quote:

---

The United States and North Korea still do not agree on a definition of denuclearization, the core issue of the talks. North Korea wants a broader definition that, according to some reports, would require the removal of all nuclear weapons from the Korean Peninsula. The United States, which denies having nuclear weapons in South Korea, has rejected this demand and has insisted that the talks focus solely on North Korea's nuclear program. July 28, 2005 news report

---

Does that sound either reasonable or consistent to anybody? Or is the United States position really a demand for unilateral disarmament by the North, while reserving to themselves the right to arm South Korea with nukes?

This passage from a Washington Post item seems to confirm the latter conclusion:

quote:

---

North Korea also has suggested that the U.S. alliance with South Korea be taken into account, implying that U.S. nuclear weapons are part of security guarantees for South Korea. That, the U.S. official said, is unacceptable to the Bush administration.

---

[ 29 July 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

The United States had active contingency plans as recently as 1998 to drop up to 30 nuclear warheads on North Korea in case of an attack on Seoul, according to declassified documents from the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. government departments.
....
The newly declassified documents also showed the U.S. kept nuclear weaponry in South Korea until at least 1998, despite officially claiming it had withdrawn all nuclear warheads in 1991, Kyodo reported. Source

---

For the cause of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in northeast Asia at large, the six parties held in a spirit of mutual respect and equality serious and practical talks concerning the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula on the basis of the common understanding of the previous three rounds of talks and agreed in this context to the following:

1) The six parties unanimously reaffirmed that the goal of the six-party talks is the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) and to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards.

The United States affirmed that is has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or conventional weapons.

The ROK (South Korea) reaffirmed its commitment not to receive or deploy nuclear weapons in accordance with the 1992 joint declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, while affirming that there exist no nuclear weapons within its territory.
The 1992 joint declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula should be observed and implemented.

The DPRK stated that it has the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

The other parties expressed their respect and agreed to discuss at an appropriate time the subject of the provision of light-water reactor to the DPRK.

2) The six parties undertook, in their relations, to abide by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and recognized norms of international relations.

The DPRK and the United States undertook to respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations subject to their respective bilateral policies.

The DPRK and Japan undertook to take steps to normalize their relations in accordance with the (2002) Pyongyang Declaration, on the basis of the settlement of unfortunate past and the outstanding issues of concern.

3) The six parties undertook to promote economic cooperation in the fields of energy, trade and investment, bilaterally and/or
multilaterally.

China, Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Russia and the U.S. stated their willingness to provide energy assistance to the DPRK. The ROK reaffirmed its proposal of July 12, 2005, concerning the provision of 2 million kilowatts of electric power to the DPRK.

4) Committed to joint efforts for lasting peace and stability in northeast Asia. The directly related parties will negotiate a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum.

The six parties agreed to explore ways and means for promoting security cooperation in northeast Asia.

5) The six parties agreed to take coordinated steps to implement the aforementioned consensus in a phased manner in line with the principle of "commitment for commitment, action for action."

The statement of principles issued September 19 was vague, contradictory, and more an agreement on wording than on anything substantive. It was apparent from the beginning that there was in fact no meeting of minds behind the statement - it had been cobbled together to make it look as if some progress was being made. Almost immediately, the head of the US delegation was calling on North Korea to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear facility, and Condoleeza Rice was repeating the perennial US demand that the Koreans had to disarm unilaterally and submit to international verification before the USA would even talk about providing for a civilian nuclear electric generating capacity in North Korea.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry responded by issuing a statement that said, "The U.S. should not even dream of the issue of (North Korea's) dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing (light-water reactors), a physical guarantee for confidence-building." Again, this is no change in negotiating position.

The so-called agreement did in fact purport to recognize North Korea's right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. But that was as far as the US was willing to go. The "agreement" called for the DPRK to abandon all its military and civilian nuclear programs, with international verifiability, and it made discussions for a peace agreement and any energy assistance program contingent on such a unilateral and verifiable disarmament. It was the same position the US has taken all along: first you disarm unilaterally and then we'll talk about other things. At the same time the USA continues to insist that there are no nuclear weapons in South Korea, while refusing to submit that claim to international verification.

quote:

---

"He loves to tussle," said Jeane Kirkpatrick, a former ambassador to the United Nations and an admiring former co-worker. "He may do diplomatic jobs for the U.S. government, but John is not a diplomat."

---

quote:

---

In an interview last year with The New York Times, he was asked about conflicting signals from the administration on North Korea. He strode over to a bookshelf, pulled off a volume and slapped it on the table. It was called "The End of North Korea," by an American Enterprise Institute colleague.

"That," he said, "is our policy."

---

quote:

---

If Washington is genuinely concerned about the possibility of north Korea selling bombs to terrorist organizations to alleviate its economic problems, shouldn't the US lift its sanctions and ease up on its military pressure - the root causes of these problems? The US keeps 37,000 troops on the Korean peninsula, sends its warplanes aloft to spy on the country, deploys its navy along north Korea's sea frontiers, and leads the Proliferation Security Initiative whose de facto aim is to harass north Korean shipping. As a result of this state of military siege, north Korea is forced to channel a significant share of its limited resources to the military. If it could trade freely and devote its resources fully to the civilian economy, there wouldn't be any talk of the possibility of north Korea selling bombs to get hard currency.

Problem is, the US economy - that is, capitalism - is driven by an expansionary logic that demands access to markets, raw materials, low-wage labor and investment opportunities, which means sweeping planned economies, state-owned enterprises and tariff barriers aside. If north Korea were allowed to develop unharassed, it would become a model of what can be accomplished outside the strictures of the global capitalist economy, inspiring other Third World countries to follow the same path. Planned, socialist economies fared better in the 20th century than unplanned, dependent capitalist economies in turning stunted countries of the Third World into independent, industrial nations capable of meeting the basic human needs of the whole population.

But this would deprive US capital of markets and opportunities for investment. And it would limit the pool of labor available for exploitation to the populations of those countries that remained within the capitalist orbit, thereby driving up the cost of labor and strengthening labor's hand. An unmolested north Korea is a threat to capitalism itself, and, therefore, according to the logic of the US state, must be crushed. But a stifled or crushed north Korea is hardly a boon to labor in the West or to the underdeveloped countries of the global South. We shouldn't wish fervently for its downfall, but hope for its continued defiance. Globalresearch.ca December 14, 2004

---