North Korea off the Terrorist List? Waiting for U.S. Confirmation
by Richardson ~ September 3rd, 2007. Filed under: Democracy, Engagement, Nuclear Proliferation, Six-Party Talks.Update: Ok, the U.S. side has not gone completely insane:
Top U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill said on Tuesday that North Korea must do more to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme before it can be removed from Washington’s list of states that sponsor terrorism.
The question now is whether or not North Korea will claim the U.S. is reneging on a promise, and then use that as an excuse to derail further negotiations.
Original post: North Korea is making a significant claim:
North Korea’s foreign ministry said Monday that the United States has decided to remove the communist state from the US list of states sponsoring terrorism.
[. . .]
“Both sides discussed the issue of taking practical measures to neutralise the existing nuclear facilities in the DPRK (North Korea) within this year and agreed on them,” the spokesman said.
“In return for this the US decided to take such political and economic measures for compensation as delisting the DPRK as a terrorism sponsor and lifting all sanctions that have been applied according to the Trading with the Enemy Act,” he said.
There was no immediate confirmation from the United States. (emphasis added)
The bolded text is key and I’ll wait for the U.S. confirmation.
Aside from Japanese concerns over the abduction issue, this “delisting” could, and should, all be derailed in the highly likely event that:
- North Korea doesn’t declare all nuclear facilities.
- North Korea doesn’t declare it’s highly enriched uranium (HEU) program, whatever state it many now be in.
- North Korea delays and prevents deadlines from being met, again.
Also see ROK Drop, OneFreeKorea, Korean Unification Studies, DPRK Forum, and Andy Jackson.
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
[...] Also see DPRK Studies [?] Share [...]
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 am
Yes, the KCNA made the announcement and Hill remains pretty mum about the negotiating details. I have not heard anything from Washington either, and I reckon official word will only be disclosed once all the talks are finished, so no telling how long that is going to take.
If it is indeed true, Kim Jong Il has a lot to smile about.
September 3rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
[...] our State Department listening? The North Koreans claim that Chris Hill agreed that we will remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of [...]
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
The DPRK has in the past made announcements that were a bit too forward leaning, but I wonder if they would go this far, perhaps as a ploy.
Getting of the U.S. Dept. of State terrorist list is now much more important to North Korea, since the BDA fiasco made them persona non grata in most intl banks.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
peace treaty is the only way to go.. it should have been done even without nk’s nuke probs. it only proves that kim senior and his advisors were correct on their gambit.
without a big stick, there’s no respect.
well, better later than never..
i see a peace treaty signing before bush leaves office..
September 4th, 2007 at 5:24 am
[...] list?GI Korea on Taking Pyongyang off the terrorism list or adding Japan to the pissed-off list?DPRK Studies on Taking Pyongyang off the terrorism list or adding Japan to the pissed-off [...]
September 4th, 2007 at 5:50 am
Even though the US denies the North Korean claims, for Japan it still raises the question - what is the US doing negotiating away key coercive measures without consulting a close ally, without considering the very real concerns Japan still has regarding its kidnapped citizens?
The discord this creates between the US and Japan only works in North Korea’s favor.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:33 am
The North loves driving wedges, be it between the U.S.-ROK, or U.S.-Japan.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
The U.S. hasn’t denied DPRK claims that a plan to remove the North was agreed to, and the North didn’t claim to have been removed from the list yet. The statements by KCNA and Hill are not mutually exclusive, just favorably worded.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
North Korea left off a key part of the statement (i.e., “after North Korea accomplishes X, Y, and Z”), noting they “discussed the issue of taking practical measures,” but not saying delisting depends upon that, making their statement false as given.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I reckon the Americans are used to this. Hell, SOUTH Korea is famed for prematurely announcing agreements or almost-agreements with Washington.
What does make me wary is that North Korea could, despite what they signed on to, make this terrorism list thing a condition for further implementation of the 2.13 deal. They did get their way on the BDA case — without, so far as we know, even stopping counterfeiting or money laundering.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
The terror list is addressed in item three of the 13 Feb deal (DOC):
Per the letter of the agreement (but not the additional agreements to follow), the U.S. is only obligated to begin the process, not to actually remove NK from the list. But as Slim notes, the BDA issue wasn’t even in the agreement and the U.S. completely buckled in an effort to make “diplomacy” work.
I’ve pretty much lost all faith in Hill and the Bush admin (on this and other issues), but if they give into North Korea’s demands on this w/o getting a) all facilities declared/inspected, b) the HEU admission/goods, and c) the remaining nukes, I’ll be out in the street protesting, perhaps literally.
And as the likelihood of those things happening is about as great as Kim Jong-il getting busted in an airport men’s room, the delisting should not occur.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
[...] over at Marmot, DPRK Studies, OFK, and [...]
September 5th, 2007 at 12:35 am
[...] certainly cause a rift in U.S.-Japanese relations. As Richardson pointed out in the comments in this posting: The North loves driving wedges, be it between the U.S.-ROK, or [...]