North Korea Nuke Deal Advances

Six Nations Make Tentative Agreement On How To Disarm North Korea's Nuclear Program

(CBS/AP)  Six countries reached a tentative agreement Tuesday on initial steps toward North Korea's nuclear disarmament that could usher in the first concrete progress after more than three years of talks marked by delays, deadlock and the communist country's first nuclear test explosion.

The U.S. envoy to the talks, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, emerged in the early morning hours of Tuesday looking weary after a marathon 16-hour negotiating session and announced that a tentative deal had been struck at the latest round of six-party talks on the North's nuclear program.

The draft agreement contained commitments on disarmament and energy assistance along with "initial actions" to be taken by certain deadlines, Hill said. Working groups will be set up, hopefully in a month, laying out a framework for dealing with regional tensions, he added.

Essentially North Korea would shut down its nuclear reactor within 60 days and inspectors would be able to return to the communist nation to monitor its nuclear program, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod. In exchange, North Korea would get electricity and a million tons of fuel oil, which they desperately need.

The agreement could herald the first step toward disarmament since the talks began in 2003. The process reached its lowest point in October when North Korea conducted its first nuclear test explosion, alarming the world and triggering U.N. sanctions.

"Pyongyang has made clear that it expects concrete results in the delivery of electricity and oil during the two months in which it will halt the operation of the Yongbyon nuclear complex," said CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk. "And after four years of failed talks, there is widespread skepticism that this agreement will move forward smoothly. But, if approved by all six nations, this is at least progress."

In the last few days, the talks had appeared to be on the verge of foundering and envoys made clear that their frustration was increasing and their patience growing thin. The current round was to conclude on Monday but as they progressed toward a deal, negotiators extended it late into the night and then into the early hours of Tuesday.

Hill said the draft agreement still must be reviewed by the home governments of the six countries at the talks, but he was upbeat about it. He said he was in "constant communication" with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"We feel it's an excellent draft, I don't think we're the problem," he said.

This is only step one of a potential deal to disarm North Korea, Axelrod reports. The key question is: What kind of shut-down would North Korea undertake – would it be just a freeze or would something be done to disable the nuclear reactor so that it couldn't be easily restarted?

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe welcomed the progress but urged North Korea to make further efforts toward denuclearization.

"We are closely watching the development to make sure North Korea makes the right decision toward nuclear abandonment," Abe told a Parliamentary committee session Tuesday morning.

North Korea did not immediately make any public comment, but South Korea's envoy Chun Yung-woo said he believed the proposal would be acceptable to Pyongyang.

Chun said the five other countries agreed to evenly share the energy aid outlined under the deal.

Russia was more noncommittal. Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov said there were "many questions regarding details," Russia's Itar-Tass news agency reported.

Hill said the parties to the talks will meet again later Tuesday.

In September 2005, North Korea was promised energy aid and security guarantees in exchange for a pledge to abandon its nuclear programs. But talks on implementing that agreement snarled on other issues and that plan went nowhere.

Hill has repeatedly said he hoped a resolution would help improve stability in a region filled with bitter historical disputes. The two Koreas remain technically at war since their 1950-53 conflict ended in a cease-fire that has never been replaced by a peace treaty.

"We're trying to do more than just do denuclearization for energy," Hill said. "We're trying to address some of the underlying problems."

Though he did not provide specifics, North Korea has demanded improved relations with the United States. Japan and North Korea remain fiercely antagonistic in part because of North Korea's acknowledged but unresolved abductions of Japanese citizens.

John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., harshly criticized the deal and urged President Bush to reject it, saying it made the U.S. look weak.

"I am very disturbed by this deal," he told CNN. "It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world: 'If we hold out long enough, wear down the State Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded,' in this case with massive shipments of heavy fuel oil for doing only partially what needs to be done" to dismantle the nuclear program.

"I think this deal with North Korea undercuts the sanctions resolution with respect to them, and I think the Iranians have only to follow the same example."The current talks began Thursday on a promising note after the United States and North Korea held an unusual meeting last month in Germany and signaled a willingness to compromise.

But negotiations quickly became mired on the issue of how much energy aid the impoverished and isolated communist country would get as an inducement for initial steps toward disarmament.

"It's always 3 yards, 3 yards, 3 yards, and it's always fourth and one. Then you make a first down and do 3 more yards," Hill said early Tuesday, using a football metaphor. "It's painful."

During the days of arduous negotiations, he said "everybody has had to make some changes to narrow the differences."

Some delegates at the talks — which also include China, Russia and South Korea — had called North Korea's demands for energy excessive.

South Korean and Japanese media reports gave varying accounts of how much energy North Korea was demanding, including up to 2 million kilowatts of electricity or 2 million tons of heavy fuel oil.

Chinese envoy Wu Dawei told a visiting Japanese lawmaker that North Korea had agreed to shut down its main nuclear reactor and submit a list of its atomic facilities. But the size of the energy aid Pyongyang would get in return was still undecided, the lawmaker, Fukushiro Nukaga, told reporters Monday.

Under a 1994 U.S.-North Korea disarmament agreement, the North was to receive 500,000 tons of fuel oil a year before construction was completed of two nuclear reactors that would be able to generate 2 million kilowatts of electricity.

That deal fell apart in late 2002 when the U.S. accused the North of conducting a secret uranium enrichment program, sparking the latest nuclear crisis.

[crater7]

TALK IS GOOD, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, ONCE CALLED N. KOREA, THE AXIS OF EVIL, AND WOULD NOT NEGOTIATE WITH THEM. NOW THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHRISTOPHER HILL IS ENGAGED IN WITH TALKS WITH N. KOREANS. IT IS GOOD TO SEE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAD A CHANGE IN POLICY. TALK IS MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE COWBOY POLICY. MAYBE BUSH, SHOULD START TALKING TO IRAN, AND STOP POUNDING THE DRUMS OF WAR.

[grazinggoat]

Look at second picture representing Kim Jong Nam, eldest son of North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il.

Who said North Koreans were starving? Kim alone could feed the whole country for a year...

[crater7]

TALKING WORKS, GIVE IT A SHOT WITH IRAN. (OOPS, SHOT MIGHT BE A BAD CHOICE OF WORDS).

[rafterman1]

"Who said North Koreans were starving? Kim alone could feed the whole country for a year..."

Actually, I read somewhere that North Koreans are physically smaller to people in the South due to years of malnutrition. But of course the NK government and their cronies eat just fine.

[dallison7]

Under a 1994 U.S.-North Korea disarmament agreement, the North was to receive 500,000 tons of fuel oil a year before construction was completed of two nuclear reactors that would be able to generate 2 million kilowatts of electricity.

That deal fell apart in late 2002 when the U.S. accused the North of conducting a secret uranium enrichment program, sparking the latest nuclear crisis.

[alalkan]

Agree entirely! Bush and Co. Do seem to be trying to establish reasons to attack Iran... which is not in the interest of the USA general population.
Besides oil interests, it seems that political organizations with interests "outside" the USA are the main ones pushing this new war... foreign interests should be looked with strong skepticism.
They seem to already have our news organizations and many of our politicians in their back pockets!!! Is this NEW WWIII in OUR interest.
I say NO. Just my opinion... as I believe there are reasons we as a people are being deceived and led into this new hell with shades of Viet Nam and Iraq only on a Huge Huge Worldwide scale.

[kreuz4]

We give them energy, they give up weapons, and why aren't conservatives up in arms shouting APPEASEMENT? It's basically the same deal Clinton gave them in 1994.

Hopefully this deal will hold and we are all honest broers this time around, lord knows the last thing we need now is another standoff on the Korean peninsula.

[tuckerndfw]

The Bush administration has now sent a clear message to all nations. That message is all nations need to develop nukes to prevent a military attack by the US.

The GOP has launched another "cold war" to benefit their war profiteering cronies. The GOP is a greater menace than al qaida.

[shingles1]

"We give them energy, they give up weapons, and why aren't conservatives up in arms shouting APPEASEMENT?"

Are you implying that modern conservatives aren't consistent - that they're nothing more than partisan hypocrites?

Nay, my friend:
See, if Clinton does something it's bad.
If Bush does something it's good.
Even if it's the same thing.
Every time.
See, perfectly consistent.

[heetseeker]

If indeed this deal can be done and reduce geo-political tensions, then it is a significant and noteworthy achievement.

However, is North Korea not still in the axis of evil? Is it not still a totalitarian state? Because Kim uses starvation and not mustard gas as a means of population control, does that North Korea is no longer a candidate for regime change?

Hopefully, while doing deals with Kim, we have reminded "the dear leader" that his days of absolute power are well and truly numbered. Afterall, we are fully committed to freedom and liberty for the oil poor as well as the oil rich, aren't we?

[bizzzz-2009]

Why are you liberals so spiteful over this progress? Also, since you're so certain this is the same deal Clinton gave North Korea, you know-the one without any checks or balances? Can you post the new terms of the agreement on this site? I'd be interested in seeing the similiarities.

[alalkan]

tuckerndfw posted: "The Bush administration has now sent a clear message to all nations. That message is all nations need to develop nukes to prevent a military attack by the US.

The GOP has launched another "cold war" to benefit their war profiteering cronies. The GOP is a greater menace than al qaida."

NOW HOLD IT, you are going too far... I will agree about our message being from our administration of such a "DETENTE DEFENCE" is encouraged by our belligerent politics... but I CAN NOT agree that the GOP is worse than an irrational terrorist organization. Some politicians on both sides are just not in sync with the interests of the American people.
The whole problem is this: Would such a detente be helpful... say in the Middle East? Iran may or may not be headed for such a detente by nuclear power. So that poses the question: "Is it better for the USA to have such a detente in the Middle East... or for us to take sides in the matter to prevent such a detente... requiring us to take sides." If we went along with Iran having nuclear bombs would we have to quit taking sides in Middle East affairs... as some Democratic Politicians propose we should?

[grazinggoat]

Why are you liberals so spiteful over this progress?
Posted by buzzzz...

-Hey Buzzzzzzzz, it's all pressure from liberals that made the moron accept the peaceful way the administration acted. If we left it to repukecons right-wingers, we'd be in a nuclear disaster, not quite like the Iraq fields, worse. Americans with the wisdom known to be caracteristic of wise people, have expressed their dissatisfaction with this administration. Walking-Liar Bush had no other choice but to act peacefully.

[dallison7]

"Under a 1994 U.S.-North Korea disarmament agreement, the North was to receive 500,000 tons of fuel oil a year before construction was completed of two nuclear reactors with a generating capacity of 2 million kilowatts of electricity.

That deal fell apart in late 2002 when the U.S. accused the North of conducting a secret uranium enrichment program, sparking the latest nuclear crisis."

WAY TO GO BUSH!!
Killed the deal, now not only does N. Korea have nuclear bombs, but the price is four times as high to get them to end the program. George, you're a friggin' genius!!

[pakaal]

bizzz, I'm impressed. You seem to think that this agreement which can't be independently verified unless NK lets monitors in, is better than Clinton's agreement which couldn't be independently verified unless NK let monitors in.

You also neglect to mention that the treaty Clinton negotiated held up - until Bush got into office, whereupon they started building and test-firing etc.

[formrusmcsgt]

What a joke that was.
Posted by pwrslm at 06:42 PM : Feb 12, 2007

The joke is paying more for what Bush had inherited fron Clinton in 2002. At that time, N. Korea had 2 nukes, now they have 12.

Bush's banty rooster stupidity will cost us more than the deal he cancelled and they now have 10 more nukes to boot.

Talk about a joke!

[pwrslm]

Bush's banty rooster stupidity will cost us more than the deal he cancelled and they now have 10 more nukes to boot.

Talk about a joke!
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 07:10 PM : Feb 12, 2007


Bush could have capitulated to N Korean demands for free food and free energy and anything else they demanded, just like Clinton.

Face it, Bush was in a situation that demanded N Korean accountability, not blackmail. Bush didnt play the fool, NK would have had a dozen nukes with or without Bush's opposition.

Wake up, dont play the fool, there are plenty of them already in congress.

[formrusmcsgt]

No wonder he was a failure in business!!!!

[formrusmcsgt]

Face it, Bush was in a situation that demanded N Korean accountability, not blackmail.
Posted by pwrslm at 07:16 PM : Feb 12, 2007

And what did Bush get for this "accountability". A higher price for the deal and a N. Korea with 12 nukes instead of 2.

Some accountability......

[formrusmcsgt]

Wake up, dont play the fool, there are plenty of them already in congress.
Posted by pwrslm at 07:16 PM : Feb 12, 2007

There is obviously no shortage of them on these boards, either.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Pretty soon you'll be the only one in line for it.

[TheNewDamage]

I just have to wonder why the libs love dictators so much.

[formrusmcsgt]

Bush could have capitulated to N Korean demands for free food and free energy and anything else they demanded, just like Clinton.
Posted by pwrslm at 07:16 PM : Feb 12, 2007

OR, check this out - Bush could have continued to negotiate instead of slamming the door in their face!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They made him pay (and us) through the nose to reopen the door. Some Bush victory!

[formrusmcsgt]

I just have to wonder why the libs love dictators so much.
Posted by Rico_Halo at 07:25 PM : Feb 12, 2007

It's not about "loving dictators". It's about stupidity in the White House that gets us less than common sense would.

[formrusmcsgt]

Face it, Bush was in a situation that demanded N Korean accountability, not blackmail.
Posted by pwrslm at 07:16 PM : Feb 12, 2007

Actually, if you look at the balance sheet, it would appear that the Korean's held Bush accountable more than Bush did the Koreans.

They have 10 more nukes than they would have and a sweeter deal.

So, who held who accountable?

[formrusmcsgt]

pwrslm-

Where'd you go? Don't you want to keep talking about how Bush held the N. Koreans accountable?

Maybe you did the math......

[alalkan]

I wonder if the policy of the administrative branch of our Federal Government is encouraging many foreign countries besides N. Korea and Iran to think about using the "nuclear type" of "Detante Defense" and try to become another nuclear weapon power state.
This "Bush Mistake" is like Bush "pushing hard" for elections in the Palestinian Territories only to get an opposite result than he expected. Now we find his Iraq war went against Bush's predictions and his expectations.
Will his so called "open possibility" of a USA - Iranian nuclear bombing offensive "to protect USA interests" have the the same opposite unexpected results he had before... only this time with a horrendous worldwide WWIII Muslim push back. What are USA interests anyway?
Could a nuclear detante HELP the Middle East... as it did with the USA and Russia? Should we take sides in the Middle East?
These seem to be questions most citizens here are beginning to have strong opinions about and our nation must answer in opinion polls and in the next Presidential Election... unless of course... Bush uses his Executive Powers to strike first.
He would then test whatever he tells us will happen (again) to see if whatever he predicts will happen next. Maybe when Iran then blocks the Straits of Hormuz it will make Big Oil, Cheney and other friends a profit. Will local terrorism here be less??
I for one, hope he thinks before he strikes.

[formrusmcsgt]

I for one, hope he thinks before he strikes.

Posted by alalkan at 08:14 PM : Feb 12, 2007

It all depends on what God tells him to do.....

[kreuz4]

"Also, since you're so certain this is the same deal Clinton gave North Korea, you know-the one without any checks or balances?"

Someone else who drank the neocon kool-aid

Terms of the 1994 agreement:
- North Korea agreed to freeze its existing plutonium enrichment program, to be monitored by the IAEA;
- Cooperation to replace N Korea's graphite reactors with light water reactor (LWR) power plants
- Cooperation to store safely the spent fuel from the five-megawatt reactor and dispose of it in a safe manner that does not involve reprocessing in North Korea;
- Two sides agreed to move toward full normalization of political and economic relations, to work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula and to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime

The problem was, the 1994 agreement was negotiated under Kim Il Sung, who died several months before implelmentation. The Chonger never fully lived up to his father's terms, so the IAEA never went in and we never helped them replace their reactors. North Korea did, however, freeze their nuclear programs, and when concerns were raised about specific sites, notably the Kumchang-ni incident in 1998, they allowed inspectors in briefly to inspect and resolve the issues. To ease ongoing concerns, Perry called for a new framework to resume in 2000. Bush renounced this framework, and the North's enrichment resumed immediately thereafter.

[thgdriver]

President Bush can tell the N.Koreans that THGDRIVER said they can kiss his Irish as$, The USA does not pay blackmail.

It's also about time Japan stopped hiding behind Uncle Sam and started fighting their own battles.

[alalkan]

"It all depends on what God tells him to do....."
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 08:21 PM : Feb 12, 2007

Maybe the God he hears is the one that speaks to him through his Vice President or foreign agenda filled advisors.
If that is the case and Bush starts pushing out a Deed toward the middle of the International Nuclear Poker Table... I hope it is not the one that has YOUR and MY grandchildren's names written on it.

[thgdriver]

Well, I would sooner have President Bush listening to god, then most of the posters here.

[pwrslm]

Actually, if you look at the balance sheet, it would appear that the Korean's held Bush accountable more than Bush did the Koreans.

They have 10 more nukes than they would have and a sweeter deal.

So, who held who accountable?
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 07:33 PM : Feb 12, 2007

That has nothing to do with Bush idiot.

Do you really try hard to miss the point, or do you get help?

[pwrslm]

John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., harshly criticized the deal and urged President Bush to reject it, saying it made the U.S. look weak.

"I am very disturbed by this deal," he told CNN. "It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world: 'If we hold out long enough, wear down the State Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded,' in this case with massive shipments of heavy fuel oil for doing only partially what needs to be done" to dismantle the nuclear program.


face it, they are jerking our chains

again

[kreuz4]

"It's also about time Japan stopped hiding behind Uncle Sam and started fighting their own battles."

Actually, after 1945, we decided we didn't want Japan fighting their own battles, that's why we do it....

[thgdriver]

kreuz4

I know that, thanks, now add up the years, do the math, whatever---62 years is long enough. I repeat it's time (they changed their constitution) they stopped hiding behind Uncle Sam and started fighting their own battles.