Comments on: Six-Party Joint Statement

By: MarkoB

MarkoB — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:41:49 +0000

I was interested to read the wording provided here esp this bit
“The DPRK will shut down and seal for the purpose of eventual abandonment the Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility”

So the actual “eventual abandoment” of Yongbyon is still linked with the progress of future talks, where all the nitty gritty is gonna be, I take it.

By: from the point of view of the deal

from the point of view of the deal — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:27:08 +0000

I was wondering now, how does the “fizzle” test back in october fits into the equation that produced this outcome? Was the nuke test a necessary or sufficient condition for the deal to happen? Any ideas, anyone?

By: Robot Economist

Robot Economist — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:16:20 +0000

I was slightly upset by today’s joint statement. It brought back too many memories of the Agreed Framework, Kurt Cobain’s death and the OJ Simpson trial.

By: N.N.

N.N. — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:12:40 +0000

Where in the “Joint Statement” does it explicitly mention what is going to happen to the ready warheads NK has in stock? Surely they must be included in any “abandonment”. In any case, there is clearly a long road ahead to any spesific discussions about the implementation of verified disposal of all plutonium already produced.

By: Richard Wendland

Richard Wendland — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:30:09 +0000

Also note this Reuters report that the 2002 CIA claims of North Korean uranium enrichment may have been “overstated or misread”, and that “U.S. officials no longer make a major public issue of the enrichment program”:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N09302593.htm

Is this a “convenient” conclusion for the talks, or was this another case of distorted intelligence to further the neo-con position? Now rejected as essentially wrong, and we’re doing what could have been done 5 years ago.

Richard