BREAKING - DPRK Puts New Pre-conditions on Halting Reactor
by Richardson ~ March 8th, 2007. Filed under: Diplomacy, Nuclear Proliferation, Six-Party Talks.North Korea has perhaps started reneging on the 13 February deal (DOC) by insisting that closing down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor is dependent upon the U.S. lifting sanctions:
North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator Kim Kye Gwan said Thursday that Pyongyang’s decision to halt nuclear facilities, as outlined in initial steps included in the Feb. 13 six-way agreement, will depend on the U.S. lifting of financial sanctions against North Korea.
Part II, item 1 of the agreement states:
The DPRK will shut down and seal for the purpose of eventual abandonment the Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility and invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all necessary monitoring and verifications as agreed between IAEA and the DPRK. (emphasis added)
Part II, item 3 states:
The DPRK and the US will start bilateral talks aimed at resolving pending bilateral issues and moving toward full diplomatic relations. The US will begin the process of removing the designation of the DPRK as a state-sponsor of terrorism and advance the process of terminating the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to the DPRK. (emphasis added)
The U.S. is not obliged to remove any sanctions, establish diplomatic ties, or remove North Korea from the list of state sponsoring nations at this point.
If Kyodo reporting is correct, North Korea may have just set the stage for nullifying the latest deal.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Sounds to me like Kim Jong Il needs to get the top guys in the military who might have some influence in the society to learn English more and surf the net like he does —— so they would see how many experts and political types in America are bitching about this as a “sweatheart deal” for Pyongyang.
And if Bush and team had any thoughts of finding a way out of this deal, the door was just opened….they might be able to step through it…
March 8th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
North Korea could just be rattling the cage a bit before accepting move a little further down the path of this agreement, but I’m sure they’ll renege soon or later. If talks with Japan are any indication, strategic disengagement just got another boost.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Did you see where Breen (might have) disagreed with you?
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200703/kt2007030821302554220.htm
March 9th, 2007 at 7:43 am
I think Breen is mistaking words for actions, and those of Kim Il-sung’s regime as well. Kim Jong-il is no Kim Il-sung, and what of the cult?
I could quibble with a lot he says in the article you link to – which is unusual – and in the end I believe his analysis is in this case faulty.
March 9th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Kim Il-sung late in his life I think was geniunely interested in burying the hatchet with the US and the ROK which appeared to be the case after Jimmy Carter’s 1994 visit. I don’t think it is a coincidence that he turned up dead after that and Kim Jong-il was running the show.
The only way the Norks want closer ties now is if they get to keep the nukes they have, are given the pay day they desire, and don’t have to open up their country in any way.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I agree; if they could get the deal they almost got at the end of the Clinton administration – normalization and nukes, while maintaining isolation – they’d go for it. But I don’t think anyone in Washington, Republican or Democrat, wants to or can afford (politically) to do that. Which is why I think this deal must fall apart.
You’re probably read the rumors of the circumstances of Kim Il-sung’s death, I think Oberdorfer covered that in “Two Koreas.”
March 9th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
[...] did we actually agree to do? Richardson has already cited the appropriate provisions, to which I need add little else. The agreement — I appended the complete text to this [...]
March 9th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I think Richardson in #6 hit the biggest nail on the head:
Yeah, Breen and all these other guys who have said the same stuff over the years would be right —– if what they meant by “closer relations” —– they would sit down with the US and Japan and others and talk about what stuff we were going to send it and how it can get developmental loans like nations in Africa and whatnot….
…..as long as the talk stayed away from what North Korea would have to do in exchange.
As long as the word “exchange” remained taboo — and North Korea were allowed to keep its system and policies — as per its “soverign rights” —-
as long as it could remain basically the same but just open its ports and bank accounts to outside aid —– it would gladly move toward “closer relations.”
I don’t see how these guys who have so much information about NK can’t seem to understand that there are too many signs out there, and have been even in the early 1990s, that NK will not open itself up or realistically change how it operates inside North Korea.
And until they are willing to do that, all this talk of normalizing relations is just hot air.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
[...] by ampontan on March 10th, 2007 The blog DPRK Studies comments on a Kyodo report suggesting that the North Koreans may already be adding new conditions to the February 13th nuclear [...]
March 11th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
[...] and DPRK Studies has the latest on the beginning of the possible reneging by North Korea on the nuclear agreement [...]
March 13th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Macau is expected to liquidated Banco Delta Asia in response to the U.S. Treasury sanctions announced today. Previously, Treasury indicated they were satisfied with the reforms Macau had made. The bank is under new management, it’s adopted a written anti-money laundering policy, and its promised to stopped dealing with NK-front companies. Also, Macau has created a specialised bank fraud agency to enforce the new rules. So this latest move sends the message of: “In your face, North Korea.” I guess Bush wasn’t happy with conservative criticism of the deal, and this seems like a good way to kill it.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:00 am
I don’t know about that. According to this ….
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200703/200703130032.html
… North Korea gets all $24 million of its money back under that arrangement, including proceeds that are clearly illegal. Last week, the NY Times was reporting a compromise deal under which the North Koreans would get back $12 mil, tops. And you think that’s going to make conservatives happy?
March 13th, 2007 at 9:26 am
I agree with Joshua; I can’t see any conservatives being fond of North Korea getting back all $24 million, particularly the $12 million in question. If Hill agreed to that, it’s a mistake. But I haven’t seen a Hill quote to that effect, and think Kim Kye Gwan is a liar.
I do think that when North Korea finally reneges on this latest deal, the consequences will be somewhat more than they would have been before October last year; a much tighter control on DPRK international banking/transfers, trade/remittances cut off from Japan, and the loss of their UN “ATM” recently. That may make them string this out longer than they would have otherwise.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
There is no scenario under which the U.S., UN, or ROK get any of that $24 million — its Macau and NK splitting the loot, and why should anyone else care? The sanctions are an object lesson to other banks and a way to force Macau to adopt and enforce anti-money laundering rules. The ridiculous audit that gave BDA a pass suggests Macau hadn’t quite the got the message, hence a need for additional sanctions. The latest Treasury sanctions are the strongest the U.S. can put on a non-American bank.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Not true. Take a look at 18 USC 981 and 982, our forfeiture statutes. We could charge the account holders criminally, add a forfeiture count, and upon conviction, the assets could be forfeited as proceeds of crime. Or, the government could initiate a civil forfeiture suit to recover any proceeds or instrumentalities of a specified unlawful activity under 18 USC 1956, our money laundering statute. Counterfeiting and drug dealing are both specified unlawful activities.
Not saying we’ll do that, I’m just saying we could. By the way, it appears that the Chosun got one very important fact wrong. A subsequent report from a journalist I trust has North Korea getting back just $8 to $12 million. They will defintely not be pleased. I can’t wait to see their pruny faces.
One point you make that is true is that we’ve really put the hammer down on BDA, which is a lot more significant than the release of this relatively small sum. Treasury has essentially destroyed BDA, and probably given State a big middle finger by doing so. Now, under those circumstances, I don’t know who would want to ever do business with Kim Jong Il again. If I’m a major shareholder or officer in a bank, I will do everything I can to fend that business off. I don’t think this action will please most conservatives, but as one who openly longs to see Kim Jong Il go to an unmarked grave before the next Arirang Festival, I think this is a pretty favorable outcome.
Good for Treasury for not letting itself, and our currency, be messed with by a bunch of dime-store crooks in Mao suits.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
By the way, if you wonder why we had to send Macau a stronger message, go over to GI Korea’s blog. I realize that Macau is the ethical cesspool of Asia, but they appear not to have gotten the message.
March 14th, 2007 at 6:22 am
[...] this also doesn’t do much for “confidence building.” Nor does Pyongyang’s attempt to wriggle out of the February 13 agreement by demanding that financial sanctions be lifted before any steps [...]