| Submit your comments on this article |
| Korea |
| U.S. urged to accept DPRK’s proposal for concluding non-aggression treaty |
| 2003-03-06 |
| Rodong Sinmun today in a signed commentary accuses the United States of describing the DPRK's proposal for concluding a non-aggression treaty as "brinkmanship tactics" to get a sort of "reward" from it. It goes on: The DPRK's proposal for concluding a non-aggression treaty with the U.S. is aimed to provide a legal binding force to keep the U.S. from posing a nuclear threat to the DPRK and it has nothing in common with "brinkmanship tactics." Do I see a theme here? The DPRK is bored with hypocritical U.S. promises devoid of any legal binding force. They can't be that bored if they want to deal... In the 1990s the then U.S. President sent a message of assurances to the DPRK. As part of our demands, we want him to be president again... But later, the U.S. threw it away like a pair of old shoes. ...and we built a couple of nukes. Moreover, the Bush administration says that it has no intention to invade the DPRK but its words do not match with its deeds. It turned down the DPRK's proposal for holding dialogues, while paying lip-service to the "peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue," and it said that it is not in a position to legally assure the DPRK of non-aggression despite its assertion that it would not invade the DPRK by force of arms. No matter how many security assurances that lack any legal binding force the Bush administration may give to the DPRK, it is not interested in them at all. We need this on paper so we can officially ignore it when it suits our purposes. That's why the DPRK calls for concluding a non-aggression treaty with a legal binding force to be approved by U.S. Congress. What we need is a legal guarantee to be provided by a treaty as valid as international law. The U.S. should not flee from its heavy responsibility for spawning the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula but promptly opt for direct talks with the DPRK to conclude a non-aggression treaty with the DPRK, the most aboveboard and reasonable proposal to provide the best solution to the pending issues between the two countries. Actually, this is pretty tame. But, damn, do they want to deal... |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #13 Khrushchev's "We will bury you!" shoe You might try Khrushchev's son, He lives in New Hampshire as a naturalized US citizen. |
| Posted by: Frank Martin 2003-03-06 21:09:00 |
| #12 well, when it left San Diego Port, it went west, that's all I can say for sure ;-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-03-06 16:52:39 |
| #11 I just read an interesting (though not surprising)comment Rumsfeld has made toward our troops in SKor....he is talking of pulling them out...Germany as well. If you think about it, that would be a great move. It would snub SKor for the anti American mood in that country and Germany for their stance on Iraq. Further, and perhaps more importantly, with our troops gone from SKor we would have them out of harms way for a retaliatory strike should we elect to bomb NKor's reactors. The NKor's may (and I stress that lightly) be deterred from attacking SKor or Japan in retaliation for fear of their reprisal. That would leave their only option as a direct nuclear strike on the US which they may or may not have the capability to do. I have read articles where we have successfully tested intercepts of ICBM's using our Aegis class destroyers and cruisers which I believ are parked off the NKor coast right now. Did any of you guys notice that the Marine detachment that left yesterday did not have desert camos nor were their vehicles paint in desert cammo?? INTERESTING!! |
| Posted by: Mark 2003-03-06 14:48:56 |
| #10 ... and the Nimitz went where? |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-06 16:11:55 |
| #9 I do not know if Rumsfeldt will do it (pulling out the troops) but it is one hell of a card to hold in one's hand. There are a number of countries that have been biting our hand while we feed them. We will see how they react as he brings up the subject from time to time. Actually it would be best if we had an orderly phase-out. Countries like SK and Germany need to ante up for their own protection, like we do. We do not have the economic luxury of doing so now. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-06 15:55:40 |
| #8 Dar, I think Mark's right - we DO need to delay the negotiations to give them time to eat the big one, however they don't behave rationally and the escalating provocations will be ugly - I think next time they'll kill some Americans, no SKors, so they can still play to the SK appeasement crowd...Trouble with the NK's is it's like debating a Tourette's Syndrome sufferer... anything could happen |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-03-06 14:27:34 |
| #7 Mark--I don't know how much more fanatic the NKors are than what we've faced before. IMHO, this ranks below the Cuban Missile Crisis yet above Khrushchev's "We will bury you!" shoe-banging incident. Wonder if anyone thought to preserve that shoe--it'd look great in the Reagan Library! Anyone got any good pointers to sources on how the UN responded to these, or the invasions of Hungary in '56 and Czechoslovakia in '68? I wonder if any precedents were set there... |
| Posted by: Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-06 14:13:29 |
| #6 I believe you are right Dar...wait them out like we did the Russians. The problem as I see it however is that the NKor's are alot more desperate now than the Soviets ever were and the "Great Leader" has had 50 years to brainwash his people on the "evils" of the US. As I see it, the NKor's are fanatical and may in fact start a conflict before the regime does in fact collapse. |
| Posted by: Mark 2003-03-06 13:22:04 |
| #5 I agree, Mark. The NKors have lost all their credibility when they revealed they've been violating the accords they signed for years now. They feel they're not bound to anything. I feel, though, that this strategy now of doing nothing vis a vis North Korea will work. I believe Cold War containment will give them time to collapse under their own rotten system, just like the Soviets. |
| Posted by: Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-06 13:08:45 |
| #4 The NKor's didnt abide by the deal cut with Clinton in '93, why should we believe they would abide by a "legally binding non-aggression treaty". legally binding on whom? The truth of the matter is that the whole world would hold the US verbatim to any such "treaty" while cowardly refusing to insist on and enforce strict compliance by the NKor's. In essence, we would be in the same boat we are in now with Iraq where the trembling three want to give peace a chance. |
| Posted by: Mark 2003-03-06 12:59:09 |
| #3 Let's discuss the shape of the table for a couple of months. I kinda like round, but there are those who favor various square/rectangular shapes... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-03-06 10:49:36 |
| #2 Frank has the point about the unescorted RC-135. Remember in 1968 when the Pueblo got the same treatment. And, as with the recent incident with China, I hope that we have learned our lesson. BTW, we ought to sink the Pueblo and deny the NKors the means of using her as a floating propaganda museum. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-06 09:37:55 |
| #1 They want the coin, and the non-aggression simply allows them to build up their blackmail arsenal. We will eventually have to deal with this in a military way it appears- negotiating with them is a dead end. They need the stick more than a carrot. BTW - anyone sending a RC-135 off their coast without fighter escort and orders to defend at all costs should be in Leavenworth |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-03-06 09:04:45 |