U.N.: N. Korea has 'just weeks'

DinoDoc · January 8, 2003, 16:31

Quote:

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The United Nations' nuclear watchdog says North Korea has just weeks to readmit weapons inspectors before the matter is referred to the Security Council.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued that statement a day after its governing board adopted a resolution condemning North Korea for violating international non-proliferation obligations and calling on Pyongyang to immediately come back into compliance.

In that resolution, the IAEA board, which includes representatives of 35 nations, said North Korea could face "serious consequences, not unlike Iraq," if it continues to defy the world community.

The resolution did not impose a deadline or offer a timeline for when North Korea must comply.

However, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said the timeline is a "matter of weeks and no longer."

"It is a very small window of opportunity in terms of time frame," she told U.N. Radio Tuesday.

In another development, the United States agreed to talk with North Korea about its obligation to end its nuclear program, but said it wouldn't compromise with the Communist country, according to a statement from trilateral talks. (Full story)

The United States, South Korea, and Japan opened talks Monday on how to defuse the quickly escalating impasse with North Korea, which kicked out nuclear inspectors last week and has shown no signs of cooperating with the international community by ending its nuclear weapons program.

Previously, the U.S. delegation had said the United States would not talk directly with North Korea.

'Clueless'
The IAEA resolution, passed at an emergency meeting in Vienna this week, said the agency "deplores in the strongest terms North Korea's unilateral acts to impede the functioning of containment and surveillance equipment at its nuclear facilities and the nuclear material contained therein."

North Korea recently kicked out weapons inspectors who had been keeping tabs on the Yongbyon nuclear power plant and dismantled equipment the inspectors were using to monitor the plant.

As a result, the resolution said, the IAEA can't know for sure where North Korea is developing nuclear weapons.

"We're clueless as to what is happening," said IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, "not only in regard to the past program but [also] current activity."

ElBaradei has said he believes Pyongyang is using its nuclear facilities as a bargaining chip to extract political and economic concessions from the United States, Japan, and South Korea.

The IAEA board, which includes representatives of 35 nations, is sending a message to North Korea "that the international community is not ready to negotiate under blackmail or threat," ElBaradei said, adding that once North Korea fulfills its international obligations "there is a light at the end of the tunnel for them."

Anyone care to lay any bets on the outcome of a SC vote?

Imran Siddiqui · January 8, 2003, 16:33

China and Russia vetos a resolution condeming NK, and thus a water downed version that says "Pretty please stop doing that" will be passed.

Bereta_Eder · January 8, 2003, 16:34

watcha matter NK wants to nuke ya too?

Arrian · January 8, 2003, 17:07

I bet those wascally North Koreans are just shakin' in their shoes. "You better behave or I'm going to tell the Security Council!"

-Arrian

DinoDoc · January 8, 2003, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
I bet those wascally North Koreans are just shakin' in their shoes. "You better behave or I'm going to tell the Security Council!"

We could send Carter in again. He sure taught them a lesson last time.

Arrian · January 8, 2003, 18:09

ROFLMAO!

-Arrian

Drake Tungsten · January 8, 2003, 18:10

Quote:

China and Russia vetos a resolution condeming NK, and thus a water downed version that says "Pretty please stop doing that" will be passed.

Why would Russia veto a resolution? China's your best bet for a veto, but I don't think it is a sure thing that they will veto it either. A nuclear North Korea presents very real problems for China. Why not go along with the SC, gain some international prestige and possibly concessions and take care of the problem?

Buck Birdseed · January 8, 2003, 18:52

So, Americans, why exactly don't you attack North Korea instead of Iraq?

The North Korean regime has a considerably worse human rights record than the Iraqui one.
The North Korean regime probably sponsors more terrorism than Iraq does, ie. Some.
North Korea not only "may" have Weapons of mass destruction, they have a full arsenal most likely including nukes.
Taking out North Korea would not significantly destabilise the region. There are no significant chances of a civil war if North Korea is taken out.
No U.S. Allies are significantly opposed to war in North Korea.
Kim Jong Il, Unlike Saddam, openly defies all inspections.

Oh wait. I know. There's no oil! And they're not just a weak pushover state that can't inflict American casualties!

Ned · January 8, 2003, 19:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
So, Americans, why exactly don't you attack North Korea instead of Iraq?

The North Korean regime has a considerably worse human rights record than the Iraqui one.
The North Korean regime probably sponsors more terrorism than Iraq does, ie. Some.
North Korea not only "may" have Weapons of mass destruction, they have a full arsenal most likely including nukes.
Taking out North Korea would not significantly destabilise the region. There are no significant chances of a civil war if North Korea is taken out.
No U.S. Allies are significantly opposed to war in North Korea.
Kim Jong Il, Unlike Saddam, openly defies all inspections.

Oh wait. I know. There's no oil! And they're not just a weak pushover state that can't inflict American casualties!

All this may be true, but I suggest that we let China take the lead on this one given that we will need China's cooperation on any kind of enforcement resolution. Also, if the UN votes for war, let the Chinese take command and use its troops.

In the meantime, we should tell those *******, anti-American South Koreans that we are going to pull our troops out and that they can look to their own defenses. This may cause a collapse of the South Korean economy now and a military defeat after we pull out, but WTF? They want us out. Let's oblige them.

Drake Tungsten · January 8, 2003, 20:09

Buck shows that his knowledge of foreign policy is about as good as his taste in music...

monkspider · January 8, 2003, 20:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Buck shows that his knowledge of foreign policy is about as good as his taste in music...

His taste in music notwithstanding, where do you disagree with him?

Pekka · January 8, 2003, 20:25

Well.. maybe because Iraq is more of a push over, and can be dealt with quite easily. It means some casualties, but not too many.

NK however is not that easy. It takes lots of planning and things like that.. just can't rush there. So.. NK might be in the list, but not just yet.. let's take out the easy ones first. That's what I'd do anyway..

And diplomatic victory over NK is more valuable than with Iraq. With Iraq we can push our demands fully, and start war.. no problems.. but with NK it's a whole different scenario. Maybe China could lead that one, like Ned suggested, as it is a problem to them too. And they have good military too.

Drake Tungsten · January 8, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

His taste in music notwithstanding, where do you disagree with him?

His whole analysis of the North Korean situation was laughable, but the whole "Iraq is about oil" statement was the icing on the cake. For god's sake, even Jimmy Carter has said Iraq isn't about oil...

Buck Birdseed · January 8, 2003, 20:38

I just put the oil thing in as a troll.

Nah, the US is doing it because it needs a pushover nation to garner public support for the continual funding of the Military-Industrial complex. I mean, it hardly makes foreign-policy sense, does it?

Drake Tungsten · January 8, 2003, 20:45

Iraq is about the balance of power in the Middle East; Iraqi nukes would drastically change the status quo. It makes very good foreign policy sense and has nothing to do with the "military-industrial" complex.

Dis · January 8, 2003, 21:04

we can't attack N. Korea!! They would kick our ass.

Iraq is a much easier target

Zulu Elephant · January 8, 2003, 21:13

Quote:

Taking out North Korea would not significantly destabilise the region. There are no significant chances of a civil war if North Korea is taken out

In the event of a US attack, North Korea has the capability to shoot the crap out of both Japan and South Korea with missiles

Quote:

No U.S. Allies are significantly opposed to war in North Korea.

Except Japan and South Korea for the above reason

chequita guevara · January 8, 2003, 21:16

N Korea would be a bloodbath, for both sides. Last time it cost us 35,000 men and the Koreans lost almost 2.5 million people and the entire infrastructure of the country was destroyed. Hell, the DPRK could even mount a serious offense, and severely damage the RoK.

Iraq will be more or less a push over. We might lose a few thousand men in Basra and Baghdad, but it will fall relatively quickly and easily. Since this is about politics and not a threat to our republic, Iraq goes down and the DPRK goes on.

Capt Dizle · January 8, 2003, 21:17

North Korea's economy is failing. They can't last much longer and this nuclear ploy is an act of desperation.

chequita guevara · January 8, 2003, 21:28

Their economy has been failing for decades. I don't expect them to collapse anytime soon. Then again, I didn't see 1989 coming, so who knows.

Sava · January 8, 2003, 23:23

The US doesn't have the balls to go after NK in a real military operation, and no politician is going to commit political suicide in starting such a war. Seeing how we've been treating Iraq since 1998, with sanctions, I'm sure we'll just try to starve them into submission, probably not doing anything until millions of Koreans are starving to death each year. Nobody in the US or UN seems to care about the 500,000 Iraqis that have died since 1998, why would Koreans be any different? They aren't white people. That's two strikes against them. And no oil either... STRIKE THREE... man, those North Koreans are f**ked.

Inverse Icarus · January 8, 2003, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Their economy has been failing for decades. I don't expect them to collapse anytime soon. Then again, I didn't see 1989 coming, so who knows.

yes che, where were you in 1989? and how old?

Sava · January 8, 2003, 23:39

I was 9

... let's see... GI Joe and Transformers... ahhh the good old days... OH YEAH, and playing "The Legend of Zelda", and Super Mario Brothers on Nintendo.

GhengisFarb™ · January 8, 2003, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
So, Americans, why exactly don't you attack North Korea instead of Iraq?

They'd nuke South Korea and Japan. While America wouldn't take many casualties (Remember Afghanistan? The US has pretty much figured out that Aircraft Carriers and Tomahawk missles don't kill any friendly soldiers if you leave the friendly soldiers at home.) her allies would become nuclear wasteland. Besides, NK has friends, not really close friends, but they do have aquaintences.

Its hard for Iraq to win friends when its already told every Arab nation that they're on Saddam's hit list.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Seeing how we've been treating Iraq since 1998, with sanctions, I'm sure we'll just try to starve them into submission, probably not doing anything until millions of Koreans are starving to death each year.

But that's the beauty of North Korea, the US doesn't have to do anything they starve themselves! A fully self starving, self embargoing bad guy, gotta love that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Nobody in the US or UN seems to care about the 500,000 Iraqis that have died since 1998...

Nope.

And nobody outside the US cares about the Kurds the Iraqis have been gassing to death.

DinoDoc · January 9, 2003, 01:32

Quote:

No U.S. Allies are significantly opposed to war in North Korea.

My ass!

And Europeans accuse American of ignoring the world around them.

OneFootInTheGrave · January 9, 2003, 08:34

NK will threaten to nuke Japan and Seul, and Bush will say, - even better, we need to get rid of that Japanese and Korean competition anyway... and this way noone will be able to blame us.

A good way to kickstart stale economy, eliminate Sony, Samsung and Toyota

chequita guevara · January 9, 2003, 10:43

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
yes che, where were you in 1989? and how old?

I was 22 and in Chicago at DePaul University.

Andrew1999 · January 9, 2003, 11:30

Look, it's quite simple. North Korea has the ability to hurt the U.S. Iraq doesn't. Therefore, the U.S. will fight Iraq but not North Korea. The lesson to anyone who might possibly end up on America's "Axis of Evil" list is to buy, beg, borrow, or steal nuclear weapons as soon as possible. And today's friends can be easily converted into tomorrow's enemies, so that's a pretty long list of countries that will want nuclear weapons.

GhengisFarb™ · January 9, 2003, 17:45

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

No U.S. Allies are significantly opposed to war in North Korea.

My ass!

And Europeans accuse American of ignoring the world around them.

Who said Europeans were significant U.S. Allies?

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew1999
Look, it's quite simple. North Korea has the ability to hurt the U.S. Iraq doesn't. Therefore, the U.S. will fight Iraq but not North Korea. The lesson to anyone who might possibly end up on America's "Axis of Evil" list is to buy, beg, borrow, or steal nuclear weapons as soon as possible. And today's friends can be easily converted into tomorrow's enemies, so that's a pretty long list of countries that will want nuclear weapons.

Course, its easier to slip in some covert Special Ops unit to detonate said nuclear device in its silo..........

"What the heck just happened to the the Iraqi capital?"

US: "We told them not to be playing with nuclear weapons, now one had done blown up in their face....."

Oh well, I guess that's 1/5 of the world's oil supply we won't have to worry about anymore.

Ned · January 9, 2003, 18:51

If North Korea does acquire nuclear weapons, I think South Korea has no choice but to also acquire nuclear weapons.

It will be interesting to see how the Chinese and the Japanese react to a nuclear South Korea. China seems very blase about a a nuclear North Korea. Will be just as blasé about a nuclear South Korea?

I think the possibility of a nuclear South Korea is what may, in the end, make China pursuade North Korea to desist.