BCT Editorial – 9/5/07

This page was last updated on September 6, 2007.

Wait and see; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 5, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“What a difference a few resignations can make.”

[RWC] Though the editorial leads off talking about resignations, at no point does it identify them. Why not?

“Over the Labor Day weekend, the top U.S. negotiator with North Korea said that nation had agreed to disable its main nuclear fuel production facility by the end of the year and to account for all of its nuclear programs. In return, North Korea would receive much-needed aid.

“The New York Times reported the announcement came at the end of a two-day meeting in Geneva between negotiators for the two countries.

“That’s significant because, as the paper reported, that’s exactly the kind of one-on-one session that the Bush administration has refused to hold in recent years. It was only after most of the hawks who opposed one-on-one negotiations had left the administration that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was able to advance such talks.

“Of course, given North Korea’s penchant for reneging on its deals, it’s best to take a wait and see attitude toward this latest breakthrough.

“Still, it represents a step forward, one that could have been taken a long time ago if hardliners in the Bush administration had been less set in their ways.”

[RWC] I’m lazy, so I’ll just repeat what I wrote in a comment I posted on the Times website.

“Surprise! The editorial author omitted context or has a short memory.

“The 2/15/07 editorial ‘First step’ referred to ‘The bargain among six nations - the United States, Russia, [Red] China, Japan, South Korea and North Korea …’ Clearly this underlying agreement – which required North Korea’s nuclear disarmament – was not the result of one-on-one negotiations. (Note: While ‘First step’ asserted ‘The Associated Press reported it [the agreement] does not expressly require the North to give up existing weapons or testing …,’ an AP story at the time (2/13/07) on the MSNBC website said the agreement called for ‘full disarmament.’)

“The recent ‘one-on-one session’ between the U.S. and North Korea was to nail down some implementation details of the February six-party agreement. Every report I’ve read – including the article cited by the editorial – indicates the talks were carried out within the context of the six-party agreement and were a prelude for when the six parties meet again later this month.

“So why the editorial’s emphasis on the ‘one-on-one’ aspect of the recent two-day session? If you recall, for years before the February agreement, a group of people asserted the six-party talks could not be successful and that we should copy the one-on-one process that led to the 1994 agreement North Korea reneged on. Stories and editorials like this one are attempts to save face. That said, I have little faith NK will ultimately honor the agreement unless Red China – and Russia to some degree – continues to exert its influence. After all, since blackmail by NK has now worked twice within 13 years, why should it change tactics?”