The Heritage Foundation's advice for the Six-Party talks

Baker Spring and Balbina Y. Hwang at the Heritage Foundation offer sage advice ahead of the next round of six-party talks.  Here are the highlights:

Provision No. 1: Continue to insist on the comprehensive, verifiable, and irreversible nuclear disarmament of North Korea.

Spring and Hwang also point out that we cannot assume that the presence of an agreement with the North Koreans actually means that they will disarm.  The belief that a signed agreement will solve the problem of Nork nukes is simply naive.  That is why any deal  with the Norks must be (repeat with me, children) comprehensive, verifiable and irreversible.  The '94 Agreed Framework was none of those things (OK, maybe semi-verifiable), which is why it failed to solve the problem.

Provision #2: Security assurances and economic benefits that are offered to North Korea should be articulated narrowly.

I'm going to quote a little more on this one:

It is reasonable to extend security assurances and economic benefits to North Korea in exchange for nuclear disarmament. It is unreasonable, however, to allow the North Korean leadership and others to claim that such assurances and benefits are synonymous with a guarantee of regime survival in Pyongyang under all circumstances. No inherent contradiction exists between security assurances and economic benefits, on the one hand, and a policy of regime change, on the other. Indeed, an agreement that allows the current regime in North Korea to engage in threatening destabilizing behavior without fear for its survival in exchange for nuclear disarmament would be self-defeating.

America has no business propping up Pyeongyang.  Sooner or later the Pyeongyang clique is gone, either through collapse or unification.  Between American security guarantees and South Korean electrical bribery, there is no excuse for Pyeongyang to keep its inefficient nuclear facilities.  For anyone to expect any more from the USA is simply daffy.

There is one more provision but I'm going to make you click on the link to read it. 

Comments

[jtb-in-texas]

I just din't have any faith in the South Korean politico's having enough "backbone" to prevail over their ill-favored "brothers" to the north...

And without that, they lose...

[Paul H.]

Quote from above:

"...Between American security guarantees and South Korean electrical bribery, there is now excuse for Pyeongyang to keep its inefficient nuclear facilities... "

I think you mean "no" where you wrote "now"(?)

If you meant "now", then I recommend you change it to "...there is now [an] excuse..." though this doesn't make sense to me given the overall sense of your post.

Not being hypercritical, just thinking of a possible ESL reader here. Sometimes a typo can make a difference.

[Andy (AKA: The Yangban)]

Oops, I meant "now." I will fix it. Thanks.