North Korea may have jeopardised a six-country deal on giving up its nuclear arms just one day after it was struck, by vowing to keep the weapons until Washington provides civilian atomic reactors.
The US State Department said North Korea’s views, set out in a long statement on Tuesday, did not match the agreement signed in Beijing on Monday
The six agreed to discuss providing a light-water reactor “at an appropriate time”.
But on Tuesday, the North Korea Foreign Ministry said in a statement published by the official KCNA news agency: **"The US should not even dream of the issue of the DPRK’s dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing LWRs (light-water reactors). **
“This is our just and consistent stand as solid as a deeply rooted rock.”
DPRK is short for the North’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
“This was obviously not the agreement they signed and we will see what the coming weeks bring,” said US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, referring to the gap before talks are set to resume in November. Japan took the same view.
Referring to its nuclear deterrent, North Korea’s chief delegate, Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan, told reporters in Beijing: “There will be no such thing as giving it up first.”
**
You have to give it to N korea for such a small country it is punching above its weight and still giving the US an uppercut everytime when it aint looking!**
Is that all you have on offer US propoganda about N Korea starving there own people we heard these same stories about iraq that saddam starved his own people from the nationalistic US Media before, funny how you forget to mention the sanctions placed on these countries by the likes of the US, did it ever click in your mind that sanctions are the main reason people starve to death?
[QUOTE]
Is that all you have on offer US propoganda about N Korea starving there own people we heard these same stories about iraq that saddam starved his own people from the nationalistic US Media before, funny how you forget to mention the sanctions placed on these countries by the likes of the US, did it ever click in your mind that sanctions are the main reason people starve to death?
[/QUOTE]
Did it ever click in your mind to have some knowledge about the situation before opening mouth and inserting foot just so you can bash the US? Please look into the North Korean economy.
Just think if Khan hadn't ever prostituted out the technology, we wouldn't have this to talk about.
Would you want to live in North Korea AK?
Can you even visit North Korea and see what it's like? Would you risk it? And while you were there would you practice your religion?
The only thing I know for certain is they don't have a free press. That makes the 'propaganda' I am fed far more believable that what you get.
Before opening your mouth I strongly suggest you do some research about N. Korean Nuke program… N. Korean Nukes are plutonium based while Khans Wall Mart only carries centrifuges… Further if US/Canada had not proliferated India would still be playing with fire crackers instead of nukes..
And we are so certain about what lil Kim has? Just like we had no idea what Libya had? Remember, the IAEA was ready to swear on their mothers graves that Saddam had nothing in 1992, until Saddams Son in Law defected. Hans Blix was faked out of his shorts. No one expected either Pakistan or India to blow a nuke til it happened. Technology for inspection regimes runs way behind development. That is why no one trusted Saddam, or the mullahs in Iran, or the short Korean with the Boufant hair.
Can we get the focus back on the original news item, instead of just shooting the messanger?
So, is North Korea really committed to giving up its nuclear arms? Or is it just more political posturing to either give more time to its scientists to complete whatever they are doing or to extract maximum political milage out of the situation?
Instead farting from ya mouth like cocky boy from Texas stick to subject at hand… Had US/Canada not proliferated India would still be playing with fire crackers. Now try again…
exactly! its just an attempt to buy some time. 2nd thought:- MAy be its about sumthing in their hands to bargain with. I mean what is the guarantee (for them) that their demands will be met (or talked about) if they give up nukes 1st and then negotiate. Iraq did it and we know they had nothing left to bring to the table. we must not be that naive to understand the issue.
IMO the best thing would be to make a package deal with them and then get rid of the nukes. asking them to get rid it 1st is nothing but bullying.
