Good Deal, Provided…
February 12th, 2007Tentatively, we have an agreement with North Korea on future nuclear weapons but have, on the surface, achieved nothing with regard to their present nuclear arsenal.
A summary of the proposed agreement that was circulated among senior policy makers in Washington before the Tuesday morning announcement made clear that even if the North agreed to take the listed first steps — sealing its main nuclear reactor and inviting international inspectors back into the country — there was no specific deadline for it to turn over any nuclear weapons or weapons fuel that it had produced in recent years. That would happen only after the parties reached another agreement.
In essence, the draft appeared intended to prevent the North from producing more weapons, but to defer discussions over the weapons and fuel it has already stockpiled. Mr. Hill had earlier suggested that if the current talks were to yield an agreement, follow-up discussions could be held in March and April. The summary calls for the six nations in the talks to “create working groups for full and rapid implementation” of a September 2005 agreement in which the North agreed in principle to abandon its nuclear weapons.
But in the past, the North Korean envoys to similar working groups have proven to have no real negotiating authority. The summary, which did not include language on what the North would get in return for shutting down its weapons program, was given to The New York Times by a person who was trying to explain the timing and vagueness of the deal’s elements.
However, I must say I’m happy with this deal. Its existence alone makes it less likely that the North Koreans would use or sell nuclear weapons. What they pine for is respect, and with such a dialogue they achieve it. It’s a good deal, provided the six countries involved use it in future negotiations to achieve more.