Bush claim on N. Korea N-weapons questio
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 06-09-2004 - 10:18am |
I don't exactly agree with all of Zhou's statements, but he does have some strong points.
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/176957_nkorea09.html
Bush claim on N. Korea N-weapons questioned
Wednesday, June 9, 2004
By JOSEPH KAHN AND SUSAN CHIRA
THE NEW YORK TIMES
BEIJING -- A senior Chinese official said yesterday that he had doubts about the Bush administration's claim that North Korea had been trying to build nuclear bombs using uranium, and he urged the Bush administration to stop using the allegations to hold up nuclear talks.
Zhou Wenzhong, China's deputy foreign minister, said in an interview that the United States had yet to persuade China, which has been the host for two rounds of six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program and is preparing to convene a third, that North Korea had both uranium and plutonium programs to develop fuel for nuclear bombs.
North Korea has acknowledged having a plutonium program but denies that it is enriching uranium to make nuclear fuel.
"We know nothing about the uranium program," Zhou said. "We don't know whether it exists. So far the U.S. has not presented convincing evidence of this program."
Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have repeatedly said that evidence acquired from Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani nuclear scientist who has acknowledged selling nuclear technology to North Korea, leaves little doubt that North Korea has a uranium program. Cheney and other Bush administration officials say it is impossible to make progress in the talks unless North Korea tells the truth about the program.
Zhou's comments represent a potentially important shift in Beijing's approach to the talks, which China has sought to keep afloat despite scant evidence of progress. Though China has long-standing ties to North Korea, it had previously adopted a posture of studied neutrality in the negotiations, which have now stretched more than a year.
The skepticism about U.S. charges could also signal that the failure to discover unconventional weapons in Iraq, despite repeated U.S. charges that Saddam Hussein maintained an arsenal of banned weapons, may be making it harder for the United States to persuade other countries of the accuracy of its intelligence information.
Zhou said that if North Korea did turn out to have a uranium program, then China agreed that such a program must be included in the scope of the nuclear talks, which China is pressing to resume by late this month. But he said the Bush administration should stop making charges about the program unless it could offer more conclusive evidence.
China stepped up its diplomacy to arrange more nuclear talks after a visit to Beijing by North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, in May. But while optimism is rising in Asian capitals about the willingness of North Korea to bargain in earnest, China appears to have detected little interest in Washington for serious negotiations ahead of U.S. presidential elections.
Zhou said that while both the United States and North Korea needed to come to the talks ready to compromise, the burden fell more heavily on the United States this time.
© 1998-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
cl-nwtreehugger
Community Leader: In The News & Sports Talk
I can also be found at Washington, TV Shows & QOTW

Finally, someone notices the elephant in the room. I doubt Bush will do much more than to continue to point an accusing finger and say we won't talk until you get rid of what we suspect you have. What kind of a position is that?
What kind of a position is that?
Considering it's an election year...and 'most' of the American public is focused on the Middle East, I doubt that Bush wants too much more attention being directed to a potentially more serious situation.
The little boy that cried wolf. Ofcourse he is going to be questioned now without solid evidence.
No decisions until after the Nov. elections. Huh.
Look how well ignoring a 'situation' works, Israel/Palestine prior to the "Road Map for Peace".
The wonderful "Road Map" that solves all problems, Not. Really, Bush's position is causing anger among the Arab nations. Egypt and Saudia Arabia are avoiding the G-8, and are soliciting neighbors in an attempt to gain control of events in their countries.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B83CED69-6CAC-4FB1-87FB-656126B3E37F.htm
">Washington, with its Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative, sees reform in the Middle East as vital to easing the political frustration blamed for promoting anti-US terrorism."<
If this is initiated by the US it will create more 'terrorism', physical resistance. The USA is not considered a society to emulate, in general, by these countries.
>"The Arab League, at its summit in Tunis in May, voiced strong reservations about the plan but refused to consider Egypt's counter-proposal for a top-level Arab body to coordinate and monitor reforms in the region."<
Any peaceful reforms have to be created from within these countries.
>"The Tunis summit of Arab leaders closed with the adoption of a 13-point programme urging them to pursue reform at their own pace and in their own manner."<
That's ambiguous.
Given this administration messianic attitude, and its inability to understand diplomacy, I tend to agree with you <> Granted this is a problem needs a reasoned sollution, I just don't understand why the US thinks it has to push!
BTW, Aljazeera has an interesting in-depth peach on this issue. It is too complex for Bush's simple imposition of our type of democracy.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/967715B8-276C-4708-AC08-7FD102E13BA7.htm
<>
Indeed it is, and without resolve the progress could simply stall. Are you watching the conflict within Saudi Arabia? The best the US can do is get out. Isn't there an old saying about minding your own business?
>Bahi: Arabs are facing a dilemma; as far as intellectual awareness, the Arab people are more politically enlightened than ever.
Today's generation is more educated and is able to cope with the spirit of the evolving world around it.
On the other hand, the leaders linger in the spirit of years past, unable to depart from the ideological frameworks of the 1950s and 60s.
Arab governments need to completely revamp their perception of history and reality. Without it the dilemma shall carry on."<
>"During the 1950s, 60s and even 70s, many political groups in the Arab world defined themselves based on their status as pro the Western camp, the capitalist world, or the eastern camp, communist Russia.
Only a few maintained a free will and genuinely spoke on behalf of the local concern of their people.
Arabs must think first in terms of their own needs and wants not the needs and wants of outside forces that are solely concerned with their own needs and wants."<