Korea Docs
posted Friday May 9, 2008 under by jeffreyWhatever one thinks of the editorial page, Nicholas Kralev at the Washington Times has had a pair of good stories on the document dump from North Korea.
Nicholas Kralev, “N. Korea to give nuke files to U.S.,” Washington Times, May 1, 2008. link
Nicholas Kralev, “N. Korea gives U.S. nuclear papers,” Washington Times, May 9, 2008. link
It is worth noting that Warren Strobel, no slouch himself, did some good work at the Washington Times. So much for stereotypes.
Blog Posts
Get E-mail Updates
Think of Moon’s interests here — North-South reconciliation and the prospects of money-making and recruitment in the North. It is not surprising that there is some daylight between the neocons and the WT on this issue.
— anon · May 9, 03:01 PM ·
I still say that the Washington Times is one of the top twenty or so places to be for a journalist. Which job would you rather have, journalist for the Moonie-funded Washington Times or summarizing 500-word AP dispatches into 300 words for the Major City Metro Daily, owned by a profit-watching media conglomerate?
If can’t land a job at the WP, NYT, WSJ, CSM or the LAT, where else is there to go for an investigative journalist?
— John Bragg · May 10, 04:24 PM ·
I’m surprised no one is covering the IAEA angle. It’s laudable that the Six party talks may be slowly uncovering the extent of the DPRK’s nuclear weapons program, including eventually receiving the DPRK declaration. But unless and until the IAEA gains access to this information on past production of the reactor and certifies the declaration as accurate and provides assurance of the absence of undeclared activity, the DPRK cannot rejoin the NPT and the DPRK denuclearization has no formal international recognition.
— Just the Facts Ma'm · May 10, 09:57 PM ·
I have a question of about legalisms. When a country joins the NPT, it has to declare its current stock of nuclear materials but does not have to make a declaration about its past activities. What about North Korea? If it reentered the NPT, would it only have to declare its current stock and not have to make a declaration about its past activities to the international community at large? (Obviously, the Six Party talks can agree to some other arrangement; one that only has to satisfy the countries involved and if they agree on something else then it seems likely that the IAEA Board of Governors would also agree.) As I said, this is just a question of legalisms but since no country has ever left the NPT and then come back there is no precedence: it seems like an open question—and one for which North Korea might set a disturbing precedent.
— Geoffrey Forden · May 11, 06:24 PM ·
On the subject of NPT legalisms…
India is suppose to be taking delivery of an Akula class nuclear submarine, ostensibly “leased” from Russia.
Does the NPT have anything to say about the transfer of nuclear energy in the form of an SSN for a country that is, by all fair assessments, a violator of the NPT?
How this Russian deal, and the pending American deal with India square with the NPT is something that I would like explained from a non-American and non-Russian perspective.
Where is the fine print that says… it is OK to violate the NPT and still get the benefits of nuclear energy?
Should we use India as an example for what Iranians should be allowed?
— Lao Tao Ren · May 11, 10:26 PM ·