We have Nukes: DPRK - Strategic Impact Analysis
Seoul Doubts N.Korea Has Nukes, Despite Claim
Mon Feb 14, 2005 02:52 PM ET
By Jack Kim
SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea's top policymaker on North Korea said Monday North Korea's claim to have nuclear weapons was unproven and Seoul's controversial engagement policy with the North would remain, at least for now.
North Korea explicitly said for the first time last Thursday that it had atomic weapons. The reclusive communist state also said it was pulling out of six-party talks aimed at ending a two-year impasse over its nuclear programs because of what it called U.S. hostility. "There is no doubt that North Korea has 10 to 14 kg (22 to 31 pounds) of plutonium, but there is no evidence that the North has turned it into plutonium bombs," Minister of Unification Chung Dong-young told parliament Monday.
"We see it as a claim to own nuclear weapons, not an official statement of being a nuclear weapons state," he said.
Chung also heads South Korea's National Security Council, which advises President Roh Moo-hyun.
A South Korean Defense White Paper released on Feb. 4 said North Korea was believed to have conducted an aerial blast test and has probably built one or two nuclear weapons. U.S. officials and experts say North Korea probably has one or two -- and possibly more than eight.
Domestic pressure is mounting on the South Korean government to reconsider its policy of reconciliation with the North.
The conservative opposition said the government's policy on the North has made it "a nuclear hostage" and urged Seoul to reconsider commercial projects and aid under the government's engagement policy with the North.
"There is no reason to immediately change this policy direction," Chung said. "It is true that the situation has worsened," he said, adding the government would analyze how to proceed on commercial projects.
SOUTH KOREAN MINISTER MEETS WITH RICE
In Washington, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon told reporters after talks with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice his country wanted to focus on diplomacy when asked if Seoul supported the idea of greater pressure.
"At this time we need to intensify our diplomatic efforts," Ban said. "We will continue our efforts through peaceful and diplomatic (means)."
North Korea has been playing a nuclear card to win diplomatic and economic benefits since a standoff that began in October 2002 when Washington accused it of conducting a secret program to enrich uranium in violation of a 1994 accord.
North Korea seeks direct negotiations with the United States, which Washington rejects, although U.S. officials have held open the possibility of direct talks within the six-party framework, which includes South Korea, China, Japan and Russia.
The New York Times reported Monday that in recent months the Bush administration had begun developing new strategies to cut off North Korea's remaining sources of income based on techniques used against the al Qaeda network responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
Asked about the report, which cited unnamed intelligence officials and policy makers, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "We have an obligation to protect the American people, we have an obligation to help protect our allies, we have an obligation to protect our respective economies."
"We have had ongoing efforts for some time to stop North Korea's involvement in illegal activities and that involves law enforcement matters aimed at stopping counterfeiting and stopping drug trafficking. It also involves export controls and it involves counterproliferation efforts."
The newspaper reported the strategies would involve coordination of efforts to track financial transactions that officials said allow Pyongyang to profit from counterfeiting and other activities.
It said some officials described the strategies as the initial steps in what could turn into a broader quarantine if U.S. allies in Asia -- particularly China and South Korea -- can be convinced Pyongyang must be forced to choose between disarmament and deeper isolation.
North Korea has limited trade with the rest of the world and is heavily dependent on foreign aid to feed its 22.5 million people. Aid workers estimate that as many as 1 million North Koreans died as a result of famine in the late 1990s.
South Korea is seeking to reopen stalled bilateral dialogue with the North by proposing to hold senior military talks, the South's Yonhap news agency said Monday.
"We proposed by a telephone message on Feb. 11 to hold the third round of generals' talks as soon as possible," a South Korean defense ministry official was quoted as saying.
The official declined to comment on what the South was proposing to discuss if the meeting takes place, but it would likely be used to assess the North's intent behind last week's nuclear declaration, Yonhap said.
Military dialogue between the two Koreas has been rare despite warming political and commercial ties since an unprecedented summit meeting in Pyongyang between their leaders.
(Additional reporting by Jon Herskovitz, and Tabassum Zakaria and Arshad Mohammed in Washington)
Mon Feb 14, 2005 02:52 PM ET
By Jack Kim
SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea's top policymaker on North Korea said Monday North Korea's claim to have nuclear weapons was unproven and Seoul's controversial engagement policy with the North would remain, at least for now.
North Korea explicitly said for the first time last Thursday that it had atomic weapons. The reclusive communist state also said it was pulling out of six-party talks aimed at ending a two-year impasse over its nuclear programs because of what it called U.S. hostility. "There is no doubt that North Korea has 10 to 14 kg (22 to 31 pounds) of plutonium, but there is no evidence that the North has turned it into plutonium bombs," Minister of Unification Chung Dong-young told parliament Monday.
"We see it as a claim to own nuclear weapons, not an official statement of being a nuclear weapons state," he said.
Chung also heads South Korea's National Security Council, which advises President Roh Moo-hyun.
A South Korean Defense White Paper released on Feb. 4 said North Korea was believed to have conducted an aerial blast test and has probably built one or two nuclear weapons. U.S. officials and experts say North Korea probably has one or two -- and possibly more than eight.
Domestic pressure is mounting on the South Korean government to reconsider its policy of reconciliation with the North.
The conservative opposition said the government's policy on the North has made it "a nuclear hostage" and urged Seoul to reconsider commercial projects and aid under the government's engagement policy with the North.
"There is no reason to immediately change this policy direction," Chung said. "It is true that the situation has worsened," he said, adding the government would analyze how to proceed on commercial projects.
SOUTH KOREAN MINISTER MEETS WITH RICE
In Washington, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon told reporters after talks with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice his country wanted to focus on diplomacy when asked if Seoul supported the idea of greater pressure.
"At this time we need to intensify our diplomatic efforts," Ban said. "We will continue our efforts through peaceful and diplomatic (means)."
North Korea has been playing a nuclear card to win diplomatic and economic benefits since a standoff that began in October 2002 when Washington accused it of conducting a secret program to enrich uranium in violation of a 1994 accord.
North Korea seeks direct negotiations with the United States, which Washington rejects, although U.S. officials have held open the possibility of direct talks within the six-party framework, which includes South Korea, China, Japan and Russia.
The New York Times reported Monday that in recent months the Bush administration had begun developing new strategies to cut off North Korea's remaining sources of income based on techniques used against the al Qaeda network responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
Asked about the report, which cited unnamed intelligence officials and policy makers, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "We have an obligation to protect the American people, we have an obligation to help protect our allies, we have an obligation to protect our respective economies."
"We have had ongoing efforts for some time to stop North Korea's involvement in illegal activities and that involves law enforcement matters aimed at stopping counterfeiting and stopping drug trafficking. It also involves export controls and it involves counterproliferation efforts."
The newspaper reported the strategies would involve coordination of efforts to track financial transactions that officials said allow Pyongyang to profit from counterfeiting and other activities.
It said some officials described the strategies as the initial steps in what could turn into a broader quarantine if U.S. allies in Asia -- particularly China and South Korea -- can be convinced Pyongyang must be forced to choose between disarmament and deeper isolation.
North Korea has limited trade with the rest of the world and is heavily dependent on foreign aid to feed its 22.5 million people. Aid workers estimate that as many as 1 million North Koreans died as a result of famine in the late 1990s.
South Korea is seeking to reopen stalled bilateral dialogue with the North by proposing to hold senior military talks, the South's Yonhap news agency said Monday.
"We proposed by a telephone message on Feb. 11 to hold the third round of generals' talks as soon as possible," a South Korean defense ministry official was quoted as saying.
The official declined to comment on what the South was proposing to discuss if the meeting takes place, but it would likely be used to assess the North's intent behind last week's nuclear declaration, Yonhap said.
Military dialogue between the two Koreas has been rare despite warming political and commercial ties since an unprecedented summit meeting in Pyongyang between their leaders.
(Additional reporting by Jon Herskovitz, and Tabassum Zakaria and Arshad Mohammed in Washington)
Why, thank you! I'm a funny guy.Johann wrote:Really, thats funny.
Tsk, tsk, Johann. I say the West is not overly keen to invade nuclear-armed countries and you respond with talk about Syria, Lebanon, Uganda and Tanzania?! You're a pretty funny guy yourself, obviously.I didnt know Syria had nukes when they rolled in to Lebanon in 1976, or Tanzania when they marched in to Uganda to throw out Idi Amin, or India when they intervened to end the Pakistani civil war in Bangladesh, or...ad finitum
The point I'm making is simple to the point of being obvious -- if Serbia had nukes there would have been no Kosovo War. If Iraq had nukes there would have been no Iraq War. You may agree with this or not, but my statements are not disproved by red herrings about Uganda, Bangladesh etc.
The DPRK people have their back to a corner. In the negotiations the Chinese are reluctant to back them up visibly for fear of offending powerful trading partners, the Americans are keen to push with the infiltration of their political system, and the South Koreans want to push ahead with re-unification. Add to that mix the Japanese and the Russians who will do anything to screw the north koreans, and we get a situation where the North Koreans have to do something that makes the world respect them. So they come out and say that they have a nuke.
It makes absolutely no difference to everyone around them, everyone knew all along that they had nuclear weapons. An overt declaration brings things to a head vis-a-vis the US. The Bush Admin has to bend to accomodate the North Koreans, at the very least to ensure that the media doesn't take them to task and the Chinese have to bend to ensure that their link to DPRK isn't exposed. When two people at the table get all antsy, they will automatically elbow out the Russians and the Japanese.
The South Koreans could not care less, if the North Koreans were going to listen to them on the Nuke issue, the matter would have been solved ages ago. At this point the South Koreans can say whatever they want to reassure their population but nothing that fundamentally shakes the barrel.
Does the statement of Sri. Natwar Singh now make sense? the North Koreans were going to come out with their nukes anyway. If the South Koreans had jumped ahead of them with some statement about even "developing nukes", the North Koreans would have had their excuse. An argument sometimes made in the Indian context is that the Pakistanis would have tested their nuke anyway - given their failing economy and other factors, the Indian tests simply ended up putting the blame for that on India. It is not known whether this argument makes any sense per se.. but it is a valid debating point.
I am not saying that India should not have tested first. I am merely saying that the situation vis-a-vis the Koreas is different from the situation in the subcontinent. We threw down a high card knowing that when it flushed out the Pakistani high card there would be a predictable change. The South Koreans would have unnecessarily wasted a high card - since the North Koreans were going to throw theirs down anyway.
It makes absolutely no difference to everyone around them, everyone knew all along that they had nuclear weapons. An overt declaration brings things to a head vis-a-vis the US. The Bush Admin has to bend to accomodate the North Koreans, at the very least to ensure that the media doesn't take them to task and the Chinese have to bend to ensure that their link to DPRK isn't exposed. When two people at the table get all antsy, they will automatically elbow out the Russians and the Japanese.
The South Koreans could not care less, if the North Koreans were going to listen to them on the Nuke issue, the matter would have been solved ages ago. At this point the South Koreans can say whatever they want to reassure their population but nothing that fundamentally shakes the barrel.
Does the statement of Sri. Natwar Singh now make sense? the North Koreans were going to come out with their nukes anyway. If the South Koreans had jumped ahead of them with some statement about even "developing nukes", the North Koreans would have had their excuse. An argument sometimes made in the Indian context is that the Pakistanis would have tested their nuke anyway - given their failing economy and other factors, the Indian tests simply ended up putting the blame for that on India. It is not known whether this argument makes any sense per se.. but it is a valid debating point.
I am not saying that India should not have tested first. I am merely saying that the situation vis-a-vis the Koreas is different from the situation in the subcontinent. We threw down a high card knowing that when it flushed out the Pakistani high card there would be a predictable change. The South Koreans would have unnecessarily wasted a high card - since the North Koreans were going to throw theirs down anyway.
India tested their nukes in 1974. In 1998 we tested advanced bums. India-Pak situation has no parallel with NKorea/SKorea. It is similar to comparing Kashmir problem with the palesteni one. We should not equate them. NitWit Singh's statements, as a GOI official, were a mistake. As a GOI official I expect him to stick to GOI's actions which are done with the Indian security in mind.
One thing about the whole North Korean/Iranian nukes thing is that people have totally forgotten that we have nukes. Not sure if that is a good or bad thing.
This afternoon at lunch, I was discussing world politics with a few gora friends and workmates. We went from Iraq's (supposed) WMDs to Iran's and North Korea's. People mentioned Israel having a secret arsenal and I pointed out that there are 7 declared nuclear powers but there far more countries capable of making nukes. Three people at once tried to correct me that there are only "five" declared nuclear powers.
That necessitated me to go through the whole Pokhran/paki thing. Maybe it is a good thing that people don't know or care enough which probably means like chance of the embargo repeating. But it certainly seems to me that North Korea is getting more mileage out of its supposed nukes than we do of our real ones.
This afternoon at lunch, I was discussing world politics with a few gora friends and workmates. We went from Iraq's (supposed) WMDs to Iran's and North Korea's. People mentioned Israel having a secret arsenal and I pointed out that there are 7 declared nuclear powers but there far more countries capable of making nukes. Three people at once tried to correct me that there are only "five" declared nuclear powers.
That necessitated me to go through the whole Pokhran/paki thing. Maybe it is a good thing that people don't know or care enough which probably means like chance of the embargo repeating. But it certainly seems to me that North Korea is getting more mileage out of its supposed nukes than we do of our real ones.
Uncle is a bad student.
He sent TSP to negotiate with Taliban and Osama, they inturn went and told Osma never to surrender.
He asks PRC to be mediator thinking it can influence NoKo said 'Nakko'
(Marathi/Hyderabdi) to Chincoms after so much water down the Potamac
Now read this Bob Gifford report in NPR
He sent TSP to negotiate with Taliban and Osama, they inturn went and told Osma never to surrender.
He asks PRC to be mediator thinking it can influence NoKo said 'Nakko'
(Marathi/Hyderabdi) to Chincoms after so much water down the PotamacNow read this Bob Gifford report in NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4499665World
Chinese Influence on N. Korea Increasingly Unclear
by Rob Gifford
Morning Edition, February 15, 2005 · Last week North Korea said it has developed nuclear weapons and it's withdrawing from six-party talks on its nuclear weapons. One member of the six-party process, China, appears to have less and less influence over the North Koreans.
-
enqyoobOLD
- BRFite
- Posts: 690
- Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
- Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain
Mohan, clearly we both prefer our digestifs extra dry. Cheers.Mohan Raju wrote:Tsk, tsk, Johann. I say the West is not overly keen to invade nuclear-armed countries and you respond with talk about Syria, Lebanon, Uganda and Tanzania?! You're a pretty funny guy yourself, obviously.
The point I'm making is simple to the point of being obvious -- if Serbia had nukes there would have been no Kosovo War. If Iraq had nukes there would have been no Iraq War. You may agree with this or not, but my statements are not disproved by red herrings about Uganda, Bangladesh etc.
You seemed to suggest that its only the nuclear armed west that directly intervenes when a neighboring country explosivley self-destructs. Kosovo is hardly the first or the only war of its type.
Any and all regional powers can be driven to it, including non-nuclear countries, and nuclear weapons would have deterred them just as much. If Pakistan had any idea what was coming in 1971 they would have got to the business of a nuclear weapons programme years before. So would Idi Amin. So would Pol Pot, etc.
It isnt just countries subject to Western intervention that would like to have them, and it isnt just the West that would be deterred from direct intervention by nuclear weapons. Thats no red herring. It should be obvious from India's experience among others.
Another bumkum
Pakistan had complete idea right from 1947 what was in store for it. They did in 1947 ( because of the British Treachery) 1965, 1971, (unlce winking) .
This kind of spinning is better suited on Paki fora.
Pakistan would not have ever gotten the Nukes with out the collusion PRC and Uncle.If Pakistan had any idea what was coming in 1971 they would have got to the business of a nuclear weapons programme years before.
Pakistan had complete idea right from 1947 what was in store for it. They did in 1947 ( because of the British Treachery) 1965, 1971, (unlce winking) .
This kind of spinning is better suited on Paki fora.
It is not some PR mileage-shmileage that India needs from the nucs. India is getting (and had gotten during Kargil) what it needs most the assurance that India would not be coerced into policies that are against the interests of the Indian people by nuc blackmail from it's nuclear armed neighbours on the west and east (across the Himalayas).chola wrote:But it certainly seems to me that North Korea is getting more mileage out of its supposed nukes than we do of our real ones.
What do you want India to do? Act like a rogue elephant in "masti" and tranple all over the neighborhood just because it has a nuc "hardon"?
A return to Deng's 'keep a low profile, never take the lead' (Taiwan apart) maxim now that Jiang is gone?
China Is Uneasy in Korean Role, Wary of U.S. Motives
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
New York Times
February 18, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/18/inter ... ready.html
Spinster,
You're sure that Pakistan after 1947 thought they could lose half the country to civil war and an ensuing Indian intervention? They certainly didnt act like it before 1972.
Ayub and the Pakistani establishment turned down Bhutto's proposal for a nuclear option as late as 1964/1965 when China tested and it was clear India was preparing to respond. Instead Pakistan consistantly overstimated their conventional capability, and underestimated India's. As well as overestimating their relationship with the West.
If Pakistan had as much foresight about the nuclear weapon option as India they would have copied their example and bought an unsafeguarded heavy water research reactor back in the 1950s and established a reprocessing capability, rather than the expensive and desperate scrambling since 1972. Pakistan could have established the plutonium route it still so badly wants.
China Is Uneasy in Korean Role, Wary of U.S. Motives
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
New York Times
February 18, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/18/inter ... ready.html
SHANGHAI, Feb. 18 — The dispatch by China of a high-level envoy this weekend to persuade the North Koreans to return to talks on their nuclear weapons would seem to present it with an ideal opportunity. China’s economy is growing enormously, casting shadows in every direction.
Its fast-modernizing military has the attention of every power, regional or global. No other country, meanwhile, enjoys the kind of long, unbroken friendship that China has nurtured for over five decades with North Korea. In short, all the pieces would seem to be in place for Beijing to score its first big coup in global diplomacy, brokering an end to the nuclear threat on the Korean peninsula.
The only problem with this optimistic scenario is that it is shared by almost no one in China.
For now, the Chinese remain reluctant to take major diplomatic risks on North Korea, convinced that this longtime ally, a country that Chinese soldiers shed blood in large numbers to defend, will never turn against them. Analysts say that Beijing’s top priority is to maintain quiet on its frontier, and that it would take a more aggressive tack only if tensions between Washington and North Korea were to increase seriously.
Beyond such doubts, however, lingers an even more fundamental reason for the reluctance of China to take the lead in this crisis: its deepseated skepticism about the United States’ strategic designs in the region.
“If we cut off aid and the Koreas are unified on South Korean terms, that would be a big disaster for China,” one analyst said. “The U.S. would insist on basing its troops in the northern part of the peninsula, and China would have to consider that all of its efforts going back to the Korean War have been a waste.”
Other experts here look cynically on Washington’s insistence on Chinese leadership in the North Korean face-off, seeing it as part of a broader effort by the United States to entangle Beijing in a growing web of international arrangements, the better to limit Chinese influence.
A fresh example of the divisions between the United States and China was provided this week with confirmation that Tokyo is moving closer to Washington’s policy position that the status quo on Taiwan must be maintained. Chinese analysts often point out that having a friendly country tying up American troops on its northern border frees Beijing to focus its forces on other contingencies, notably the Taiwan question.
Meanwhile, most Chinese international security experts insist that the United States holds the two most important keys to resolving the North Korean problem: ending a state of hostility that dates from the earliest days of the cold war and providing tangible assurances to North Korea that Washington does not seek the government’s overthrow.
“Although many of our friends see it as a failing state, potentially one with nuclear weapons, China has a different view,” said Piao Jianyi, an expert in international relations at the Institute of Asia Pacific Studies in Beijing. “North Korea has a reforming economy that is very weak, but every year is getting better, and the regime is taking measures to reform its economy, so perhaps the U.S. should reconsider its approach.”
This widely held picture of a slowly, painfully reforming North Korea suggests a broad sympathy for North Korea among Chinese intellectuals and policy makers. For many, North Korea’s experience echoes China’s fitful reforms of a generation ago. “In the late 1960’s, China also had a lack of transparency,” Mr. Piao added. “It was also threatening to other countries and, as Westerners would say, it was an oppressive country. But one threatens others because one feels threatened, and in that perspective, you can better understand North Korea.”
Many experts in Chinese affairs say the main emphasis of the country’s foreign policy remains avoiding turbulence wherever possible in international relations, the better to realize its economic ambitions. “As far as the Chinese are concerned, the bottom line is stability,” said Robert Sutter, a former national intelligence officer for East Asia, and author of the coming book “China’s Rise in Asia.”
“They’ve been really concerned about the danger of war in Korea, and that is why they got busy behind the six-party talks, not because they wanted to be seen as any great Asian player.
Still, putting a lot of pressure on North Korea would be hard for them, and I don’t think they want to take those risks.”
Spinster,
You're sure that Pakistan after 1947 thought they could lose half the country to civil war and an ensuing Indian intervention? They certainly didnt act like it before 1972.
Ayub and the Pakistani establishment turned down Bhutto's proposal for a nuclear option as late as 1964/1965 when China tested and it was clear India was preparing to respond. Instead Pakistan consistantly overstimated their conventional capability, and underestimated India's. As well as overestimating their relationship with the West.
If Pakistan had as much foresight about the nuclear weapon option as India they would have copied their example and bought an unsafeguarded heavy water research reactor back in the 1950s and established a reprocessing capability, rather than the expensive and desperate scrambling since 1972. Pakistan could have established the plutonium route it still so badly wants.