I have been really engaged on the Beyond Belief series, but I think this blog needs something Korea related today. It has been a pretty slow news cycle, and while the DPRK balks, all the rest can do is wait to see what happens. However, it does not mean the negotiations are not going on, and right now, it seems despite the hard-line placed on the agreed framework, it was absolutely no surprise North Korea would not deliver, and it was also not a surprise despite the hard talking from the other sides of the table, they are now willing to wait. How long are they willing to wait? The Korea Times seems to have more:
The plan calls for North Korea to disable its key nuclear facilities no later than March and disclose details of its nuclear programs, according to the sources.
Seoul wants to draw up a timetable for the full dismantlement of the North’s nuclear programs and initiate negotiations on building a peace mechanism on the peninsula in the first half of the year, they said.
“We expect the disablement of North Korea’s nuclear plants including the removal of nuclear fuel rods to be completed by March,” a ministry official told reporters, asking not to be named. ``Pyongyang should provide a full list of its nuclear programs by that time.”
(Emphasis mine) Timetables are great and wonderful, but from what I see, where are the consequences if the DPRK does not hold its end of the deal? A sulk? That’s what it looks like to me. The U.S. wants one sooner, but I am sure all sides agree sooner is better. Whatever the case may be, it is in North Korea’s court, and Kim Jong Il is holding the ball.
U.S. chief nuclear envoy Christopher Hill urged the North to declare the list before the inauguration of the Lee Myung-bak government Feb. 25.
“There is no reason why we cannot finish the job in 2008,” he told reporters in Seoul after a meeting with President-elect Lee.
Nope, there was also no reason why the North could not give the list at the end of December, but it was not delivered, right? It is understandable removing of fuel rods is dangerous and takes time, but it does not mean a piece of paper cannot be delivered in the meantime. Of course, the North claims the declaration was given in November, but somehow got lost en route. I wish I could do that with my bills without consequence. Furthermore, the North is slowing down the process until it gets more goodies on top of it.
This part of the article does not make much sense:
Seoul has been trying to initiate talks over establishing a peace regime on the peninsula, replacing the current armistice signed by the United States, China and North Korea at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.
The war ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, leaving the two Koreas technically at war. South Korea wants to issue a joint declaration with parties to the truce for putting an end to the war, which it sees as a preliminary step to a permanent peace treaty.
However, the U.S. government is skeptical about a war-ending declaration before Pyongyang’s full denuclearization.
Seoul calls for a peace treaty in 2010. So does this imply the U.S. is willing to wait until 2010? I’ll ponder over this one for a while.


There is the lingering and little talked about issue regarding kidnapped South Koreans 

Recent Comments