North Korea's risky bargain for attention from West

Why would North Korea be trying to start a catastrophic war with South Korea and the United States? That must be what Western leaders are wondering after Pyongyang flatly rejected findings of an investigation by five nations that blamed North Korea for the sinking of a South Korean warship in March. "War may break out at any time," North Korea's ambassador to the United Nations told the UN Security Council on Tuesday, after accusing South Korea of "fabricating" the findings, according to Cable News Network (CNN). Of course, there's a simple answer to the question. It wouldn't be, bombastic rhetoric to the contrary. What countries say is not always what they mean, at least not exactly. North Korea had to say something in response to the very public accusations and pressure for economic sanctions by the United States, although outright denial might not have been the best course of action in the face of damning evidence presented to the Security Council, and 46 dead sailors. "If the Security Council releases any documents against us, condemning or pressuring us ... then myself as diplomat, I can do nothing," North Korean Ambassador Sin Son Ho said, according to CNN. "The follow-up measures will be carried out by our military forces." But North Korea's military is no match for South Korea's, and certainly not for United States forces pledged to support Seoul. Any North Korean attack would be a true suicide bombing. So, the threat of war is a hollow one, perhaps designed either distract attention from Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program or to cover for a tragic mistake by North Korea's financially stretched and, obviously, questionably competent military. Maybe North Korea is just posturing to accept emergency food assistance again this winter, only this time as a peace offering instead of as charity. Or, maybe, Pyongyang thinks it can make Western nations forget about financial sanctions that are sure to be adopted to punish North Korea for the sinking of the Cheonan. But Pyongyang would receive a lot more assistance from the West if it stopped all the pretenses and started behaving like a modern country interested in cooperation with the rest of the world.

South Korea wants international response to ship sinking

News from Seoul is that South Korea wants to wait for the international community act before it responds to a suspected attack on one of its ships by its arch enemy. Preliminary results from a South Korean military intelligence report put the blame on North Korea, its reclusive and impoverished Communist neighbor, according to a Reuters international news service report in the New York Times. The two countries have technically been at war since North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950; a 1953 armistice ended most fighting but ushered in a cold peace that has persisted since then despite occasional moves by both sides to ease tensions. North Korea's testing of nuclear weapons beginning in 2006 has heightened tensions again between the two countries and the United States, which has 28,000 soldiers in South Korea. The South Korean patrol ship, the Cheonan, sank last month with 46 aboard after an explosion, which Seoul blames on a North Korean torpedo. Pyongyang denies any responsibility for the sinking. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak told a group of visiting journalists on Friday that his country would wait until an international investigation of the incident was completed. "Just as the investigation is being conducted with international cooperation, we'll try to cooperate with the international community in taking necessary measures when the results are out," Lee said. The last pieces of the sunken ship are expected to be raised to the surface this week, Reuters said. But even if investigators determine that North Korea was responsible for the sinking, South Korea's options appear limited. A military attack on its neighbor would further heighten tensions and possibly get Russia and China involved, a replay of what happened during the Korean War. Plus, Lee faces tough local elections in June that got even tougher when citizens accused his government of being caught unprepared in the attack on the Cheonan. Lee infuriated the north earlier in the week by criticizing Pyongyang for spending money on a huge celebration to mark the birthday of Kim Il-sung, considered the founder of North Korea. Kim died in 1994.

Progressive nuclear policies sound good but mean nothing

While it'll been fun hearing right-wing blowhards blow a little harder this week, the most important thing about the new nuclear weapons policy unveiled Tuesday by U.S. President Barack Obama is that it doesn't mean anything. Rhetoric about when and where a country will or will not use nuclear arms is meaningless because neither situations nor temptations can be accurately predicted in advance. So, the Obama administration's Nuclear Posture Review, a document required from all U.S. governments by the Congress, can be full of lofty anti-nuclear sentiment yet not reflect what the country will actually do in the event of nuclear conflict. If another country launches a nuclear attack on the United States, sentiment loses all value. Critics of the administration must realize this, even as they launch what are sure to be bombastic attacks on the new policy. The Obama policy, which replaces the Bush administration's threat of nuclear retaliation in the event of chemical or biological attack, commits the United States to refrain from the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries that comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970, according to the Reuters international news service. The new policy also declares that the United States will not develop any new nuclear weapons. "We are taking specific and concrete steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons while preserving our military superiority, deterring aggression and safeguarding the security of the American people," Obama said in a statement released by the White House, Reuters said. The policy was released in time for Thursday's scheduled signing of a new arms reduction treaty with Russia and appears designed to enhance next week's 47-nation nuclear summit in Washington. Iran and North Korea, emerging nuclear powers that have not signed the treaty, were deliberately left out of the non-use guarantee, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said. "If there is a message for Iran and North Korea here, it is ... if you're not going to play by the rules, if you're going to be a proliferator, then all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you," Gates told reporters, Reuters said. The document also expressed concern about China, which has a nuclear arsenal and has signed the treaty, but has not been forthcoming about its program. "China's nuclear arsenal remains much smaller than the arsenals of Russia and the United States," the document said. "But the lack of transparency surrounding its nuclear programs -- their pace and scope, as well as the strategy and doctrine that guides them -- raises questions about China's future strategic intentions." Obama is expected to hold talks with Chinese leader Hu Jintao on the sidelines of next week's summit that will possibly include China's nuclear program as well as the value of its currency, Reuters said.

U.S. and Russia appear on verge of nuclear arms reduction deal

With Western nations focused on emerging nuclear powers North Korea and Iran, word from Washington on Wednesday that the United States and Russia are on the verge of reaching a new agreement to reduce the world's largest nuclear arsenals comes as quite a surprise. But it's a good surprise for a change. Officials from both countries say U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev have managed a way around the last remaining obstacle to a deal to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991 that expired in December, according to the New York Times. The two leaders reportedly need one more meeting to finalize the new agreement, which would require their countries to reduce warheads and launchers by more than 25 percent, the Times said. The White House and the Kremlin declined to comment on the reports, but officials on both sides confirmed the breakthrough on the condition of anonymity, the newspaper said. A signing ceremony is planned in Prague early next month. The deal caps a year of sometimes problematic negotiations that was originally intended to wrap up a new deal by the end of 2009. But the talks got hung up on verification, sharing information and limits on missile defense systems, the Times said, even though Obama agreed not to construct a planned European-based missile shield authorized by his predecessor, former President George W. Bush. The planned Prague ceremony would help jump-start an international summit on nuclear nonproliferation that Obama has scheduled for April 12 and 13 in Washington, the Times said.

The trouble with North Korea

If there are no consequences to North Korea's belligerent development of nuclear weapons technology at the expense of its own people's well-being, the regime in Pyongyang is not going to alter its behavior. That should be plainly obvious by now, after years of abandoned and broken agreements and still-angry relations with South Korea and the United States. So, reports from Seoul that North Korea has been hauling off equipment from the site of an internationally funded nuclear power station where construction was halted in 2002 should not have surprised anyone. Yet outraged reactions from South Korean officials reflect just such surprise, according to the Reuters international news service. "The removal of equipment without taking steps to settle financial issues is a clear violation of the agreement and can be construed as theft," one official told South Korea's JoongAng Ilbo newspaper, Reuters said. More than 200 pieces of heavy equipment worth $39 million, including cranes, bulldozers and trucks, were left at the site in 2002 and could have been used in North Korea's latest nuclear test in May, officials said. Most of the 6,500 tons of steel left at the site also has been removed by the desperately poor Pyongyang regime, the newspaper said. North Korea's foundering economy has been further crippled by stepped-up international trade sanctions that followed its nuclear test in May. Western nations have been offering trade improvements as an incentive to induce the north, which depends on food aid shipments from the West every winter, to halt its development of nuclear technology. Pyongyang has recently signaled that it might be willing to resume talks, Reuters said. But to what end? Sanctions only seem to make the people of North Korea poorer and the government in Pyongyang even more angry. It may very well be that North Korea's government will have to be forced from power before a reasonable accommodation is possible.

North Korea tries to creeps back into civilized world

News from Seoul today that North Korea agreed to reopen its border with South Korea means one thing above all -- that Pyongyang, despite sometimes bewildering antisocial behavior -- still wants to be part of the world community. Knowing this should give Western policymakers renewed incentive to redouble efforts to bring North Korea to world or regional talks aimed at rolling back the impoverished communist nation's nuclear weapons programs. The border development followed a face-to-face meeting between North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il and Hyon Jong Un, head of South Korean Hyundai Group, who had gone to Pyongyang to arrange the return of a worker who had been detained, according to the Reuters international news service. The Hyundai group runs tourism programs to North Korea and operates an industrial park across the border that is a major source of income for Pyongyang. But that income has been sharply reduced in the past 18 months as north-south diplomatic tensions have increased, Reuters said. Today's agreement also means the reinstatement of a celebrated program that permits reunions of families separated by the partition of the country after the Korean War ended in 1953. North Korean media portrayed the two high-level meetings as a tribute to Kim, who is believed to be in poor health and maneuvering to have his son succeed him as leader. But North Korea has a lot to answer for, including recent nuclear tests, missile launches and sales of technology to other rogue states, before it can be admitted into the club.

Annual meeting of Asian nations could see progress on North Korea

Nations concerned about North Korea's continuing refusal to give up its nuclear weapons program hope Thursday's scheduled address by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the ASEAN Regional Forum will help break the frustrating stalemate. The annual security meeting, which is expected to be attended by high-ranking officials from Asian and European countries, also is expected to focus on the behavior of the military junta ruling Myanmar, according to the Reuters international news service. Clinton is expected to be sharply critical of Pyongyang's activities, which has included an underground nuclear detonation and a series of ballistic missile tests in the past year. "Full normalization of relations, a permanent peace regime, and significant energy and economic assistance are all possible in the context of full and verifiable denuclearization," Clinton is expected to say at the meeting, according to a summary of her planned remarks, Reuters said. "North Korea's ongoing threatening behavior does not inspire trust, nor does it permit us to sit idly by." But Clinton has not given any indication that she expects a breakthrough in dealings with Pyongyang, which has refused to budget despite offers of billions of dollars in aid by the West and the imposition of escalating U.N. economic sanctions. During last year's election in South Korea, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said Seoul was willing to set up a $40 billion investment fund, equal to twice Pyongyang's yearly economic output, if North Korea gave up its nuclear weapons. On Myanmar, formerly Burma, Clinton raised concerns this week that the military government was sharing nuclear technology with North Korea. For its part, a top North Korean official said Pyongyang would not stand for being repeatedly criticized at the meeting and has reportedly downgraded its representation to lower-level diplomats, Reuters said.

There's good news and bad news in House energy bill

U.S. President Barack Obama applauded Sunday the passage of an historic energy bill by the House of Representatives aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving the United States away from oil dependence, according to the New York Times. The bill is historic because it would, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president, begin turning the United States from being one of the world's largest emitters of the gasses blamed for global warming and from its profligate use of fossil fuels. The proposal includes a cap-and-trade program to encourage emissions-reduction and support for solar energy and wind power, the Times said. "I think it's fair to say that over the first six month, we've seen more progress on shifting us away from dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels than at any time in several decades," Obama told a group of reporters in the Oval Office, citing his administration's raising of automobile mileage standards and including support for energy research and home weatherization in the economic stimulus bill. But Obama took issue with one provision in the bill passed bythe House that could impose tariffs on countries that refuse to adopt limits on greenhouse gas emissions. "At a time when the economy worldwide is still in deep recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there," Obama said. Okay, the president still sees the big picture on the economy. The best way to rein in the uncivilized regimes out there is by getting them engaged in the world economy -- there's enough money to be made out there for everyone, assuming the recession ends. Look at how it has been working with China. Instead of remaining a belligerent enemy, China has greatly benefitted from engagement and is working with the United States and the West on many issues. It's hard to remember the last time Beijing railed against U.S. "hegemony" -- the name the old Chinese Communists had for Washington's use of economic influence. And it's certainly a lot better than worldwide saber-rattling with nuclear arms, like we're seeing on a smaller scale with North Korea and Iran. But will Obama veto the bill if the Senate does not remove the tariff provision before it gets to him? He doesn't seem to have any choice, and is most likely working behind the scenes to make sure it doesn't come to that. Of course, it would have been nice if he had spoken equally eloquently about removing provisions from the bill that offer additional support for nuclear power and so-called "clean coal" technology. Nuclear power is simply too dangerous to depend on, and burning coal on a larger scale has catastrophic environmental consequences. It's far better, as Obama did say, to put the most energy into safe, renewable energy resources.

North Korea's high-stakes nuclear gamesmanship

What, exactly, does North Korea have to gain by continuing to violate UN Security Council resolutions and baiting the United States into a confrontation on nuclear development? That's the question today after Pyongyang announced it would begin enriching uranium as an addition to its known plutonium-enrichment program unless UN sanctions were lifted, according to the New York Times. North Korea said it also would conduct additional nuclear weapon and ballistic missile tests if the UN did not apologize for the Security Council's April 13 condemnation of its most recent missile test and threat to tighten economic sanctions, which it said it considered "a declaration of war." Pyongyang has managed to exact some concessions from Washington, including high-level dialogue and shipments of food for its impoverished people, with earlier threats, but it is hard to see what Pyongyang wants now. North Korea was impoverished by the collapse of the Soviet bloc, which cut its international trade lifeline, and has been depending on shipments of food from the West to feed its people. Of course, the billions of dollars it is pouring into its weapons research would feed a lot of people if redirected into domestic programs. Instead, the North denounced the Security Council as “a tool for the U.S. highhanded and arbitrary practices” and refused to acknowledge its continuing activities, which the United States believes includes helping Syria with its nuclear research. A spokesman for the U.S. State Department, Fred Lash, said Wednesday that the Security Council resolution was “balanced and appropriate.” “We certainly call on North Korea, as we have in the past, to uphold its commitments” under a Sept. 19, 2005, joint statement of six-party talks and a 2006 Security Council imposing sanctions, the Times said. “We remain committed to achieving the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, hopefully through the six-party talks,” Lash said. “We urge them, as we always do, to return to the table.”

Hard to see what negotiations with Iran can accomplish

It probably can't hurt, but it's hard to see what further negotiations can possibly accomplish given the state of relations between the United States and Iran. The word from Washington is that the United States will, for the first time, take part in talks between Iran, the European Union and other U.N. Security Council members over Tehran's nuclear program, according to the Cable News Network (CNN). According to the U.S. State Department, the Obama administration has asked the EU to invite Iran to new negotiations, in which Washington has previously refused to participate, CNN said. "If Iran accepts, we hope this will be an occasion to seriously engage Iran of how to break the logjam of recent years and work in a cooperative manner to resolve the outstanding international concerns about its nuclear program," said Robert Wood, a State Department spokesman. But Iran has repeatedly refused previous Security Council demands to stop enriching uranium, which Tehran claims is needed to fuel nuclear power plants. The United States accuses Tehran of secretly trying to build a nuclear weapon, a claim the UN is still unable to resolve. The decision to enter the talks is seen as a further move by the new Obama administration to engage the Iran diplomatically after nearly three decades without formal diplomatic ties. But whether regimes like Iran and North Korea can afford to be more involved with the West is an open question, because such involvement brings with it a host of international responsibilities that those those countries don't seem to be mature enough to live up to.

North Korea's tests missile, Obama gets angry

While domestic policy changes are unfolding daily, U.S. residents hoping for a about-face on foreign policy issues may have to wait a little longer. President Barack Obama took a step back into the Cold War-era on Sunday, calling for nuclear-armed North Korea to be "punished" for firing a test missile into the Pacific Ocean. Obama, speaking in Prague on his first European trip since assuming the presidency in January, called the missile test a "provocation" that violated international norms, according to the New York Times. Obama called for a "strong international response" to the firing of the missile, which fell harmlessly in the Pacific Ocean a few hours before Obama's speech before 20,000 in Prague. "This provocation underscores the need for action -- not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council -- but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons,” Obama said. “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.” Obama said blocking North Korea's pursuit of missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons was part of his effort to limit the spread of such technology. He said he was still pursuing a missile defense syestem for Europe, including Poland and Czechoslovakia, but linked it to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weaponry. "As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven,” Obama said. Russia is opposed to the missile defense, which was proposed by former president George W. Bush. Here's hoping the Cold War is not going to be defrosted.

Surprise -- U.S. and Russia discuss peaceful cooperation

Finally, signs of civility in the relationship between the United States and Russia. U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed Wednesday to press for a new nuclear disarmament agreement and to try to get along in solving pressing world issues. The leaders' joint statement said they expect some results by July, when Obama is scheduled to visit Moscow, according to the Reuters international news service. "In the past years, there were strains in relations between our two countries and they were drifting in the wrong direction," Medvedev said to reporters at the G20 economic summit in London. "This was not in the interests of the United States, Russia or global stability. We agreed to open a new page in these relations, to reset them, given the joint responsibilities of our states for the situation in the world." Obama promised "constructive dialog" with Medvedev on counter-terrorism and economic stability, in addition to nuclear proliferation. "The new agreement will mutually enhance the security of the parties and predictability and stability in strategic offensive forces," they said in a joint statement. "We are ready to move beyond Cold War mentalities and chart a fresh start in relations between our two countries." Relations between the nuclear superpowers have been damaged the past few years by differences over Russia's war with neighboring Georgia and a U.S. plan to build a nuclear shield in Eastern Europe. Obama and Medvedev also agreed to work together on the future of Afghanistan, relations with Iran and dealing with North Korea's planned rocket launch.