NORTH KOREA: What is the big deal?

FreeChile · 18th May 2006, 04:18 PM

Is Mr. Sanger simply a paparatzy on this one? Who is pushing this issue? Is there really any news here?

If indeed the US is considering a different approach, why can't the White House simply say what the National Security Council recommended and reveal that approach? This is, of course, assuming the press (DAVID E. SANGER) is not being taken for a ride.

Is someone inside the White House pushing for this so badly as to leak it? Is it another leak? Or is the White House intentionally leaking it to follow a new approach without losing face in the process?

So many questions, so little time!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/wo...a/18korea.html
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/66458.htm

Quote:

U.S. Said to Weigh a New Approach on North Korea

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 18, 2006

WASHINGTON, May 17 — President Bush's top advisers have recommended a broad new approach to dealing with North Korea that would include beginning negotiations on a peace treaty, even while efforts to dismantle the country's nuclear program are still under way, senior administration officials and Asian diplomats say.

Aides say Mr. Bush is very likely to approve the new approach, which has been hotly debated among different factions within the administration. But he will not do so unless North Korea returns to multinational negotiations over its nuclear program. The talks have been stalled since September.

Quote:

Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
May 18, 2006

QUESTION: In terms of your approach to this issue.

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of the six-party talks, our position remains the same.

QUESTION: Just your approach to North Korea, there has been no tactical change in the way you approach that country and the problem posed by its nuclear arsenal.

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we have repeated over and over again that they need to come back to the talks. They need to demonstrate that they have made the strategic decision to give up their nuclear programs. Now you know, one of the things that happened in the wake of the September 19th statement is a couple days after, I think maybe even the day after it was issued and that they signed up for it, they started talking about a light-water reactor as a precondition to come back to the talks. Well, that was certainly an indicator, you know, raised questions in our mind and I think in the minds of all the other parties of the talks about their commitment to actually give up their nuclear -- all their nuclear programs. So that's why we have the emphasis on demonstrating that they made that strategic decision.

QUESTION: But when you say to me, as you just did, that you have said something over and over and you're saying it again today, then you should feel very comfortable saying to me that there's been no tactical change in your approach.

MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, James, in terms of the choreography and sequencing and all those kinds of temporal questions related to this statement, that's the subject of negotiations. That's the subject of negotiations in the six-party context. And you can't have that negotiation if you have in a six-party format if you only have five parties there.

QUESTION: So you're not ruling it out that there's been a tactical change in the way the Bush Administration approaches this issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, in terms of the internal deliberations about the Administration on this issue, that's not something, you know, that's not something that we get into. And in terms of, you know, do people think about if the six-party talks come back into session, how might we address these issues. Of course, people think about those things. We've had several months to think about those things. But you can't do anything about it until you actually get back to the talks. And the reason why we are not back at the talks is North Koreans have not come back to the table.

QUESTION: Sean, can you say whether Mr. Zelikow wrote two papers that were circulated that put forward a different approach that would be simultaneous or concurrent track? In other words, peace talks not predicated on their coming back to the six-party talks, but a parallel track. Are there such papers? Did we draft them?

MR. MCCORMACK: We don't -- again, we don't negotiate in public. We don't get into the internal deliberations, who wrote what paper, and what was in any particular paper. It was just -- you know, it's not our style.

Rob Lister · 18th May 2006, 04:39 PM

You could be seeing a trial balloon, or an outright/partial/somewhat fabracation.

Follow the 48 hour rule.

FreeChile · 18th May 2006, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

You could be seeing a trial balloon, or an outright/partial/somewhat fabracation.

Follow the 48 hour rule.

What is that rule?

Rob Lister · 18th May 2006, 05:05 PM

Wait 48 hours (at least) before considering it as something actually worthy of considering. If it starts showing up everywhere, that's a clue that it has some weight.

As I read it, it says little. "Aides say", is a giveaway. What aides? Bush's Aides? The Reporter's Aides? Whose Aids?

Zep · 18th May 2006, 05:15 PM

Band Aids.

Rob Lister · 18th May 2006, 05:20 PM

Exactly

18th May 2006, 04:18 PM	#1
FreeChile Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,039	NORTH KOREA: What is the big deal? Is Mr. Sanger simply a paparatzy on this one? Who is pushing this issue? Is there really any news here? If indeed the US is considering a different approach, why can't the White House simply say what the National Security Council recommended and reveal that approach? This is, of course, assuming the press (DAVID E. SANGER) is not being taken for a ride. Is someone inside the White House pushing for this so badly as to leak it? Is it another leak? Or is the White House intentionally leaking it to follow a new approach without losing face in the process? So many questions, so little time! http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/wo...a/18korea.html http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/66458.htm Quote: U.S. Said to Weigh a New Approach on North Korea By DAVID E. SANGER Published: May 18, 2006 WASHINGTON, May 17 — President Bush's top advisers have recommended a broad new approach to dealing with North Korea that would include beginning negotiations on a peace treaty, even while efforts to dismantle the country's nuclear program are still under way, senior administration officials and Asian diplomats say. Aides say Mr. Bush is very likely to approve the new approach, which has been hotly debated among different factions within the administration. But he will not do so unless North Korea returns to multinational negotiations over its nuclear program. The talks have been stalled since September. Quote: Daily Press Briefing Sean McCormack, Spokesman Washington, DC May 18, 2006 QUESTION: In terms of your approach to this issue. MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of the six-party talks, our position remains the same. QUESTION: Just your approach to North Korea, there has been no tactical change in the way you approach that country and the problem posed by its nuclear arsenal. MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we have repeated over and over again that they need to come back to the talks. They need to demonstrate that they have made the strategic decision to give up their nuclear programs. Now you know, one of the things that happened in the wake of the September 19th statement is a couple days after, I think maybe even the day after it was issued and that they signed up for it, they started talking about a light-water reactor as a precondition to come back to the talks. Well, that was certainly an indicator, you know, raised questions in our mind and I think in the minds of all the other parties of the talks about their commitment to actually give up their nuclear -- all their nuclear programs. So that's why we have the emphasis on demonstrating that they made that strategic decision. QUESTION: But when you say to me, as you just did, that you have said something over and over and you're saying it again today, then you should feel very comfortable saying to me that there's been no tactical change in your approach. MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, James, in terms of the choreography and sequencing and all those kinds of temporal questions related to this statement, that's the subject of negotiations. That's the subject of negotiations in the six-party context. And you can't have that negotiation if you have in a six-party format if you only have five parties there. QUESTION: So you're not ruling it out that there's been a tactical change in the way the Bush Administration approaches this issue? MR. MCCORMACK: You know, in terms of the internal deliberations about the Administration on this issue, that's not something, you know, that's not something that we get into. And in terms of, you know, do people think about if the six-party talks come back into session, how might we address these issues. Of course, people think about those things. We've had several months to think about those things. But you can't do anything about it until you actually get back to the talks. And the reason why we are not back at the talks is North Koreans have not come back to the table. QUESTION: Sean, can you say whether Mr. Zelikow wrote two papers that were circulated that put forward a different approach that would be simultaneous or concurrent track? In other words, peace talks not predicated on their coming back to the six-party talks, but a parallel track. Are there such papers? Did we draft them? MR. MCCORMACK: We don't -- again, we don't negotiate in public. We don't get into the internal deliberations, who wrote what paper, and what was in any particular paper. It was just -- you know, it's not our style.

18th May 2006, 05:15 PM	#5
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Band Aids.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

18th May 2006, 04:39 PM	#2
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	You could be seeing a trial balloon, or an outright/partial/somewhat fabracation. Follow the 48 hour rule.

18th May 2006, 04:56 PM	#3
FreeChile Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,039	Originally Posted by Rob Lister You could be seeing a trial balloon, or an outright/partial/somewhat fabracation. Follow the 48 hour rule. What is that rule?

18th May 2006, 05:05 PM	#4
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Wait 48 hours (at least) before considering it as something actually worthy of considering. If it starts showing up everywhere, that's a clue that it has some weight. As I read it, it says little. "Aides say", is a giveaway. What aides? Bush's Aides? The Reporter's Aides? Whose Aids?

18th May 2006, 05:20 PM	#6
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Exactly