Interesting Clarifications On NK

[DanS]

The US walked into the recent negotiations that included NK and didn't give an inch. This appears to be a surprise to the Chinese and North Koreans, who apparently were expecting to see what kind of blackmail loot the US would give them. The US stance was helpful in clarifying their intentions.

NK immediately whines about how unproductive the meeting is, which puts egg on the face of the Chinese. Then the Chinese back their client and say that the US attitude is the obstacle to a settlement...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/02/international/asia/02KORE.html?ex=1063080000&en=46193be4c72913c4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Meanwhile, Russia and South Korea appear to be bewildered about it all. Neither seem to have a strategic end game in mind.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,207726,00.html

Overall, I think the talk but say nothing approach is the best for the US in this situation. What we have is an assortment of players in the game with overlapping walk away points, while the Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement is pretty frightful. There are very few pieces left to be played in this game.

[GePap]

The US position is :NK, give up all your nuclear programs NOW, then we will talk; or, NK, surrender and then we can neogtiate. well, once NK is legally out of the NPT, the US can;t even state that NK having nukes is in violation of international law, given that all states have the right to withdraw from the treaty, as long as they accept loosing IAEA spport and nuclear tech from others. Why on earth would NK ever agree to that at all, specially since it klnows the other solution is frightfull (which is what it is counting on)?

Oh, and again, NK is not China's client.

[DanS]

well, once NK is legally out of the NPT, the US can;t even state that NK having nukes is in violation of international law, given that all states have the right to withdraw from the treaty, as long as they accept loosing IAEA spport and nuclear tech from others.

While true, it doesn't matter in the scheme of things. Nobody in the region wants NK to have nukes because of the chain reaction that it would cause. The US wouldn't be nearly averse to this chain reaction as are some others, such as the Chinese.

Why on earth would NK ever agree to that at all, specially since it klnows the other solution is frightfull (which is what it is counting on)?

I think it will come to realize that the nuclear option represents a dead end for the regime. The Chinese have some leverage in this respect. If the US always talks about concessions when NK talks big, then that communicates a dangerous falsehood--that the threat of going nuclear is a big jackpot for NK. Instead, it has cost them a lot of money. At least $500 million so far.

[GePap]

Having that 500 million does not assure the continuation of the Kim Il Jong regime, which is the aim of the NK. Once the NK declares itself a nuclear power, there is little its neighbors can do with the exception of China, and the cost to China of acting would be immense so China's risk adverse leadership may very well just decide there is a new strategic balance in the region, and get ready for it.

[DanS]

Once the NK declares itself a nuclear power, there is little its neighbors can do with the exception of China, and the cost to China of acting would be immense so China's risk adverse leadership may very well just decide there is a new strategic balance in the region, and get ready for it.

The cost of not acting would be very high as well. You have a nuclearized Japan and South Korea, both with missile defense shields. Taiwan could also be encouraged to take its program out of mothballs, since we were the ones to put the Kaibash on that way back when.

[GePap]

Both of those are theoretical problems, lacking the reality of huge sawrms of NK refugees streaming into manchuria after China attempts to force the NK to give them up economically..besides, they can always threaten Taiwan with attack if it goes too far into the nuclear scheme, and given the small size of the target, do real harm. (plus the value of a Taiwanese nuclear force vis a vi NK is low..their enemy has always been China, not NK, so a nuclear NK does NOT change in any drastic ways the security situation of Taiwan)

[DanS]

China will just have to pick its poison. It's not our fault that their friends are in a state of collapse economically.

[GePap]

A nuclear NK is the lesser, if one takes the short view, which the Chinese leadership is.

If Bush does not make an offer to the NK before it agrees to give up its nukes, then we will either see the Bush admin. attack NK and probably begin a new war on the NK penninsula, or see NK annoucne itself a nuclear power and then everyone else will have to find a way to deal with it (and Bush will have egg on his face).

The reality is, blackmail works (it certainly does we we do it, and NK has found another viable avenue)

[DanS]

The reality is, blackmail works

Then the Chinese will have to pay it. I'm tired of having my tax dollars go to it.

A nuclear NK is the lesser, if one takes the short view, which the Chinese leadership is.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
Then the Chinese will have to pay it. I'm tired of having my tax dollars go to it.

You tax dollars go to what Anyway. Yes, blackmail works, but not all the time... in this case, blakcmail by china would probably not work.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

So why is it the Chinese are blaming the US as intransigent? cause the simplest thing for them would be to see the US offer something NK could take, NK takes it, problem goes away.

[GePap]

Oh, and it was the guy you voted for that stated he would not stand for a nuclear NK, not the Chinese, so we are talking here about US policy primarilly, and last time I checked, that is only pad for by US taxpayers.

So, would you rather pay for the blackmail, the war, or the new startegic situation and it's consequences?

[DanS]

Personally, I would choose the new strategic situation. But that also might lead to war, considering that we would probably blockade NK.

[The Mad Monk]

New strategic situation sounds good to me.

We cannot afford the consequences of successful nuclear grandstanding.

[The Andy-Man]

China would proably risk fighting a war against NK with the US and SK. in this situation NK has little hope of winning in the long term, not to mention that for the US this war would probably be ok domesticly and internationally (a nuclear NK is very dangerous), and it will prolly result with a Chinese/US agreement about sphears of influence...

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by GePap
If Bush does not make an offer to the NK before it agrees to give up its nukes,

They broke the last one from the get go, before the ink was dry. They will not get another until they comply with the last one.