The timing, coinciding with Koizumi’s election is no fluke. They don’t want to be in an arms race in the region. They read the tea leaves, and realized they had a lot more to lose from a nuclear weapon yielding maniac.

IT is good to see the effects of Bush’s multilaterlasim, vs. the effects of Clinton’s unilaterlism.

The trend from China seems to be good. The change in their monetary policy, was a move towards optimism about the won(?), letting its value be determined by markets, as opposed to their government.

Their increase in oil consumption, up 37%, also leads one to believe that they are entering the capitalist system.

Very quietly, the last communist superpower, is changing…

MSM says: “move along, nothing to see here…”
Actually there aren’t any reporters who could cover it. Can anybody name an Asian, Indian, of Middle-Eastern Reporter at the Times?

That’s what I thought.

On the other hand, it is just as likely that this treaty will last only until the next time a U.S. President or member of Congress says anything bad about North Korea. Immediately we will be back to protests against “U.S. imperialist warmongering and desire to stifle Korean independence” or words to that effect and quotes of North Korean dignitaries in “Rodong Sinmun” declaring the agreement to be meaningless. This has happened before. It is likely to happen again, probably immediately following a large delivery of aid supplies.

Unlike a heavy-water reactor (like Canada uses) a light-water reactor requires either weapons-grade Uranium or Plutonium. In either case, NoKo’s demand means keeping stores of fissionable material they could make weapons from — and amounts to a return to the oh-so-successful policy of the Carter-Clinton agreement of the ’90s.

It’s good news that Kim is saying nice things and coming back to the table — but that’s the extent of it.

Here’s the key passage from the article:

While the joint statement has Pyongyang giving up nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs, it also acknowledges that North Korea has stated that it has the the right to “peaceful uses of nuclear energy” and that the provision of a nuclear light-water reactor will be discussed at “an appropriate time.”

Understand that, under Clinton-Carter, “provision of” such a reactor means us giving him such a reactor, and the weapons-grade material to power it, in return for his promises not to use them to make a bomb.

Fool me once…

I am optimistic as well. But to say that my optimism is cautious would be an understatement. So much an understatement that it barely qualifies as optimism.

Here’s a thought:
This situation in North Korea will be an interesting mirror for the liberal “no WMD’s found” argument against war in Iraq. That argument seems to be that, once a nation has stated it is in compliance, it is up to peaceful nations to prove that non-peaceful nations are violating weapons agreements. No action can be taken until the world proves non-compliance, hence we should not have invaded Iraq until guilt was proven. In other words, there is no burden on the non-compliant country to prove its new commitment to compliance. The world is put into the position of proving a negative.

So according to that logic, we should now establish full diplomatic relations with North Korea and open all trade, remove any sanctions in place, et cetera. North Korea has made a promise, and by the Iraq Standard, it is up to the rest of the world to prove they are not keeping it. There is no need for North Korea to prove it is in compliance. That is assumed, and it is up to the rest of the world to prove otherwise. This is essentially what the Iraq War hind-sighters are saying we should have done in Iraq, is it not?

So, what will happen if any one of those liberals who raise that argument simultaneously argue that we should not believe North Korea until they prove their compliance to us? Isn’t that exactly the standard we placed on Saddam, exactly the standard he failed to meet, and exactly the reason we invaded?

This could represent a real catch 22 for liberals.

Twenty some years ago I sat on the Korean DMZ facing the North. Our three battalions consisting of at most 600 men, vs. their sixteen armored mechanized divisions. I remember thinking, “armistice my arse!”, NOBODY puts that much hardware up for “pea…

I want to see how well this agreement handles the “trust, but verify” aspects President Reagan used to talk about.