North Korea Testing Diplomatic Limits
by Richardson ~ April 10th, 2007. Filed under: Diplomacy, Nuclear Proliferation, Six-Party Talks.Although not approaching the brink of brinksmanship, North Korea is testing diplomatic boundaries, and the danger of more items “slipping” is becoming more prominent. First was the returning of Banco Delta funds, which were not technically covered by the 13 February agreement (DOC). Yet North Korea made the return of those funds a precondition for shutting down the Yongbyon nuclear reactor, and the U.S. obviously acceded to that demand.
That, however, is a part of diplomacy and I see it a small price to pay for the potential political capital it could garner. Because North Korea has delayed shutting down the reactor while waiting on the funds to finally be released, they may not make the deadline for doing so laid out in the agreement:
North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator [Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan] told a visiting U.S. delegation Monday that his government would immediately invite U.N. nuclear inspectors into the country if $25 million in disputed North Korean funds is released. . . Kim also told the delegation that it would be difficult to shut down North Korea’s main nuclear reactor by a Saturday [14 April] deadline called for in a February nuclear disarmament accord. . .
[. . .]
In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the money issue “was more complicated than anyone could have imagined” and suggested the United States might not object to an extension in the deadline. (emphasis added)
Consider that 15 April is the Dear Leader’s (Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il’s late father) birthday, and expect further delays. This sort of acceptance of delays is not, I think, the message we need to be transmitting.
However, allowing North Korea to ship arms to Ethiopia, apparently for, “fighting Islamic militias in Somalia, aiding U.S. policies of combating religious extremists in the Horn of Africa,” and decided, “unknown to top policymakers” is scant excuse for perhaps violating UNSCR 1718:
The United States did not act to prevent a recent shipment of arms from North Korea to Ethiopia, even though sketchy intelligence indicated the delivery might violate a U.N. Security Council resolution restricting North Korean arms sales, Bush administration officials said yesterday.
The decision to let the shipment proceed was made by relatively low-level staffers, with little internal debate, and it was unknown to top policymakers involved in the campaign to punish Pyongyang for its test of a nuclear weapon last October, officials said.
Intelligence reports indicated that the shipment included spare parts, including tank parts, officials said. Nevertheless, the cargo was not inspected, making it difficult to know whether it violated the U.N. resolution. The value of the shipment is also unclear.
[. . .]
After U.S. diplomats learned of the January shipment, Ethiopian officials pledged yet again to look for suppliers other than North Korea, U.S. officials said.
In fairness it could have been a genuine, if sloppy, error in oversight. If, however, it was, as suggested, allowed to further U.S. policy goals in the HOA, we’re no better than the French.
So the tally of backsliding in Pyongyang’s favor is:
- Allowing North Korea to make Banco Delta funds a precondition (not in the 13 February agreement) for shutting down the Yongbyon reactor (required by the agreement)
- Allowing North Korea to earn hard currency by selling arms to Ethiopia, regardless of the justification or lack thereof
- Allowing North Korea an extension for meeting the 14 February deadline for shutting down the Yongbyon nuclear reactor
I believe Joshua is correct:
If the State Department were in charge of tax collection, our streets would be unpaved and guarded by Canadian occupation forces.
The problem this poses is that it sets precedents for the bending of rules, blurring the line where we can say, “North Korea has reneged.” This is vital in particular for the declaration of nuclear programs, which North Korea has yet to do. From the 13 February agreement:
The DPRK will discuss with other parties a list of all its nuclear programs as described in the Joint Statement, including plutonium extracted from used fuel rods, that would be abandoned pursuant to the Joint Statement.
[. . .]
The Parties agreed that the above-mentioned initial actions will be implemented within next 60 days and that they will take coordinated steps toward this goal.
Concerning the question of whether or not North Korea must declare and give up its HEU, Hill replied:
“They sure do. . . They have purchased centrifuges, they have purchased this very specialized aluminum . . . we’ve really got to run that to ground, because we can’t have a situation where there’s some kind of creative ambiguity where we pretend they’ve done something and — or, they pretend they’ve done something and we pretend to believe them. So yeah, we’ve got a lot of work to do on this.” (emphasis added)
The next week should give a better idea.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
It’s still, to a large extent, about the “Blame Game.”
I think the Bush Administration will take every opportunity to show that they are acting in good faith and being flexible with NK, so that when NK conspicuously reneges on the agreement, there will be no question in the hearts and minds of most people, and the members of the six-party talks, who is behaving in bad faith and in breach. This issue could significantly influence the S. Korean elections in December.
It seems the focus is shifting solely from NK nukes to keeping SK in the US orbit instead of China’s. Notice how much the US compromised on the US-SK FTA (especially allowing products from Kaesong), and how quickly and urgently China is pursuing it’s own FTA to counter the US.
China pursues SK FTA
April 10th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
I agree with the good faith bit we’re playing, but hope it doesn’t go too far.
As for the FTA, South Korea press got a little carried away with the Kaesong claim:
From Bloomberg:
April 10th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Does anybody know if the US and/or Japan has small military craft like patrol boats remotely close to North Korean waters?
I have a feeling this is the kind of period in which North Korea’s swagger might lead to some incident. I believe they would clearly see all the moves the US has been making since the last election in the US - and since NK tested a nuke - as a sign of retreat —- and to them — thus a sign they need to push ahead for gains while they can.
I can see the Kim Jong Il regime sitting in Pyongyang watching the recent Iran-UK dust up and thinking, “That’s an idea!”
With the South Korean mention of the Peublo, then NK’s brazen sticking of the Peublo up Richardson’s ass (you know which Richardson I mean
) when he was one of Bush’s critics who argued (in North Korea’s favor) that we should go into 1-on-1 talks.
It would not suprise me at all to pick up the paper tomorrow (….well, click on a media shortcut since I won’t pay to read the press these days…) and read how a US or Japanese or even South Korean small navy craft was involved in an incident with the North Korean navy.
It would be a little more suprising if they struck at South Korea - since this is an election year - but NK hasn’t shown a whole lot of bone-throwing to Uri and Roh in the past.
Pyongyang could might even count on the publicity of a West or East Sea incident with SK, even the taking of South Korean hostages, as a way perhaps to beef up Summit talk to help the progressives in a round about way —- if they could get spin in the SK press that war needs to be averted and a Summit could do it and the Progressives save peace in our time……
….or…..Pyongyang could stomach making the move against SK by reminding themselves that the GNP is probably going to win anyway, so what have they got to lose?
Back a few years ago, after that US spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter (or vis versa - depending on who you believe) and the US-China had that hostage situation and China got a lot of press and attention — NK sent fighters to harass a similar spy plane and part of the crew said they thought the Norks were trying to force them to fly to NK…
I think there is definately a window of opportunity for the next few weeks for a NK copy cat of the Iran deal….
April 11th, 2007 at 2:55 am
On ‘limit testing’:
With the goal of ‘expediting the process’, I recommend that we ‘cut to the chase’ with the following:
Step 1. Generate a document that contains a detailed list of those actions, that if performed by Pyongyang, would be considered ‘completely unacceptable’ by the governments of China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the U.S. (Or, for this particular case, we could use ‘time lines’ and ‘milestones’ and other nifty things like that.)
Step 2. As a supplement to this, include a list of the issues that are considered to be ‘absolutely non-negotiable’ by those same governments.
Step 3. Present the document to ‘The Only Fat Man in North Korea’ (TM Reg) for his perusal and compliance.
Step 4. Watch while ‘TOFMINK’, to the hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing of all concerned, urinates on said document.
Step 5. Express regret, shock and dismay with the appropriate amount of breast beating, and formulate yet another ‘new and improved’ statement of sacred principles, hoping that it will be acceptable to ‘TOFMINK’.
Step 6. Go to Step 3.
Am I missing something here?
April 11th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I have maintained for sometime that the latest “flexibility” shown by the Bush admininstration regarding North Korea is not likely to be some brilliant plan to trap North Korea diplomatically, but rather a sign of an administration that is shell-shocked and has gone soft.
I think the evidence for my position mounts.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I see the need for some give and take in diplomacy, but am also very concerned about these bending of the rules for North Korea’s sake. In particular I’m keen to see reporting on the declaration of programs that is due by the 14th, although that could be coming (no media reports, yet).
However, the case could be made that North Korea shutting the reactor down late is due to it being a victim of circumstances. I think that case would be flatly wrong, but take into account that the administration wants to be viewed as being “diplomatic” rather than “just,” just now.
Also, at this time I don’t judge that North Korea has done anything serious enough (in the current situation only) that would garner political capital for the administration should they break off negotiations and ‘fear up harsh’ on the regime. A definite, “look, they totally reneged” moment is needed.
So I’m holding out for that.
April 11th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
[…] Bill Richardson, North Korea is offering to shut down a nuclear reactor in exchange for the release of their money which is currently being held. The amount being held is around $25 […]
April 11th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Can anyone provide a link that would allow me to review the history of US/NK relations, at least in recent years (say, twenty years or so)?
I am seeking to graduate from a casual 6:00 news observer to possessing a little more comphrehensive knowledge about the Jong-Il regime. Thanks, and I appreciate the posts found here.
April 11th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Shane,
There are several web sites that contain the info that you might be interested in.
Two examples are:
1. The Nautilus Institute has a ‘DPRK Briefing Book’. It’s my opinion that Nautilus comes from the ’seek engagement with DPRK’ side of the house.
http://www.nautilus.org/DPRKBriefingBook/aboutDPRK/index.html
2. Tim (DPRK can do no wrong and it must be the fault of the US) Beal from New Zealand has an extensive reference/source listing at:
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~caplabtb/dprk/
Hope this helps.
April 11th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I’ll add to Michael’s list my own collection of documents on agreements and NK links;
http://www.dprkstudies.org/documents-archive
http://www.dprkstudies.org/nk-links/
And suggest a book that should be available at any bookstore or library; “The Two Koreas,” by Don Oberdorfer (see my review of the book).
I certainly do not agree with Oberdorfer’s position on North Korea and the Bush administration these days – in fact I will state he’s completely off the mark, there – but The Two Koreas is in my opinion the best introduction to contemporary Korean history, and covers your area of concern very well.
BBC News has a helpful timeline of DPRK-related events, and finally Wikipedia has some good info and links.
Whenever you’re ready, I’d be happy to (as would Michael, I think) be happy to recommend some of the books that should compose the core of any serious Korea watchers library, and a few to avoid.
April 11th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Thank you both, Mstrs. Sheehan & Richardson, I’m grateful for this. I feel strongly that this is something that more people should be made aware of, I’ll try to use these resources to the best of my ability to educate others.
Warm regards.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
[…] Comments • North Korea Testing Diplomatic Limits 10 Shane, Richardson, Michael Sheehan […] • What’s Victor Cha up to? 2 […]