State Department: North Korea Meets Delisting Criteria
by Richardson ~ January 22nd, 2008. Filed under: Diplomacy, Engagement, Law, Terrorism, U.S.-Korea Relations.Instead of pressuring North Korea where we know the regime can be influenced, the Bush administration is setting the stage for removing the DPRK from the list of terrorist sponsoring nations, and insulting our strongest ally in the region, Japan, in the process:
North Korea appears to have met the legal criteria to be taken off the U.S. state sponsors of terrorism list although its removal depends on progress on denuclearization agreements, a U.S. official said on Tuesday.
“It appears that North Korea has complied with those criteria,” Dell Dailey, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism, told a group of reporters.
[. . .]
Dailey said resolving the matter of Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea during the 1970s and 1980s did not appear to be an obstacle to taking Pyongyang off the terrorism blacklist. Japan has sought a full accounting of their fate.
“We think that even with that on the table that they still comply with the … delisting criteria,” he said.
North Korea likely does not meet the legal criteria to be delisted, as Joshua explains. The current list of terrorist sponsoring nations can be found here. Reviewing excerpts from the Country Reports on Terrorism for 2006 and 2007 shows some weakening in language used to describe why North Korea is included on the list, but the issues of ROK and Japanese abductions have not been resolved, and Pyongyang still harbors known terrorists.
Pyongyang in 2003 allowed the return to Japan of five surviving abductees, and in 2004 of eight family members, mostly children, of those abductees. Questions about the fate of other abductees remain the subject of ongoing negotiations between Japan and the DPRK. In November, the DPRK returned to Japan what it identified as the remains of two Japanese abductees, whom the North had reported as having died in North Korea. The issue remained contentious at year’s end. There are also credible reports that other nationals were abducted from locations abroad. The ROK government estimates that approximately 485 civilians were abducted or detained since the 1950-53 Korean War. Four Japanese Red Army members remain in the DPRK following their involvement in a jet hijacking in 1970; five of their family members returned to Japan in 2004.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987. The DPRK continued to harbor four Japanese Red Army members who participated in a jet hijacking in 1970. The Japanese government continued to seek a full accounting of the fate of the 12 Japanese nationals believed to have been abducted by DPRK state entities; five such abductees have been repatriated to Japan since 2002. In the February 13, 2007 Initial Actions Agreement, the United States agreed to “begin the process of removing the designation of the DPRK as a state-sponsor of terrorism.”
There has been no substantial change or action by North Korea to warrant removal from the list. None.
A brief look at today’s news show that North Korea is actually increasing rhetoric. North Korea gave the U.S. an inadequate nuclear declaration in November that did not meet the requirements set forth in the 13 February 2007 agreement (DOC) and related negotiations (though Chris Hill has staked his credibility on denying this), and has missed multiple deadlines in this latest chapter of (failing) negotiations.
The only good news to report (aside from the language, “although its removal depends on progress on denuclearization agreements” in the Reuters story above) on this some in the House and Senate are opposed to delisting North Korea as a Six-Party Talks bargaining chip (be sure to read the rest):
U.S. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Edward R. Royce (R-CA) and Donald A. Manzullo (R-IL) said they would resist any attempt to prematurely remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism published annually by the U.S. Department of State. Overviews of the countries on the congressionally mandated list are included in the Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism, expected to be released in April.
What makes this all the more asinine is that the Bush administration is apparently willing to appease North Korea with this gift (as North Korea did nothing to earn or deserve delisting) to achieve momentum in the Six-Party Talks, which is a false hope. The regime has placed much emphasis on becoming a member of the nuclear club, and negotiating away nuclear weapons would make Kim Jong-il appear weak to the general population, but more importantly to the military, which is his key to survival.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
…..This is pathetic, they haven’t done anything to justify being taken off of that list. Everyone seriously needs to stop appeasing the North Koreans.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 am
Actually, give ‘em enough rope, and maybe, just maybe, they’ll hang themselves.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
That what I used to think. But at this point we’ve given Kim enough rope and he’s looped in around his neck in a tidy hangman’s noose (chronically missing agreed upon deadlines, incomplete – which equals a false – nuclear declaration, etc.), but the Bush admin has cold feet and won’t pull the lever to the trap door.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:23 am
One thing is for certain, and that is Kim Jong-Il must surely be looking forward to the next administration, because if he survived Bush, he can survive anyone!
January 25th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Thus, it doesn’t really matter if the DPRK support terrorism or not, but the US administration is ready to remove it from the terrorist list only if Pyongyang declares its nuclear programmes. Therefore the deal is not about terrorism, is it?
One may like or dislike the North Korean regime or its leaders, but where is logic? Obviously, Pyongyang can not see it. North Koreans think this way: well, we open our nucs which could be used for manipulations somehow, but then Americans will go and include us into the “black list” again!
But if they stop negotiations on nuclear deal blaming the US for that, it will be a method to make Washington’s non-proliferation policy failed at the sunset of President Bush’s term. And why Pyongyang should help the American president in his policy if he is not going to help North Korea”? But the DPRK is so eager to make friends with the USA as China and then Vietnam has managed to do so, although Pyongyang, as it seems, does not has any illusions about America. That’s why a punctual bargaining is going on. The point is that it shouldn’t be everlasting!
January 25th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Part of the U.S. definition of terrorism is, “(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction…”
Therefore, though not listed in the State Department reports, North Korean threats to turn Seoul into a “sea of fire” on multiple occasions, which were often made in the context of nuclear weapons, should indeed be considered terrorism.
But North Korea has not even addressed the issues in the report, which ought to be fully closed before even considering removing them from the list
Again, the recent example that contradicts the scenario you give is Libya.
First, the North Korean regime bargaining with the U.S. is not about helping the U.S. and it’s not about helping North Korean people – it’s about helping the regime elite.
Second, bargaining with North Korea in this fashion accomplishes nothing, and the reason it’s being drawn out this way is because North Korea is waiting to see what the next U.S. president has to offer. I don’t need to rehash here what’s already written HERE, HERE, and HERE. It seems you’ve not been following the process too closely, so I highly recommend reading what’s at all three links.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Does this mean that North Korea embargo will be completely over and there will no longer be licenses from OFAC required to import North Korea goods?
Does anyone know the current state of relations with Libya?
February 1st, 2008 at 8:42 am
If North Korea was delisted and all other sanctions dropped, yes, I would assume Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) licenses would no longer be required. Not sure of Libya’s status.