Bring It On!

Diplomacy Good.

February 13th, 2007 | by Craig R. Harmon |

It may be that six party talks have been successful in North Korea. I say “may be” because North Korea is famous for agreeing to something and then, almost immediately, within hours or days, reneging on some parts or all of their promises so it’s too early to proclaim this as a great vindication for Bush’s insistence on not conducting one-on-one negotiations between the United States and North Korea but news that the Koreans have promised to disable their reactor and allow inspectors entry ain’t bad news. Let’s hope they follow through.

Dismantling of their nuclear weapons and giving up their fuel was not agreed upon but was left to future negotiations.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 5 Responses to “Diplomacy Good.”

  2. By Jersey McJones on Feb 13, 2007 | Reply

    They probably just had another miserable winter up there and need some help.

    JMJ

  3. By ken grandlund on Feb 13, 2007 | Reply

    In light of the history of North Korean negotiations, I don’t think we can break open the bubbly for at least a decade. Remember, Clinton ’successfully’ negotiated with NK too, only to have been duped. So no credit for Bush on this for at least a decade.

    And, from what I’ve heard so far, the agreements are pretty one-sided by America- releasing some funds held, giving them some fuel oil, hoping for more talks. The others are just along for the ride, except for maybe China.

  4. By Tom Baker on Feb 13, 2007 | Reply

    Craig

     

    I was heartened when I first read this. Then I read the line about the nuclear weapons were not discussed.  That isn’t a victory for the negotiations, it’s capitulation. Of COURSE NK is OK with dismantling their program for a few years for some fuel, it already has a nuclear deterant and knows it can spin the processing factories back up again if need be. The point was to disarm them from being a nuclear nation, not to let them build their nukes, give them fuel and money and congratulate them on being “reasonable”

    Damn man, how do we get out negotiated by a crazy bastard leading a starving country?

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 13, 2007 | Reply

    Tom,

    Yes, well, I would say that negotiating with a crazy bastard who starves his people in order to maintain a nuclear arsenal is an exercise in futility anyway. Negotiating requires both rationality on the part of both parties as well as good faith. As you say, Kim Jung Il has neither. One can argue whether Bush has either (I think he has both, by the way, but that’s probably a minority opinion around here). The question is, do you hold out for all the marbles or do you take negotiations a step at a time? I doubt that any form of negotiations by any country or combination of countries that were not willing to back up their end of negotiations with the credible threat of all out war against NK would result in what we got in Lybia, no matter how long we held out. The administration finally decided to take what it could get and use that as a basis for further negotiations.

    I’m as skeptical as the rest of you about the likelihood of this becoming a long term solution to the problem as evidenced by my less than all out celebration of this result. I do think it’s a first step, though.

  6. By Tom Baker on Feb 13, 2007 | Reply

    Hey I’m not blaming George necessarily. I mean there IS blame to go around but its from years ago when he should have quit shipping them fuel. The deal is a rotten one because thats the only thing we were going to get. We hold no cards, China holds a card but won’t play it, and NK holds nukes. I agree 100% that it is an excercise in futility. I was just chiming in on the fact that Diplomacy hasn’t succeeded because one side got everythign they wanted, and the superpowers rolled over like a well trained poodle.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel