NKorea says UN resolution equivalent to 'declaration of war' (1 Viewer)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

NKorea says UN resolution equivalent to 'declaration of war'

SEOUL (XFN-ASIA) - North Korea said the UN resolution imposing sanctions over its nuclear weapons test last week 'cannot be construed in any other way but a declaration of war,' the Korean Central News Agency reported.

The KCNA also reported an announcement from North Korea saying its test of a nuclear weapon was an 'exercise of its independent and legitimate right as a sovereign state.'

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/10/17/afx3096080.html

N Korea rejects UN resolution as 'declaration of war'


SEOUL: North Korea said on Tuesday the new UN resolution imposing sanctions on the country was a "declaration of war" and warned it would strike back at any nations that try to tighten the screws on its regime.

"We will deliver merciless blows without hesitation to whoever tries to breach our sovereignty and right to survive under the excuse of carrying out the UN Security Council resolution," a foreign ministry spokesman said.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/update_detail.asp?id=11373

Nuke this little tin-pot piece ofshit now Bush you ****ing dumbass it is abundantly clear that Kim Jong il is simply to unpredictable to be allowed to have nuclear weapons this is simply an unacceptable situation and can not be allowed.

 

[Cammie]

They must not know the UN very well if they think the UN would actually declare war on anyone... :roll:

 

[Kandahar]

Leave 'em alone. This is China and Japan's problem, not ours.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Leave 'em alone. This is China and Japan's problem, not ours.

No this is most certainly our problem as well given the fact that North Korea has shown that they are more than willing to sell their military technology to the highest bidder and even has been proven to sell nuclear technology when Khadafi disarmed Libya.

And are you honestly asserting that we should not enforce the U.N. resolution on North Korea and allow them to continue with their nuclear proliferation?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This is China and Japan's problem, not ours.

China or Japan sucks down a Korean nuke, and we're going to lose a whole Hell of a lot of money.

They sell a nuclear bomb or missile to Al Qaeda, and we're going to lose a Hell of a lot more than just money.

It's our problem.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

China or Japan sucks down a Korean nuke, and we're going to lose a whole Hell of a lot of money.

They sell a nuclear bomb or missile to Al Qaeda, and we're going to lose a Hell of a lot more than just money.

It's our problem.

Not to mention we're not back stabing little bastards like the French, we defend our allies IE Japan and South Korea.

 

[Haggwarr]

They must not know the UN very well if they think the UN would actually declare war on anyone... :roll:

Aye aye, agreed to the fullest.

 

[G-Man]

No this is most certainly our problem as well given the fact that North Korea has shown that they are more than willing to sell their military technology to the highest bidder and even has been proven to sell nuclear technology when Khadafi disarmed Libya.

And are you honestly asserting that we should not enforce the U.N. resolution on North Korea and allow them to continue with their nuclear proliferation?

North Korea is hardly the best regime in the world to sell nuclear technology. Most rogue states/terrorists don't want nukes the size of a bus with no system to deliver them.

NK's entire nuclear program as we know it today is the result of a certain Pakistani rogue scientist. Where are the sanctions on this country? Not only do they have 'proper' nukes and delivery systems (developed in secrecy without international approval) the nation is also ruled by an unstable military dictator (who has twice been on the verge of nuclear war with India) who allows terrorists to roam free across his country. There is a clear case of double standards here. Further, didn't we just sell missile technology to this unstable, nuclear weapon supplied, terrorist supporting military dictator? Oh yeah, that right...he's our kind of bad guy!!

Its also difficult to see on what basis the UN can try to impose sanctions. NK is not a signatory to the NPT so in theory is free to develop any WMD programme it desires - although I could be wrong so pls post any international law/agreement they are breaching.

 

[Kandahar]

No this is most certainly our problem as well given the fact that North Korea has shown that they are more than willing to sell their military technology to the highest bidder and even has been proven to sell nuclear technology when Khadafi disarmed Libya.

George W Bush should go on national television and state that any nuclear weapon used by any terrorist group anywhere in the world will be regarded as an attack by North Korea on the United States.

And are you honestly asserting that we should not enforce the U.N. resolution on North Korea and allow them to continue with their nuclear proliferation?

The UN resolution that calls for sanctions? Certainly not. That is the absolute worst thing we could possibly do. We should be working to open North Korea's economy to destabilize the regime.

 

[Kandahar]

China or Japan sucks down a Korean nuke, and we're going to lose a whole Hell of a lot of money.

Not nearly as much as they would. They're both perfectly capable of defending themselves.

They sell a nuclear bomb or missile to Al Qaeda, and we're going to lose a Hell of a lot more than just money.

They can be deterred from doing so, to the same extent that they can be deterred from launching a nuke themselves.

This is not Iran, Kim Jong-il isn't suicidal.

 

[shuamort]

This is not Iran, Kim Jong-il isn't suicidal.

Last week's op ed piece:
Kim Jong-il’s Suicide Watch

OR

Suicide Plan of Kim Jong Il Was Announced.

 

[ProudAmerican]

we are eventually going to fight this guy.

the question is, do we do it before, or after he has the capability to nuke the entire region.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Its also difficult to see on what basis the UN can try to impose sanctions. NK is not a signatory to the NPT so in theory is free to develop any WMD programme it desires - although I could be wrong so pls post any international law/agreement they are breaching.

Lets examine the facts and start with the history of North Korea's nuclear program:

Nuclear Program:

1. North Korea signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on December 12, 1985.

2. Their first nuclear reactor was completed in 1986. This one was a magnox reactor which was a technology developed by the UK in the late 50s and shared and exported by the UK in the late 70s and mid-80s. The North Koreans aquired the blueprints at the Atoms For Peace Conference in 1964 at which our friends the Brits foolishly made them publicly avaiable to all of the delegates at the Conference.

3. North Korea began construction of a new nuclear reactor in 1984 which was, once again, based on technology developed by the UK. Fortunatley, the construction of this one still hasn't been completed.

4. By 1993 North Korea had stockpiled enough processed plutonium to make an estimated 10 nuclear bombs and threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

5. The Clinton administration gave North Korea two options after they threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: A) Continue to process and stockpile plutonium, withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the U.S. will bomb you into the next century. or B) Make the terms of the Agreed Framework national policy. Of course, option A was a bluff since there was no way the Republicans would have allowed Clinton to break the ceasefire with North Korea and resume the Korean War. Luckily, North Korea didn't call the bluff and chose option B.

Agreed Framework:

1. The Agreed Framework was created in 1994 and it's terms were as follows:
A) North Korea would recieve fuel oil and economic aid until the United States, South Korea, Japan, Poland, Argentina, Canada, Chile, Australia, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, New Zealand, and the Czech Republic payed for and constructed two new nuclear reactors for civilian use.
B) In exchange, North Korea would stop processing and stockpiling plutonium,
shut down and dismantle it's nuclear reactors, and remain a signatory of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Why The Agreed Framework Worked:

1. The Agreed Framework was never designed or intended to completely eliminate North Korea's nuclear program. It's only real goal was to delay the inevitable until the United States could plan a better solution to the problem. It delayed North Korea for 8 years.


What Went Wrong:

1. North Korea did indeed shut down it's completed nuclear reactor, ceased construction of it's second reactor, and stopped processing and stockpiling plutonium but the Clinton administration suspected that North Korea had started processing and stockpiling uranium instead. In response to those allegations, North Korea stated that even if they were processing and stockpiling uranium, nothing about uranium was mentioned in the Agreed Framework, and therefore it was perfectly legal for them to do and not a violation of the Agreed Framework. Of course, the Clinton administration recognized that, although the North Korean's were right about uranium not being mentioned, North Korea was violating the spirit of the Agreed Framework and therefore the administration, along with the other parties involved, refused to provide the new reactors promised them.

2. The fuel oil and economic aid shipments ended in 2002 when the Bush administration was finally able to prove that North Korea was indeed processing and stockpiling both uranium and plutonium. North Korea announced it's withdraw from the Agreed Framework in January of 2003 giving the excuse that they shouldnt' have to abide by it's terms if the other parties involved wouldn't provide them with new reactors as was promised.

3. The Bush administration has continously provoked and stirred the metaphorical pot with North Korea since 2001 then assumes that all will be well if Powell or Rice are sent over there to do a square dance around the diplomatic table. Despite his tough talk regarding North Korea Bush has done absolutley nothing to solve the problem and nearly everything to make it grow.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why The Agreed Framework Worked:

1. The Agreed Framework was never designed or intended to completely eliminate North Korea's nuclear program. It's only real goal was to delay the inevitable until the United States could plan a better solution to the problem. It delayed North Korea for 8 years.

lmfao you're kidding me right? It didn't delay jackshit Kim Jong il never ceased his nuclear weapons program, all this plan did was give Kim vital economic aid which his regime desperately needed and which kept his regime afloat long after it would have collapsed on its own. All Clinton did was pump more money into Kim Jong il's military and nuclear weapons program but hay go ahead and blame Bush and his hostile words. What a crock.

 

[akyron]

What a crock.

yup yup.

They just decided to build a nuclear bomb in 2-3 years and POW there it is!

 

[G-Man]

lmfao you're kidding me right? It didn't delay jackshit Kim Jong il never ceased his nuclear weapons program, all this plan did was give Kim vital economic aid which his regime desperately needed and which kept his regime afloat long after it would have collapsed on its own. All Clinton did was pump more money into Kim Jong il's military and nuclear weapons program but hay go ahead and blame Bush and his hostile words. What a crock.

If you threaten someone or give them an ultimatum then I guess they are either going to sumbit or fight back. The US under Bush has pushed NK into a corner but they know that if they get 'the bomb' ,and a means of delivering it, the US cannot realistically threaten it again - its hardly a surprise they seek to develop such weapons.

Personally I wouldn't lay the blame on Bush's words, I would rather use his actions. He has his 'axis of evil' list and 2 of the members have already been invaded. Even little Kim must realise that the next target is either himself, Iran or Syria. He needs a deterrant and has sought WMD.

He's just doing the same as any leader across the world would do when threatened, building up his own defences.

 

[akyron]

He's just doing the same as any leader across the world would do when threatened, building up his own defences.

If KJII was not such a wacko he would be sitting pretty anyway.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If you threaten someone or give them an ultimatum then I guess they are either going to sumbit or fight back. The US under Bush has pushed NK into a corner.

Yes before Bush Kim Jong il was a lovable little fuzzbull and after the harsh words by Bush they created a nuclear weapon in only 3 years time, because ofcouse they couldn't have been working on them long before that.

 

[G-Man]

Yes before Bush Kim Jong il was a lovable little fuzzbull and after the harsh words by Bush they created a nuclear weapon in only 3 years time, because ofcouse they couldn't have been working on them long before that.

They didn't 'create' a nuclear weapon in 3 years- our friends in Pakistan developed nuclear weapons technology just before this period and passed on all that knowledge to NK - they just simply bought the info. Without the assistance of the rogue Pakistani scientist it is extremely doubtedful NK would be anywhere near a fully functioning WMD.

Of course its impossible to determine whether he would have went down this path or not had US policy towards NK not been so hostile but it certainly didn't help.

Military dictator, terrorist sponsor and nuclear weapons technology supplier - maybe we should be taking this up with Pakistan first?

 

[WI Crippler]

Well I hope to god that we don't elect a Clinton or a Bush in the next election, that way we can all blame both of them.

That being said, we need to somehow convince the UN to authorize something other than sanctions and "tough language". This little crazy SOB needs to be dealt with now, not 2 years from now.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

lmfao you're kidding me right? It didn't delay jackshit Kim Jong il never ceased his nuclear weapons program, all this plan did was give Kim vital economic aid which his regime desperately needed and which kept his regime afloat long after it would have collapsed on its own.

Wrong. It slowed the program down considerably. As I already pointed out, North Korea had already stockpiled enough processed plutonium to make 10 nuclear bombs by the time the Reagan and Bush the Elder administrations were over. What exactly were they doing about it? The North Korean regime would not have collapsed on it's own without the Agreed Framework. They have a tidy black market for military goodies. The economic aid and fuel oil simply replaced what the North Korea's lost when they shut down their reactors.

All Clinton did was pump more money into Kim Jong il's military and nuclear weapons program but hay go ahead and blame Bush and his hostile words. What a crock.

Bush needs to take the advice of Theodore Roosevelt ie "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Clinton was the first president to address the issue and stopping the problem without resorting to war was and is completely unrealistic due to the fact that Reagan and Bush the Elder neglected it. Bush pushed North Korea into reopening it's reactors and seeking out help in the development of it's nuclear program with his threats. I do, however, remain unconvinced that North Korea has conducted a real nuclear detonation. The radiation levels are almost nonexistent and, in my opinion, they just detonated a large dirty bomb to make it look like a nuclear detonation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wrong. It slowed the program down considerably.

No it didn't they never ceased their nuclear weapons program which is why they were never granted the light water reactors.

The North Korean regime would not have collapsed on it's own without the Agreed Framework.

Yes it would have:

North Korea Advisory Group





[SIZE=+4]Report to[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+4]The Speaker[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+4]U.S.[/SIZE][SIZE=+3] [/SIZE][SIZE=+4]House of Representatives[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+3]November 1999[/SIZE]



[SIZE=+2]Members of the Speaker's North Korea Advisory Group[/SIZE]
​

Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman, NY
Chairman, North Korea Advisory Group and Chairman, Committee on International Relations
Rep. Doug Bereuter, NE
Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
Rep. Sonny Callahan, AL
Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations
Rep. Christopher Cox, CA
Chairman, Republican Policy Committee
Rep. Tillie K. Fowler, GA
Vice Chair, Republican Conference
Rep. Porter J. Goss, FL
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Rep. Joe Knollenberg, MI
Member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations
Rep. Floyd Spence, SC
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services
Rep. Curt Weldon, PA
Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development​

CHAPTER FOUR

[SIZE=+1]Sustaining The North Korean Government[/SIZE]




[SIZE=+1]Does U.S. assistance sustain the North Korean government?[/SIZE]




The United States has replaced the Soviet Union as a primary benefactor of North Korea. The United States now feeds more than one-third of all North Koreans, and the U.S.-supported KEDO program supplies almost half of its HFO needs. This aid frees other resources for North Korea to divert to its WMD and conventional military programs.
U.S. aid to North Korea has grown from zero to more than $270 million annually, totaling $645 million over the last five years. Based on current trends, that total will likely exceed $1 billion next year. During that same time, North Korea developed missiles capable of striking the United States and became a major drug trafficking and currency counterfeiting nation.

Despite assurances from the administration, U.S. food and fuel assistance is not adequately monitored. At least $11 million in HFO assistance has been diverted. In contravention of stated U.S. policy, food has been distributed in places where monitors are denied access. One U.S. aid worker in North Korea recently called the monitoring system a "scam."(109) More than 90% of food aid distribution sites in North Korea have never been visited by a food aid monitor. The North Koreans have never divulged a complete list of where aid is distributed.

North Korea has the longest sustained U.N. food emergency program in history. There are no significant efforts to support or compel agricultural and economic reforms needed for North Korea to feed itself. North Korea will likely continue to refuse to reform, instead relying on brinkmanship to exact further aid from the United States and other members of the international community.

A. Does U.S. assistance directly or indirectly sustain the North Korean government?
U.S. assistance helps to sustain the North Korean government, and current accounting systems are not capable
of tracking aid to ensure its proper use.

KEY FINDINGS

• North Korea is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Northeast Asia. American assistance feeds one-third of all North Koreans and KEDO, largely funded by the United States, provides 45% of its heavy fuel oil needs.

• Current food aid monitoring programs by the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) and the Private Voluntary Organization Consortium (PVOC) face a difficult environment and cannot ensure that U.S. assistance reaches those in need. There are continuing and credible reports of diversion of food aid to the military, closed regions, and unintended recipients. Food aid has been distributed in areas closed to international monitors in contravention of stated administration policy.
• A number of other donors and international relief organizations, such as the European Union (EU) and Medicins Sans Frontiers (MSF) have cut back or ended their programs in North Korea due to diversions and the DPRK's refusal to permit them to monitor assistance programs.
• The fuel monitoring system suffers from inherent limits, including dependence upon the North Korean electric power system. Flow meters and other monitoring equipment are routinely inoperable. Furthermore, KEDO has no arrangements with North Korea for monitoring the large quantities of heavy fuel oil in storage or in transit to the plants consuming the heavy fuel oil.
• During a power outage which left the monitoring system inoperable from January- April 1999, the North Koreans consumed record amounts of unmonitored fuel. This case represents an example of diversion.
• The State Department admitted to the General Accounting Office (GAO) that "insignificant" amounts of fuel have been diverted since this program started. When asked what would be a "significant" diversion, a State Department representative told GAO "you could drive a truck through our definition of a 'significant diversion.'" State Department representatives later admitted that North Korea has probably diverted at least $11 million worth of U.S. supplied fuel.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nkag-report.htm

<<<continued below>>>

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

<<<CONTINUED>>>

B. Does assistance promote critical reforms likely to make North Korea a more responsible member of the international community?

It is likely that North Korea will continue to use brinkmanship to exact more assistance from the international
community rather than undertake reforms.
KEY FINDINGS

• U.S. assistance programs do not support or compel any major reform programs intended to help the North Korean people feed themselves or to restart economic growth.
• North Korea is likely to remain a ward of the international community, bent on maintaining its policy of brinkmanship in order to exact assistance from the U.S. and other members of the international community.

In the Far Eastern Economic Review of July 20, 1995 (two months before North Korea made its first appeal for international food aid), Steve Linton, a researcher at Columbia University who has visited North Korea frequently (he presently operates a humanitarian aid project in North Korea), described what he believed would be the response of North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il, to North Korea's mounting economic crisis. He predicted that Kim would: (1) reject a dismantling of Soviet- style central planning and institutions, including collective farms, thus rejecting China's model of economic reforms ("Kim Jong-Il does not plan to make the same mistake"); (2) seek massive transfers of technology, capital, and aid from abroad; (3) accept no responsibility for the economic and food crises, instead blaming them on uncontrollable factors; and (4) ensure that the communist elite class in Pyongyang received priority in the distribution of food and consumer goods.(141)

Linton's prediction has been largely borne out by subsequent events. An example is the speech by Choe Su-hon, North Korea's Vice Minister of Agriculture, to an international conference on agricultural recovery and environmental protection in Geneva, Switzerland on May 28-29, 1998. Choe blamed the food crisis on floods and droughts, the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern European communist regimes, and U.S. economic sanctions. He said that collective farms would be strengthened, and described them as providing "the effective social safety net that is often missing in other developing country settings."(142) He then appealed for more international food aid and a technological assistance program for agriculture from other countries and international agencies of $300 million.(143) The WFP and U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization disagreed with North Korea's diagnosis. In their 1995 crop assessment, they estimated that the droughts and floods highlighted by the North Koreans only accounted for 15-20% of North Korea's food deficit, while 85% of their problems stemmed from the government's own policy of collectivist agriculture.(144)

The North Korean government has made a few changes in its agriculture or economic policy. These changes include: the promotion of double cropping; the encouraging of the growing of potatoes; allowing the emergence of de facto private markets as the state food distribution system has collapsed in many locales; emphasizing the role of small work teams on collective farms; and allowing South Korea's Hyundai Corporation to open a tourist project in North Korea. These developments show that the North Korean government is interested in some very limited reforms tactically designed to take advantage of a willing donor. While some analysts, including those at the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), highlight these reforms, opinion appears to be veering towards a very skeptical and bleak assessment of the food security situation, even among private aid-giving groups.(145)

<<<continued below>>>

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

<<<CONTINUED>>>

C. Is the decline in the North Korean economy likely to encourage the leadership to undertake risky policies which threaten international peace?

Rather than reform its economy, North Korea chooses to extort assistance from the United States and other members of the international community. This presents a dangerous situation as brinkmanship increases the possibility of miscalculation and the risk to peace.
KEY FINDINGS

• In 1994, North Korea triggered a nuclear crisis that it resolved only after it was promised two new nuclear reactors and annual shipments of 500,000 mt of fuel from the United States and its allies.
• In 1998, North Korea leveraged international concern about its large underground facility at Kumchang-ni to gain an extra 200,000 mt of food from the United States.
• In 1999, North Korea used its impending launch of a Taepo Dong 2 missile over Japan to win an end to the 49-year-old U.S. economic sanctions regime.
• In the coming year, North Korea may leverage possible missile development and sales to win access to more aid and other credits from the United States, Japan and South Korea.

 

[akyron]

<<<CONTINUED>>>

Fact abuse. You arent supposed to use those in a political debate.