Understanding the North's motivations for coming clean on their nuclear program at this point in time is more difficult, however.
Clearly the North got caught with its hand in the cookie jar. When presented with the evidence of prohibited nuclear weapons activity by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly during his visit to Pyongyang on Oct. 3 to Oct. 5 -- the first high-level visit by a Bush administration official -- the North reportedly vigorously denied the allegations at first and then, after an all-night meeting, were quoted as saying "of course we have a nuclear program," blaming President George W. Bush's "axis of evil" speech and the presence of US forces in the South for their deliberate violation of the above-referenced agreements.
Some see the North's actions as deja vu. They recall the old 1993 to 1994 crisis prompted by the North's sudden withdrawal from the NPT, which led to the 1994 Agreed Framework (under which the North receives 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually and two light water reactors eventually in return for a verified freeze in its nuclear weapons program).
Assuming that Kelly's proof would, at a minimum, end the fuel oil deliveries and halt the LWR construction anyway, the North may have decided to create a new crisis in hopes of reaching a new agreement, under which they would again be compensated for not doing what they were not supposed to be doing in the first place. Officials in Seoul have another (more polite) way of saying this, speculating that the North's confession "may be a sign that it wants to resolve the problem through negotiations rather than confrontation."
To this end, local press reports also cite unidentified Republic of Korea (ROK) officials as saying that the North offered Washington a deal to barter US guarantees for its survival in return for resolving US concerns regarding the North's weapons of mass destruction.
Given the South Korean media's tendency to report rumor as fact, however, this should be taken with a large grain of salt. ROK officials are understandably concerned -- what's good for the soul has not been good for Seoul.
President Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy" of engagement with the North had already been under attack for being too trusting (and generous) toward the North; "suspicions confirmed" has been the outcry from the opposition, with all presidential candidates (including the one from the ruling party) demanding the North comply with its promises and abandon its nuclear ambitions.
Many have also tied the North Korean action, in one way or another, to Iraq. Perhaps the North decided to come out of the closet now because it believed the Bush administration was so preoccupied with Iraq that it would have to accept Pyongyang's actions.
Or, more credibly, perhaps Washington's presumed determination to strike Iraq before it develops nuclear weapons caused Pyongyang to claim that it has them in order to deter Washington for picking on North Korea next. On this point it is worth noting that it is still unclear exactly what the North acknowledged having -- a secret program for developing nuclear weapons or the actual weapons themselves.One report also claims that North Korean officials said they "have more powerful things as well," causing speculation about possible biological weapons as well -- the North's possession of chemical weapons has been an open secret for years.
One person I talked to even speculated that there was some conspiracy between Pyongyang and Washington behind the announcement -- South Koreans are world-class conspiracy theorists, although this one stretched the limits.
And, of course, there are those who wonder if the North really did confess or if there wasn't a "secret offer" that Washington is still withholding, such as the grand bargain described above.
Its reputation as a trigger-happy unilateral cowboy not-withstanding, the Bush administration's response to the crisis has been measured, non-threatening (to date), and taken in full consultation with Tokyo and Seoul.
Bush has called the North's confession "troubling, sobering news" but has expressed his determination to address the issue through diplomatic channels. "We seek a peaceful solution," he said.
One would have thought that this would have gained Washington a few rounds of applause. Instead, it raised questions as to why the administration was revealing all this now -- rather than the more logical question of why the North seemed to be precipitating another crisis.
All eyes will now be on the planned Oct. 26 Bush-Kim-Koizumi summit meeting along the sidelines of the APEC meeting in Mexico, to see if the three leaders will be able to speak with one voice in charting a clear path toward bringing North Korea back into full compliance with its own earlier agreements, hopefully without resorting to forceful measures.
This topic will also (rightfully) become a central theme in future Japan-North Korea negations, scheduled to resume in Kuala Lumpur at the end of the month, and should be high on Seoul's list in its own negotiations with Pyongyang.
Ralph A. Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based non-profit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS