|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
In 2002 Bush Gave N. Korea $95 Million, Waiving Requirement of Inspections
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| In 2002 Bush Gave N. Korea $95 Million, Waiving Requirement of Inspections
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Ass Boil |
Why would Bush give North Korea money to replace their nuclear program, but WAIVE the Clinton era requirement that N. Korea allow inspectors in?
Quote:
Wednesday, 3 April, 2002, 12:06 GMT 13:06 UK
US grants N Korea nuclear funds
Pyongyang threatened to pull out of the nuclear deal
The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.
President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States".
Deal under threat
North Korea has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the agreement in recent weeks.
The row has heightened tensions on the peninsula
It has been angered by President Bush's accusation that Pyongyang was part of an "axis of evil" producing weapons of mass destruction.
This annoyance was compounded by Washington's decision to withhold this year's certification that North Korea is keeping its side of the Agreed Framework.
It has systematically refused to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors into its nuclear facility at the Yongbyon research base north of the capital.
Delayed
Pyongyang has justified its refusals by pointing out that the reactors are way behind schedule.
They were originally expected to have been completed next year, but now construction is not expected to even begin until August.
Another issue is the different interpretations of the inspections' timing.
According to the Framework, North Korea should be fully compliant with IAEA safeguards when "a significant proportion" of the project is completed.
The builders say that will be around May 2005, and given the inspections will take at least three years, this means that North Korea should start admitting inspectors now.
But Pyongyang believes that they should only allow the inspections to start, rather than finish, by that date.
The head of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre in Washington, a critic of the Agreed Framework, has warned that even when the new reactors are completed they may not be tamper-proof.
"These reactors are like all reactors, They have the potential to make weapons. So you might end up supplying the worst nuclear violator with the means to acquire the very weapons we're trying to prevent it acquiring," Henry Sokolski told the Far Eastern Economic Review.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1908571.stm
|
|
|
|
| Crazytree |
| I thought Clinton was the appeaser? :cool: |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| Doe's it matter? People are tired of the sky is falling attitude and response by the Republicans. November will show how much things will change. |
|
|
| eyegore62 |
be careful what you read....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...0020402-13.html
states the following (note: not the entire text):
SUBJECT: U.S. Contribution to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization Determination Regarding Funds Under the Heading "Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs" in Title II of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002 (public Law 107-115).
and the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (members listed here http://www.kedo.org/au_members.asp) does not have North Korea as a member. I did not read Section 565(b) of the Act (or any part of the Act for that matter) however, so... |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by eyegore62
be careful what you read....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...0020402-13.html
states the following (note: not the entire text):
SUBJECT: U.S. Contribution to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization Determination Regarding Funds Under the Heading "Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs" in Title II of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002 (public Law 107-115).
and the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (members listed here http://www.kedo.org/au_members.asp) does not have North Korea as a member. I did not read Section 565(b) of the Act (or any part of the Act for that matter) however, so... |
Hey eyegore,
hope you are well, friend.
After reading both the memo and the article again, I'm not sure the article is incorrect. The wording of the memo is as follows:
Quote:
I hereby determine that it is Vital to the national security interests of the United States to furnish Up to $95 million in funds made available under the heading "Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs" of that Act, for assistance to KEDO, and, therefore, I hereby waive the requirement in section 565(b) to certify that:
(1) the parties to the Agreed Framework have taken and continue to take demonstrable steps to implement the Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula;
(2) North Korea is complying with all provisions of the Agreed Framework; and
(3) The United States is continuing to make significant progress on eliminating the North Korean ballistic missile threat, including further missile tests and its ballistic missile exports. |
I know Bush refused to certify that N. Korea was compliant under the framework, but I am not certain from the wording of the memo if it is saying he waived the requirement of those 3 things, or something else not listed....?
The impression I get is that Bush refused to certify their compliance, but sent the funds as a sign of "good faith" that we were not walking away from the agreement as a whole. That does not make much sense to me, though..... |
|
|
| spankysxxx |
| NCMike is conspicuously missing from this thread. Hello? Echo echo... |
|
|
|
|
|
