Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
February 29, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. delegation has just returned from Beijing following a third exploratory round of U.S.-DPRK bilateral talks. To improve the atmosphere for dialogue and demonstrate its commitment to denuclearization, the DPRK has agreed to implement a moratorium on long-range missile launches, nuclear tests and nuclear activities at Yongbyon, including uranium enrichment activities. The DPRK has also agreed to the return of IAEA inspectors to verify and monitor the moratorium on uranium enrichment activities at Yongbyon and confirm the disablement of the 5-MW reactor and associated facilities.
The United States still has profound concerns regarding North Korean behavior across a wide range of areas, but today’s announcement reflects important, if limited, progress in addressing some of these. We have agreed to meet with the DPRK to finalize administrative details necessary to move forward with our proposed package of 240,000 metric tons of nutritional assistance along with the intensive monitoring required for the delivery of such assistance.
The following points flow from the February 23-24 discussions in Beijing:
•The United States reaffirms that it does not have hostile intent toward the DPRK and is prepared to take steps to improve our bilateral relationship in the spirit of mutual respect for sovereignty and equality.
•The United States reaffirms its commitment to the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement.
•The United States recognizes the 1953 Armistice Agreement as the cornerstone of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.
•U.S. and DPRK nutritional assistance teams will meet in the immediate future to finalize administrative details on a targeted U.S. program consisting of an initial 240,000 metric tons of nutritional assistance with the prospect of additional assistance based on continued need.
•The United States is prepared to take steps to increase people-to-people exchanges, including in the areas of culture, education, and sports.
•U.S. sanctions against the DPRK are not targeted against the livelihood of the DPRK people.
Congratulations to my colleagues who pulled this off, an amazing achievement that I know was the product of years of work. While no doubt much of this has to do with a new leader's calculation as to the best course to keep himself in power, the fact remains that we were well-placed to seize the opportunity presented. With the IAEA under the leadership of a sensible Japanese professional, we have a good chance here of de-nuclearizing a very dangerous state, not to mention putting an end to missle launches which likely would result in a nuclear-armed Japan in time.
I'll be sure to keep the CKT crowd up-to-date on how this plays out from this end, though I should note that I have no inside information and, of course, would never share or even hint of any information I did have that is not for sharing.
An espcially "congrats" to my former Ambassador, Glyn T. Davies, who took over as special envoy to North Korea in December. While I don't know for sure, I can guess that his hard work in Vienna with the IAEA gave him insights and relationships that made this possible.
Well, I am glad to see it.
ReplyDeleteNOT because I believe Un will uphold his end, any more than I would have thought it of Il, but because ANYTHING that will get some food to those poor, oppressed, starving NK's is a good thing.
I am even more glad that they chose the 'nutritional assistance' route in stead of regular grains or rice, which would almost certainly have ended up mostly on the tables of gov't ministers and high military types, instead of in the bellies of the starving people.
Jourdan, we would not ask, or ever expect that you would share internal information not put out for public consumption.
Jourdan, I agree that this is a tactical victory. It represents patient, heavy lifting by our diplomatic corps and should be acknowledged and celebrated as such.
ReplyDeleteHowever, at a strategic level, it's just treading water, at best. I can't see it as anything other than successful nuclear blackmail on the part of the North Koreans.
No party right now wants a crisis - too much going on. So China/US/DPRK acknowledge the status quo and pay the bribe - nuclear moratorium for food.
It's worth asking - how did we get here? Bill Clinton was willing to risk terrible war to draw the line against a nuclear North Korea, back when China didn't own us. Jimmy Carter punked him. It's possible that war would have been seen in hindsight even worse than Iraq. But we'd have no nuclear North Korea now.
Absent action in Iraq, Saddam and his sons would emerged from sanctions and reconstituted their nuclear program. The Duelfer and Kay reports on Iraqi WMD programs confirmed that retaining the capacity to reconstitute these programs was an aim of Saddam's regime. The Iranian progress toward the bomb would have impelled the Saddam to counter. Israel would have been less than sanguine about these developments. And by "less than sanguine" I mean literally ballistic apeshit.
Tactically treading water in that environment might have made the current DPRK diplomatic work look like a walk in the park.
The view from all sides seems to be that Iraq was a failure but almost nowhere is it appreciated that we got 99 problems but Saddam ain't one.
Jourdan, and Lewy ... hate to be the cynic here, but I must. I don't believe, even for a millisecond, that DPRK will cease anything nuclear or missile related. They will hide it, or refuse IAEA access in selected locales, just as they have in the past. Once they have sufficient "nutritional assistance" for the time being, they will again tell us all to GFY. It is what they do, and I'm sure in some villa back room, they sit around laughing at us.
ReplyDeleteI might believe this time they are genuine, but not until I see a record of no cross boarder incursions, during this assistance interregnum, particularly in the Han Estuary area. I've been there ... and I don't believe they'll stop even for a month. That most incursions are not reported media wide is nothing new, we didn't report them in my day either ... we just buried the remains.
The DPRK patterns are old and redundant, only that we slightly believe them again is new. Realpolitik requires we play this game, not to mention to at least try to feed some people. I get that. All that is good, but they ain't changed a whit. First act out militarily, then solicit food, yada yada and yada.
Lewy ... I agree with your comment that "Saddam ain't one" of our problems anymore. I don't consider Iraq a failure either, but I may be influenced by my many Iraqi neighbors...albeit some of the younger among them see improvement per se, but still see Iraqi governance as corrupt. That doesn't bode well.
ReplyDeleteWhere North Korea is concerned, it ain't like Iraq, for one big ass reason ... it borders China. MacArthur was right, until he was wrong and went to far north and west...then disobeyed his CIC. Just my opinion, but I believe he could have sequestered the defeated Norks in a small land area in side Korea. Roll tanks, troops, and aircraft up to China's border, even over it a bit, you have a whole 'nuther war.
China will NOT stand for any foreign military, even of their allies, posing any hostile threat, carrying out hostile actions, etc., along their border(s). That is a Chinese characteristic that goes back millenniums. The idea of land war with China is not even partially sane. They produce kidlets, a resource, who grow to soldiers a whole lot faster than we do. Period. You don't defeat the "will", in war you must reduce the resources, the very ability to resist. We didn't even defeat the demographics in Vietnam ...China? Fugedaboudit.
Jourdan ... I need to add that I am very pleased you are posting regularly here again. Your views and knowledge actually do act upon mine, which need adjustment at times.
ReplyDeleteYou make a distinction between the old food for DPRK programs and this "nutritional assistance" proposal. Please explain to me just what the differences are ... and excuse me if I have missed something.
Your colleagues certainly do deserve praise for even getting the Norks to even talk and sound sensible ... even if I don't trust a word they say. The DPRK's history of actions & solicitations seem to imply that they are "rational actors" even if what's "rational" to them is self serving to the leadership alone.
Ari - The NORK's apparently wanted grain or rice, which could be sold or traded, or most likely, turn up on the tables of the 'elites' there.
DeleteNutritional Assistance consists of specially formulated biscuits, baby formula, etc, designed to be extremely nutritious but without much concern for gastronomic delight.
In other words, exactly what a deeply hungry, oppressed population needs, without the likelihood of it being diverted to the oppressors.
In acknowledgement of the Nutritional Assistance, I just broke a longstanding dietary guideline...
Delete...never eat a cookie that's as big as your head.
Shocking how easily it went down.
Side note - question - why is it that coffee shops invariably feel their atmosphere enhanced by second rate live musicians?
Vomitous: "The United States reaffirms that it does not have hostile intent toward the DPRK and is prepared to take steps to improve our bilateral relationship in the spirit of mutual respect for sovereignty and equality"
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine RR permitting State to issue such tripe.
Congratulations to my colleagues who pulled this off, an amazing achievement that I know was the product of years of work.
Not my read at all. This is just more of Obama capitulating to whatever basket-case megalomanical regime is howling loudest at any given time. Similar to the jizya Obama tossed to the OIC in Cairo.
Of course, with a regime that may deny MAD and having a nuclear capability, perhaps jaw-jaw is better than war-war. But need the WH be so bloody mewling and craven?
Earl, it's standard diplo-fellatio. Centuries long tradition. Nothing special to Obama or the DPRK. I'd wager that RR (and Thatcher!) signed similar crap that diplomats drafted.
DeleteIn general, the level of diplomatic polemic coming from a country is inversely proportional to the strength of the country. Strong countries can afford to be calm and magnanimous. Weak ones sound all combative and crazy when they feel threatened - which in the case of DPRK amounts to chronic, hysterical psychosis.
It's been going on so long nobody cares anymore. The Chinese are LOLing at the Norks too, except that they are very much a Chinese problem - right next door and all.
When I said "tactical" above, by "tactical" I meant sh*t not blowing up next 3 months - kick the can down the road. If the terms we got for kicking the can is some supervision over the food distribution and some visibility into the nuke program, yeah, that counts as a (tactical) victory in these kinda things.
What would have been truly execrable is some Obama announcement of strategic victory - "DPRK has abandoned and renounced their nuclear program" - because we all know he would have paid way too much for what would have to be, per Ari's points above, an empty bag - a bill of goods. I'm pretty sure this is the kind of thing Obama had in mind when he came to office; so far it seems the adult supervisors in the State Dept are doing an adequate job.