Shock at N Korean nuclear 'admission'

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
Recently the reclusive state has been reaching out
South Korea and Japan have moved to limit the fall-out from a shock US announcement that North Korea had admitted to having a secret nuclear weapons programme.
South Korea and Japan said the surprise statement would not alter their plans to try and improve ties with the secretive North.

Both governments have been pushing the US to engage with Pyongyang. But US officials said policy towards the North was now under review.

The US State Department said on Thursday that North Korea confessed to the programme after Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly presented American documentary "evidence" on the issue during a visit to Pyongyang earlier this month.

Previous accusations against the North have been met by flat denials and angry propaganda, and it is not clear why North Korea chose to respond to the US allegations.

But South Korean officials, while describing the admission as "very serious", said Seoul would continue to pursue its "sunshine" policy of engagement with the North.

A positive sign?

A presidential aide said Seoul viewed North Korea's apparent confession as an indication that it was keen to pursue dialogue.

Japan also reacted calmly, and pledged it would still go ahead with talks to normalise relations with North Korea later this month.

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda said that Tokyo had received "information related to the issue" but not "detailed information" before Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi held his landmark summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il last month.

Tokyo said it would raise the issue during the normalisation talks.

"We will ask North Korea to erase nuclear suspicions honestly," Mr Koizumi told reporters.

Seoul also said there were no plans to postpone a visit by a cabinet-level delegation to Pyongyang on Saturday and would raise the nuclear issue during talks.

Yim Sung-joon, top presidential adviser on national security and foreign policy, said South Korea saw "this frank confirmation of nuclear suspicions... as a sign North Korea is willing to resolve this problem through dialogue".

US rethinks

US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was more cautious.

He said Washington had been prepared to offer North Korea economic and political incentives to dramatically alter its behaviour, but that in the light of the confession, "we are unable to pursue with approach".

But he stressed, "We seek a peaceful resolution of this situation. Everyone in the region has a stake in this issue and no peaceful nation wants to see a nuclear-armed North Korea."

Reclusive North Korea is one of three states dubbed an "axis of evil" by US President George W Bush, along with Iran and Iraq.

However, in recent months there has been a thaw in Pyongyang's dealings with the outside world.

This was one of the reasons for Mr Kelly's visit to Pyongyang on 3 October.

Admission

At first the North Koreans tried to deny the evidence of a nuclear programme, but eventually "they acknowledged they had a secret nuclear weapons programme involving enriched uranium," one US official said.

Mr Boucher said this meant Pyongyang was in "serious violation of North Korea's commitments under the Agreed Framework" - the 1994 deal under which North Korea agreed to halt its nuclear weapons programme in return for two light water reactors.

US officials said North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Kang Sok-joo, who was "assertive, aggressive" in the revelation, also alluded to "more powerful" weapons.

North Korea is also suspected of harbouring or pursuing chemical and biological weapons programmes.

Kelly on tour

US officials said the Bush administration is now consulting with its allies and Congress before deciding what to do in light of the revelation.

Mr Kelly is currently in Beijing, where he will discuss, among other issues, North Korea's admission.

China, which allies itself with North Korea, has avoided directly criticising Pyongyang over the revelation.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman said simply: "The nuclear issue of North Korea should be settled through dialogue and negotiation, and should be settled peacefully."

Mr Kelly is also planning to go to Seoul and Tokyo from Beijing for consultations on the issue, the US State Department said.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2336061.stm
 
Yeah and Russia is helping the Irainians with Nuclear Power plants also. I don't blame the president with wanting to implement our missle defense system.
 
so what's the big deal if they have nuclear weapons?

France, England, India, Pakistan, USA, Japan and many other countries have them, either everybody destroy their nuclear weapons, or everybody starts to accept that every single coutnry has the right to have them.
 
Luis G said:
so what's the big deal if they have nuclear weapons?
They signed and ratified a TREATY.

France, England, India, Pakistan, USA, Japan and many other countries have them, either everybody destroy their nuclear weapons, or everybody starts to accept that every single coutnry has the right to have them.
England is good. USA is good. France... hm, they won't use them. India and Pakistan, well, its far away from me. Their missiles can't reach us I think. Japan... well, I don't think they have? Can't be sure.
 
LastLegionary said:
They signed and ratified a TREATY.

Once again with the TREATY discussions?, perfect example of how you guys demand the other party to follow the rules of the treaty :p

My opinion on that is still the same, if they signed it then they should follow it.

England is good. USA is good. France... hm, they won't use them. India and Pakistan, well, its far away from me. Their missiles can't reach us I think. Japan... well, I don't think they have? Can't be sure.

who defines good?
 
I for one do not think attacking North Korea is a valid part of the picture. They are an isolated nation. Eventually they will change or they simply will not survive.
 
Luis G said:
LastLegionary said:
They signed and ratified a TREATY.

Once again with the TREATY discussions?, perfect example of how you guys demand the other party to follow the rules of the treaty :p

My opinion on that is still the same, if they signed it then they should follow it.
They signed a contract in 1996. I have no problem if the world holds them to their treaty. Or, if the US does it for the world, which we have been doing in any case.

We don't have to keep treaties our government hasn't ratified. Or if the people choose not to keep it. In case of North Korea, take an honest poll and see if the common rice farmer cares if his government has nukes or not. And you will see.

Luis said:
England is good. USA is good. France... hm, they won't use them. India and Pakistan, well, its far away from me. Their missiles can't reach us I think. Japan... well, I don't think they have? Can't be sure.

who defines good?
Whoever you want. I define the USA to be good because of liberty, justice, and freedom for all. I define North Korea to be evil because people are starving, no economy, people have no liberties, and there is no justice. To me that indicates evil. Thats why I define good and evil. And I want the good guys to have nukes and the bad guys not to have nukes. My opinion in any case.
 
There are so many points to be made about this. Where to start?

LUIS-is your country under threat from America or Britain or France or Israel or Russia because we/they have nukes? No. Is the world a less safe place because India &/or Pakistan have them? Probably. N Korea, as a communistic country with a propensity towards violence is a threat. They are a threat to Japan, S Korea, Taiwan & Hawaii. Unlikely but potential targets could also include China & Russia. They have a starving population with a dictatorial regime. Their economy is in shambles, if it's even that good. Do you feel safer now that they are armed? I know I don't. Especially knowing that China was their main backer during the "conflict".

What is going on with N Korea anyway? First they allow the "non-kidnapped" Japanese men to return home, temporarily, without their families, after around 20 years of denying they kidnapped them at all. Several are dead by the way. Now, this. Are they pressing to return to agressions from 1954? Are they trying to persudae the west to give them more aid witha promise to stop this activity? Do they want to try peace? Why the sudden change? That is the pressing issue right now.

America, and the rest of the world, is beginning to pay the price for Bill Clinton. He built the N Koreans a nuclear power plant, like a dumbass. He passed up so many opportunities to assist in delivering our world from one of the last bastions of "evil". Hell, NK was about to restart agressions against the south when Noble-Peace-Prize winning usless fuck Jimmy Carter went against Clintons better knowledge (never thought I'd write that) and intervened in 1998. Instead of finally pulling the plug on a dead regime, Slick Willie was cited as one of the most important things to happen to help NK out. Suddenly, NK has nukes & China has ICBM's, capable of reaching the west.

Hex-they probably aren't on the immediate threat list, but don't bet against them becomg a target too, in our fight against terrorism. They are part of the "Axis of Evil" And they just got more sinister.
 
Well they're already a target. But as far as i'm concerned it's going to be a very long time before we're ready to start focusing on NK. I should point out first that i need to educate & update myself on the NK situation. I haven't paid much attention to it for years but i did accept quite some time ago that North Korea had nuclear weapons. Which is why i was rather surprised about this revelation being such a surprise to the west. I was under the impression that these were well known & generally accepted facts. I think the route China takes in the next ten years will have a heavy impact on North Korea. If Chinas Marxist/capitalist experiment works the way we in the west want it to we could see some positive changes in NK in the coming decade. I'm not holding my breath though. As far these kidnappings and the like well i'm just to uninformed to comment. I do however find it hard to believe that with this revelation our intelligence sources are going to tell us the situation has become that much more dire.
I really do need to read some more on the subject. As far as slick Willy and china goes, don't even get me started. If ever there was a president guilty of treason and at the very least total incompetence... i'm just going to stop here.
 
I can see your point Gonz, but they have their right to own nuclear weapons, just as everybody does.
 
Nobody, or at least nobody should (unless there's a treaty like the one they signed), that's their right as a souveirgn nation.
 
Well if they have that right a souveirgn nation then shouldn't we have the right as a souveirgn nation to decide what we feel is good for us as well? As you referred to in an earlier response?
 
Luis G said:
I can see your point Gonz, but they have their right to own nuclear weapons, just as everybody does.
Nobody has a right to anything. And in the past if one country didn't like what the next one was doing, war was declared. Its nature and natural. We might not like it, but that is the way life is. And it just so happens that the United States have the will and the power to decide who can own nukes and who can't. :)

And Hex has an excellent point :D
 
Sovereignty seems to have become over rated in the Clinton and post Clinton era, we seem we have decided there is only one nation that has a right to sovereignty, and that’s us. Why else should we have the right to preemptive strikes, but nobody else should have that same right. Well, this isn’t new. It’s only a further progression based on what we already did in the past couple of decades. I don’t agree with this, but for better or worse, it seems it’s what we decided. Good and bad are of course relative terms, so I don’t agree with the statement that the western world is somehow good and the rest is bad, but I guess that’s a matter of opinion. I can’t say I’m entirely opposed to taking such actions, but only if there is some definitive “proof” that there is a clear and present danger. The problem is, doesn’t this give North Korea and Iraq that same right to strike us preemptively if they see us as a clear and present danger? Clearly we are for them!!! I don’t know, this one isn’t so easy. As for the “right” to possess nuclear weapons, I don’t really know what to say. It is their sovereign right to build them, but then again, if they sign a treat to not build them, it seems they have given up that right. However, there is also the matter of how the treaty was presented, and whether they signed it of free will or under pressure from the western world. I don’t really think they signed the treaty cuz they didn’t want to build them, and they really wanted to give up the right to do it. But rather, it most certainly was brokered under a great deal of pressure from the west, which tends to undermine the legitimacy of the treaty. Doesn’t it? Well, anyway. It’s difficult to say. Out of a sense of preservation, I can see why we take the stance we do, but back to the issue of national sovereignty and the right to choose ones own objectives and destiny, I think maybe these people are very biased, and view self preservation higher than liberty, freedom, and all those rights that people seem to cherish. It’s good for us to be free to do as we wish, but what happens if someone else wants to do what they wish, and it presents a conflict of interest or a danger to us. Then we want to overrule national sovereignty to preserve our own interests. It’s a tough issue, no doubt. But I don’t think we are being fair to these other countries. That’s just my opinion though.
 
CB, are you just a shit disturber or what, Luis was complimenting what the man said, as a fucking HUMAN, it really doesn't matter what country he is from, does it?
 
Back
Top