White House Rejects Nonaggression Pledge for North Korea

[LauraK]

Washington (AP) - The White House on Tuesday rejected the idea of formally pledging not to attack North Korea.

On Monday, North Korea said unless Washington "legally committed itself to nonaggression," it would not give up its nuclear programs.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Bush administration is considering granting North Korea such formal guarantees.

But White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated long- standing American policy that "all options remain on the table."

"Our position remains the same: We continue to seek a diplomatic solution, working with the countries in the neighborhood," McClellan said. But, he added, "We've made it very clear that we will not give in to blackmail, we will not grant inducements for the North to live up to its obligations."

McClellan said the administration is not considering giving North Korea an assurance that the United States will not attack them.

More here

[Wonder]

1. U.S. Weighing More Three-Way Talks on N.Korea

A couple of days ago I read Bush was refusing to negotiate any talking with N.Korea stating he just felt Pyongyang too evil... things seem to have pingponged again.

just up from reuters:

snip
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said on Tuesday it was considering fresh talks with North Korea and China on Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions if they were immediately followed by broader discussions with Japan and South Korea.

The comment by White House spokesman Scott McClellan was the latest sign that the three-way talks first held in April in Beijing could soon resume after a flurry of Chinese diplomacy, including recent visits to Pyongyang and Washington by a top Chinese foreign ministry official.

McClellan told reporters Washington was not willing to take the military option off the table as a way to deal with North Korea's suspected nuclear weapons program but he stressed that the United States was pursuing a diplomatic solution.

snip
U.S. officials said North Korea told them in October that it was pursuing a clandestine atomic weapons program, sparking the latest crisis, and soon thereafter Pyongyang demanded a non-aggression pact with the United States.

A Chinese official said China wanted to "kick-start" the Beijing talks and that North Korea's legitimate security concerns should be addressed, in what seemed a nudge for the United States to offer some form of non-aggression guarantee.

"Our view is that ... we should kick-start the Beijing talks as soon as possible," Sun Weide, spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, told a relatively rare news conference. "The situation on the Korean peninsula is critical."

end snips

Generally, it seems to be the "security concerns" of those named "evil" do not seem to be much of factor. Why should any enemy of the U.S. have security concerns of their own?

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3135255

[ewagner]

2. IMHO

North Korea decided to fast trac its nuc program because they assumed from the proverbial "giddyup!" that Bush had them in the cross hairs.

A security agreement would lead to some stabilization which would have to be followed up with intense diplomacy which could take 5 - 10 years to bring N. Korea into the modern, non-aggressive era.

what do you think?

[StandWatie]

3. I don't get it..

Supposedly the N. Koreans are just paranoid and have nothing to fear from the US but W won't say he won't just up and attack them by suprise some day :shrug:

[berry]

4. Agree! They have every reason to fear the US (paranoid or not)

With the US goal in Korea "regime change" (as Asia-focused PNACers hope), they just have to look at Iraq and be afraid. And as in Iraq, I think the nuke issue is just a handy excuse for what the hawks want to do anyway.

Don't you just love the irony in Bush* talking about how Kim (in this case) lied, ergo NOTHING he ever says again can be believed? Same argument they used about Hussein. Can't negotiate with "liars." Huh! And Bush* is devoted to truth?

[ewagner]

5. There is a difference

Somebody better tell the WH that there is a difference between "Blackmail" and "Diplomacy".

Bush* seems to think that any kind of diplomacy is a sign of weakness and therefore refuses to participate. (Witness the sham diplomacy through the UN in the run-up to the war.) The world would be safer and less crisis ridden if the WH would start practicing a little old-fashioned diplomacy. Incidentially, this is the sort of stuff Powell is supposed to be good at.