Kathreb

Monday, April 16, 2007

Analysis

Aidan Foster-Carter has got an interesting commentary piece on the BBC website regarding the recent passing of the 60-day deadline.

Permalink Post a Comment

Response to Joshua of One Free Korea:

Joshua commented to my post 'why the rush?' and asked why I think the shut-down would take a year? He also noted that "we can always place responsibility on our own expectation of timely compliance, lower the standard again, and preserve any deal at the small cost of its very significance". He also points out that both Chris Hill and the DPRK knew the deadline was feasible when they signed.

To which I might respond: As you noted in your post on the Tong Kim article (couldn't find your link sorry but had skimmed through it earlier) we can understand that it takes but a day to actually close a nuclear plant. In this context, 60 days may seem very generous indeed.

However, when I argue that 60 days is too short a time, I do not refer to the matter of flicking a switch. I am referring to the process of 'negotiation - agreement - implementation'. I also factor in time to counter and respond to the delaying tactics of the DPRK. I feel that it would be remiss not to do so because I think we can find no (or few) examples of when the DPRK has proceeded from negotiation to agreement to implementation in a prompt manner and in the spirit of good will. I said one year only as a ball park figure and would happily take counter responses that another time period, longer than 60 days, would be enough time.

With regard to lowering our expectations at the cost of the very significance of the deal, I agree with you in part. Having to adjust and lower expectations does undermine the significance of the initial deal made. But I would argue that perhaps our expectations should not have been so high in the first instance. Having low expectations that are meet might be preferable than having to lower expectations. Having to lower expectations, especially publicly, has the added negative aspect of making the US look weak and/or a patsy to the DPRK's demands.

And we need to ask ourselves: did Chris Hill and the DPRK both really know the deadline was feasible when they signed? I am first interested in why you refer to Chris Hill - a person and the DPRK - a nation? I guess that it means you think Chris Hill had far more room to negotiate the deal for the US than the counterpart in the DPRK? Rather than know the deal's timeline was feasible it could also mean that both sides were facing different pressures to get a deal; any deal. And that they both considered that making a deal that might be less than perfect (or indeed likely to fail) would be preferable to no deal at all. As I have stated earlier, I don't know why they settled on 60 days, it seems quite strange to me that the negotiators would put that kind of limit on themselves.

Sixty days does give a chance for things to move along. Even though the deadline hasn't been met we see signs that things will still proceed with the agreement regardless. Which brings me back to my first claim that rather than put deadlines that will make everyone look bad and undermine the significance of the agreement, why not just work in good faith to get the agreement implemented in whatever time it takes to do so? Surely an implemented agreement in the future is better than the alternatives? I suspect, Joshua, that you do not agree with me at all on that final point.

Permalink Post a Comment

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Tick Tock

The 60 day deadline in the agreement for North Korea's nuclear disarmament is rapidly approaching. It is tense times to see if it can be met. The main stumbling bloc has been the frozen fund in Macau but that seems to have become un-frozen. But will North Korea act promptly to close its main nuclear reactor by Saturday? I, for one, am agog with anticipation to see what will happen. At a guess I think North Korea will do some kind of 'closing' of a nuclear site that probably won't satisfy the US but will be enough to get past the deadline into stage II.

Japan is far less optimistic and

has extended its sanctions against North Korea for six months, amid growing doubts that Pyongyang will close its key nuclear reactor by this Saturday's deadline.

(that is quoted from the Sydney Morning Herald, April 11, 2007. For some reason it won't link). Although it seems Japan's pessimism is based more on lack of progress on the Japan abductees issue rather than evidence that North Korea is about to re-neg on its side of the bargain.

Ireland
I just got back from a short trip to Ireland. That was my second visit to that most beautiful country. We attended a conference in Dublin over the weekend before joining a 3-day tour around the southern half of the island. My camera decided to have hissy fit during the trip so I got no photos but my sister had her camera so there may be some photos later on. Highlights were the cliffs of Moher, and drinking guinness. The tour group we went with was predominantly young so each night we got dropped off at a pub and told the directions to local clubs to dance the nights away, which we did.

Nicholas Eberstadt's new-ish book
I notice that Nicholas Eberstadt is having a book forum for his new book: The North Korean Economy: between crisis and catastrophe. I regret to inform Mr Eberstadt that my free signed copy seems to have been lost in the mail so I can't make any comments on the book or indeed post it on the very popular 'currently reading' portion of my blog site.

Permalink Post a Comment

Home