sneaky plan. woooo haaaaahaaahaa!!
“Why is it that the two countries, the US and North Korea, signed an armistice agreement, yet the US insists that NK disarm but doesn’t have to disarm itself?”
You’re kidding right? Why, when you sign a lease, don’t you make your landlord pay you rent? Because the landlord has something you want, and they have the power in the negotiation relatioship. Same thing here. We have the power position in this negotiation, so we get to make the demands.
*As Bush began to wind down his stay at the Asia-Pacific summit, Roh challenged him to make a declaration to end the Korean War. That conflict ended in a truce in 1953, not a peace treaty, so the two sides technically remain at war. *