‘Peace In Our Time!’ Update

Found Pork: Another expense we can spare while we’re paying for Katrina recovery:

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea estimates it will cost as much as 15.5 trillion won (US$15 billion; euro12.27 billion) to finance energy aid to North Korea in exchange for the country dismantling its nuclear programs, a top official has said.

As my well-informed source on Capitol Hill has already reported–how I love writing that phrase–Congress will never pay for this. I mean, whose district is Pyongyang in again?

Fool Me Twice: Meanwhile, Time thinks this is all very reminiscent of the Agreed Framework, and wins awards for understatement with this passage:

One potential sticking point in all this is verification. Analysts have long suggested that North Korea wants a nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to attacks, rather than as part of an offensive strategy to invade South Korea. To maintain its deterrent capability, the North would need only a few weapons and a rudimentary delivery system, and hiding such a small cache in the country’s underdeveloped hinterland would not be difficult.

Like I say, a real understatement. This is why I think human rights is such an excellent issue to test the regime’s sincerity. If they’re not willing to risk having inspectors roam around and possibly stumble upon mass graves, children’s prisons, sarin stockpiles, and gas chambers, then they’re probably not that trustworthy about nukes, either.

The Elusive Meanings of Words: Finally, we can end on an encouraging note. In the wake of North Korea’s morning-after public renunciation of the six-nation agreed statement, the other five nations show signs of moving back toward demanding a North Korean clarification that it will abide by the plain meaning–at least where it’s discernable–of its agreement.

“We will stick to the text of the Beijing [agreement], and I believe we can make progress if everybody sticks to what we agreed to,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters at the United Nations. At the same news conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed, saying, “I also think we have to stick to the text of the agreement.” Officials in Japan and China echoed those sentiments.

Whoops. Anyone missing there? Who gets the cookie?

I agree that parts of the text are hopelessly vague, and have said so since Day One. But the relative timing of NPT compliance and LWR construction is not open to reasonable interpretation. But the broader point is this: whether North Korea demands and preys on vagueness or negotiates in bad faith when there is none, an agreement requires a meeting of the minds, and a party that isn’t willing or able to reach one isn’t a viable negotiating partner.