Putting in a good word for North Korea is neither popular nor politically correct these days, but there is a need to keep the facts in historical perspective, something that is not being done by the United States. North Korea, more often than not, shoots itself in the foot with its own propaganda barrages. The US puts the blame for the nuclear crisis squarely on North Korea. The Bush administration's position is that North Korea must first unilaterally dismantle its nuclear weapons programme. The US, we are told, will not compensate North Korea for this because it agreed, in 1994, to forego such programmes. This position was stated clearly by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer on April 29. 'The reason the world is in the spot it is in is because North Korea entered into an agreement and then did not keep up their terms of the agreement,' he said. 'They received aid in return for promising not to develop nuclear weapons. They took the aid, they ran with the aid, and then they developed a nuclear weapons programme anyway.' Or, as other Americans might say, they have already paid for that horse and they are not going to keep paying for the same horse. But is it true that the US has already paid for a non-nuclear North Korean horse? Mr Fleischer's account of the US-North Korea agreement is simplistic and one-sided. The Agreed Framework, which was signed by the US and North Korea in 1994, did not say North Korea would not develop nuclear weapons in return for aid. It said North Korea would freeze its graphite-moderated reactors - which it claimed were only meant to generate electricity - and not extract weapons-grade plutonium from spent fuel. In return, the US promised to provide two light-water reactors, to be ready by this year. The US said that, before the reactors were ready, it would compensate North Korea for the loss of energy by providing 500,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil per year. That was the core agreement. There is no question that North Korea kept those promises. The problem is that North Korea then sought another route to nuclear weapons, through using highly enriched uranium. Arguably, such a move violated some of the Agreed Framework's other provisions: that North Korea would remain in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and that it would implement the 1992 North-South Joint Declaration on the denuclearisation of the peninsula. If, as appears to be the case, North Korea surreptitiously developed nuclear weapons, then it violated the framework. What is the North asking for in return for abandoning its nuclear programme? Those terms have not been published, but according to press reports based on leaks from official sources, North Korea is apparently calling for some kind of security guarantee from the US. This is not necessarily a treaty, but some kind of promise that it will not attack North Korea. It is also asking for the establishment of diplomatic relations, for the completion of the light-water reactor projects and for America not to create obstacles to North Korea's economic development. These are all things the US promised to do in 1994. Under the Agreed Framework, it pledged to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea; to reduce barriers to trade and investment; to provide formal assurances to North Korea against the threat or use of nuclear weapons; and, of course, to complete two light-water reactors. Clearly, the US did not fulfil all of its commitments. Of course, it is possible that North Korea might have embarked on a clandestine nuclear programme anyway, even if the US had done everything it had promised to do. But this is pure conjecture. What we do know is that neither party fully honoured its Agreed Framework commitments. From the North Korean viewpoint, the US is not being asked to pay twice for the same horse; it never paid what it agreed to pay in the first place. So North Korea did not receive full payment and America did not get the horse. North Korea says the first thing the US needs to do is end its 'hostile policy'. US Secretary of State Colin Powell denied there was any such policy. However, US President George W. Bush did call North Korea a member of the 'axis of evil'. He is also on record as saying he loathes Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader. Moreover, the US has said it might use nuclear weapons against North Korea in a pre-emptive attack. What is required in this situation is not emotionalism. What is needed is an ability to see things from the other person's point of view, and to see that amid the threats and the bombast, the other fellow may have a valid point or two. Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator frankching1@aol.com
