Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
by Richardson ~ September 27th, 2005. Filed under: North Korea, Six-Party Talks.I will refer to this post whenever discussing the likelihood of a North Korea deal through the Six-Party Talks so that I don’t have to repeat the same information in multiple posts.
Simply put, I do not believe that the situation with North Korea will change while Kim Jong-il is the leader of the DPRK.
Agreements may be reached, but they will likely follow the same pattern of the 1994 Agreed Framework and the June 2000 North-South Joint Statement – North Korea will not faithfully implement its end of the commitment, resulting in long delays or complete failures in implementation.
In my opinion, the reason North Korea under Kim Jong-il will not follow such agreement is the cult aspect of the regime, which necessitates strategic disengagement to prevent outside knowledge from ‘infecting’ its population. If North Koreans knew the truth about their leadership, they would revolt, especially after enduring needless hardships and starvation. North Korea must keep the international community at arms length.
This may change with new leadership. It may also change if Kim Jong-il loses power or influence while still in power, although that is inconceivable at this point in time, barring a serious medical condition.
September 27th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
[…] Taking into consideration the 19 September agreement, the conflicting U.S.-DPRK positions, the history (PDF) of the issue, particularly lessons from the 1994 Agreed Framework, and what can be gleaned from recent news, a picture is emerging of what an actual agreement might look like (hint: package deal). This is all hypothetical of course, but is what I think a workable deal would look like, and why, if North Korea is actually willing to negotiate in good faith. […]
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: James C.
EMAIL: jamesychen@yahoo.com
You said - “North Korea will not faithfully implement its end of the commitment, resulting in long delays or complete failures in implementation.”
Give the man a cigar.
October 6th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
[…] The second issue is how South Korea will view the U.S. opinion, that is, “the U.S. government’s negative perspective,” of the South’s assistance to the North. The U.S. should make it very, very clear to South Korea that such an interpretation is wrong. Aid to North Korea is a good thing, but to a limit during negotiations. The goal to be reached before others, after all, is the nuclear issue. After that it is likely that humanitarian aid from around the world will flood in. Keeping in mind the problems associated with this, or course. […]
December 5th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
[…] While the Six-Party Talks are once again stalled (no surprise), and the U.S. is cutting back on food aid to North Korea since it’s nearly impossible to verify that the food doesn’t go to the elite and the KPA, the Roh administration has continued to adhere to the disastrous “Sunshine Policy” (also know as the “Moonshine Policy”). […]
January 4th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
[…] Actually, North Korea is generally predictable. No, that does not mean specific actions can be predicted; but the path of these talks can be, and no amount of NYT editorial staff […]
January 10th, 2006 at 8:30 am
Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
[…] Basically China is saying that the U.S. sanctions are most likely justified, that North Korea’s reaction to being caught has created this latest “difficult situation,” and that the North should come back to the talks. But all said in diplo-speak so as to safe face for the North. As Kim Jong-il is reportedly in China at the moment, China may be plying him with all manner of niceties – or perhaps threats – to get him to at least act like he’s cooperating. Not that much will come of it. […]
January 13th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
Six-Party Talks Disclaimer
[…] I believe this is still a waiting game, where the West is waiting for Kim Jong-il to die, naturally or otherwise. […]