U.S. Shifts Stance on Nuclear Treaty
White House Resists Inspection Provision
By Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 31, 2004; Page A01
In a significant shift in U.S. policy, the Bush administration announced this week that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons materials.
For several years the United States and other nations have pursued the treaty, which would ban new production by any state of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons. At an arms-control meeting this week in Geneva, the Bush administration told other nations it still supported a treaty, but not verification.
Administration officials, who have showed skepticism in the past about the effectiveness of international weapons inspections, said they made the decision after concluding that such a system would cost too much, would require overly intrusive inspections and would not guarantee compliance with the treaty. They declined, however, to explain in detail how they believed U.S. security would be harmed by creating a plan to monitor the treaty.
Arms-control specialists reacted negatively, saying the change in U.S. position will dramatically weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. The announcement, they said, also virtually kills a 10-year international effort to lure countries such as Pakistan, India and Israel into accepting some oversight of their nuclear production programs.
Okay, I have a serious question.
How do you bomb the hell out of people because you say they weren't following the rules, "discover" (scare-quoted because I don't know whether this was discovered before or after the invasion) they hadn't broken the rules, then announce you don't support the rule anyway?
One could say this is being done to protect the worst-kept secret in the world—Israel's nuclear capability—let's expand the picture beyond the Middle East.
Yes, Korea. One reason Korea gets to be so obstreperous they know they haven't broken any treaties. Not the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and if you read the "Agreed Framework" negotiated between the USofA and DPRofK you'll see they haven't violated the letter of that document either.
Though it seems some disagree.
On Oct. 16, 2002, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush disclosed that North Korea had admitted to having a program to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. With its admission, North Korea, also known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK, abrogated the Agreed Framework signed in 1994 with United States, under which the North Koreans agreed to freeze their nuclear weapons program.
Abrogate. Brrrrrrrrrr…chill, foul-sounding word.
The advent of regal-sounding terms to convey plebian connotations signals one to restrict one's interpretation of statements inclusive of said term to meanings derivable from the term's formal denotation. To wit:
\AB-ruh-gayt\, transitive verb: 1. To annul by an authoritative act; to abolish by the authority of the maker or his successor; to repeal; -- applied to the repeal of laws, decrees, ordinances, the abolition of customs, etc. 2. To put an end to; to do away with.
www.dictionary.com/wordoftheday/archive/2000/06/19.html
or less formally,
revoke formally
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
Saying Korea "abrogated" the agreement is an implicit acknowledgement of their right to terminate it. And why would such a right exist?
I. Both sides will cooperate to replace the DPRK’s graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities with light-water reactor (LWR) power plants.
- In accordance with the October 20, 1994 letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S. will undertake to make arrangements for the provision to the DPRK of a LWR project with a total generating capacity of approximately 2,000 MW(e) by a target date of 2003.
- The U.S. will organize under its leadership an international consortium to finance and supply the LWR project to be provided to the DPRK. The U.S., representing the international consortium, will serve as the principal point of contact with the DPRK for the LWR project.
- The U.S., representing the consortium, will make best efforts to secure the conclusion of a supply contract with the DPRK within six months of the date of this Document for the provision of the LWR project. Contract talks will begin as soon as possible after the date of this Document.
- As necessary, the U.S. and the DPRK will conclude a bilateral agreement for cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Two things to note. The Agreed Framework does not mention enriched uranium reactors. At all.
Secondly, the USofA has obligations under the treaty as well, the primary one being delivery of a light water nuclear reactor by 2003. If you check this timeline of events you'll see all this started October 2002. Again, from the abrogate guys
Under the Agreed Framework, North Korea agreed to halt activities at its plutonium producing nuclear reactors in Pyongyang in exchange for a relaxation of economic sanctions, a gradual move toward normalization of diplomatic relations, fuel oil deliveries, and construction of a light-water reactor to replace the graphite-moderated reactor shut down at Pyongyang. Plutonium from light water reactors is harder to use for nuclear weapons than the plutonium procured by graphite-moderated reactors. 16 IAEA inspectors monitored North Korea's compliance. Upon completion of the light-water reactors, originally scheduled for 2003 but subsequently indefinitely delayed, North Korea was to dismantle its graphite reactors and ship its 8,000 remaining fuel rods out of the country. [P6: emphasis added]
Snarks aside, the Center for Defense Information has a really clear overview on the North Korea situation.
I don't know what's involved in building light water reactors, but since they set the delivery date nine years out I'm assuming it's no joke. And I'm assuming all parties involved would know by October 2002 if the delivery deadline of "some time in 2003" could, much less would, be met.
If the light water reactor could not be delivered on schedule, North Korea would be well within its rights to do exactly as it has done. We've already bailed on the ABM treaty and we've pretty much announced we're going to have orbital weapons platforms. And frankly, when I read this (from the timeline again):
18 November: Confusion clouds a statement by North Korea in which it initially appears to acknowledge having nuclear weapons. A key Korean phrase understood to mean the North does have nuclear weapons could have been mistaken for the phrase "entitled to have", Seoul says.27 November: The North accuses the US of deliberately misinterpreting its contested statement, twisting an assertion of its "right" to possess weapons into an "admission" of possession.
…and consider what this administration has done to English…
Suffice to say that, on the international stage, a very strong case that North Korea is the injured party can be (and probably is being) made.
Let me be clear here…I don't have a clue in life what's going on behind the news in this. I'm one of those guys whose opinions are unimportant to the insiders because I'm not informed. But I do know what it looks like. It looks like a rational actor on the other side of the table from the USofA would be compelled to be distrusting.
Posted by P6 at July 31, 2004 07:23 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5769
Comments
Your assertion that the DPRK was not in violation of the NPT is controversial, as the NPT signatories agree to comply with the IAEA safeguards and verification system.
The DPRK removed IAEA monitoring equipment and expelled IAEA inspectors BEFORE opting out of the NPT in january 2003, so the claim that the DPRK was in violation of the NPT is not without merit.
Posted by dof at August 1, 2004 08:17 AMYour assertion that the DPRK was not in violation of the NPT is controversial
So, nu?
When have I not been controversial?
The DPRK removed IAEA monitoring equipment and expelled IAEA inspectors BEFORE opting out of the NPT in january 2003, so the claim that the DPRK was in violation of the NPT is not without merit.
I will now confess that I have not read the entire timeline I linked to until just now.
20 October: North-South Korea talks in Pyongyang are undermined by the North's nuclear programme "admission".US Secretary of State Colin Powell says further US aid to North Korea is now in doubt.
The North adopts a mercurial stance, at one moment defiantly defending its "right" to weapons development and at the next offering to halt nuclear programmes in return for aid and the signing of a "non-aggression" pact with the US.
It argues that the US has not kept to its side of the Agreed Framework, as the construction of the light water reactors - due to be completed in 2003 - is now years behind schedule.
Were I to argue North Korea's case it would involve suggesting the inspectors wouldn't have been a problem if the US had kept its part of the bargain.
Controversy is not automatically error, and "merit" is one of THOSE words…the kind that implies "true" without actually saying it.
I use "not without merit" in the sense of non-spurious, i.e. a legal argument I am willing to entertain. It's a bit akin to "not without merit" in art-criticism meaning I am willing to classify it as art.
Posted by dof at August 1, 2004 10:50 AM"Not without merit" means "has merit."