Jump to content

Talk:Agreed Framework

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Web resources

[edit]

The non-proliferation treaty, which North Korea signed in 1985, is designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and technology. It said at the weekend that it might withdraw from the pact, a move that would deepen concern over its nuclear intentions. North Korea previously pulled out of the treaty in 1993 to stop inspectors visiting its Yongbyon nuclear facilities, precipitating an international crisis that ended 18 months later when Pyongyang made a deal with the Clinton administration to freeze work at the plant in return for energy sources. [1]

The article says:

When by 1999 economic sanctions had not been lifted and full diplomatic relations between U.S. and North Korea had not been established, North Korea warned that they would resume nuclear research unless the U.S. kept up its end of the bargain.

This sounds like North Korea was fulfilling the bargain while the US was failing to fulfill it. But the article points out that North Korea admittedly was violating the treaty. Doesn't this mean that the US is not obligated to provide aid, since the aid was promised only in return for North Korea's fulfillment of its side? --Uncle Ed 14:30 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

-

Of course. This is politics, and neither US nor NK would want to lose their face by yielding too easily. However, as far as we know, NK did freeze its nuclear program in accordance with the treaty for a number of years, probably at least until 1996 when the suspect underground work began at at Mount Kumchangni, and they obviously expected a much more rapid implementation of the points the US considered minor in the treaty.

The treaty did not dictate the chronological order of events, so it is understandable that its execution would lock up at some point.

The rest of the paragraph was intended for balance, but might be a bit weak: "U.S. has repeatedly stated that further implementation would be stalled as long as suspicions remained that the North Korean nuclear weapons research program continued covertly."

There's a very good 14 page condensed history of the treaty, its implementation and effects until 2002 in Chapter 14 of Deadly Arsenals, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2002). Good material too flesh out the page with. --Jarl

.

1994 Geneva accord, 2000 joint communique questions (2 questions):

sorry, i'm not a historian, just a translator working on a korean to english translation of a short paper on this issue. i think maybe the south korean view of what the landmark dates are, as well as conceptualization of different terms are a little different, so i had a few questions.

-does anyone know if the "1994 geneva accord" is the same thing as the 1994 US-NK nuclear pact (the former sounds like it has the stamp of international community support toward conciliation whereas the latter sounds like the pact was the product of purely bilateral, US & NK effort)?

-also, the paper i'm translating to english mentions an October 2000 (US, NK) Joint Communique (spelling? remember, i'm working from korean and don't have the original english terms) as an important development that ended up being shoved to the wayside with change of presidential administration in the US. but this doesn't seem to be mentioned in other english-language websites.

-if anyone knows what it is or how it should be translated into English, pls post something! thanks!

-oops, me (translator) again. i just found some web resources on the oct 12 2000 joint communique. it's significance was that it calls for "permanent peace arrangements" to replace the 1953 armistice so south koreans viewed it as an important development.

url for that article (including full text of communique) is as follows:

http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2000/1012/epf407.htm

thanks.

Renaming article

[edit]

I think this article should be renamed, as Agreed Framework is very generic. The official title of the agreement is:

Agreed Framework between the United States of America and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

so I would suggest "U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework" which is a reasonable contraction of that title. There is already a redirect page to here called 1994 U.S.-North Korea nuclear pact, which is a pretty good title for the subject, but a bit U.S. POV. I suspect the North Korean POV is that it as much to do with electricity production and normalization of political and economic relations. Any objections to such a renaming? -- Rwendland 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sections

[edit]

I've slowly been adding material to this article. Yes, I know it's now a bit unwieldy. I'll have a go at splitting it into sections when I have some spare time. -- Rwendland 17:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TODO list

[edit]

I think this article is in pretty good shape, but before I forget here are some things that could possibly be done/researched&added. Please add/modify list if you have anything more. Rwendland 13:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • change sources to ref/cite style
  • from background reading it seems from 1994-1997 or so U.S. was very keen to access nuclear waste to assess amount/timing of plutonium production, which U.S. saw as crucial information
  • about 1997-1999 DPRK launched missiles, and U.S. held practice nuclear bombing raids on NK, and a deal regarding missile launches was cut, in response to lack of implementation progress
  • it seems the parties had a notion (or different notions) on an order of sequencing of actions under the agreement - find sources for this if possible; probable cause of slow implementation progress
  • some more on the uranium enrichment issue, which finally finished of the framework; good pointers in this armscontrolwonk [2] thread, especially the final comment by Peter Hayes of Nautilus

NB A very good source, or at least pointers to other sources, is this PhD thesis: Tan, Er-win, A Comparison of offensive realist, defensive realist, and constructivist perspectives on the US-North Korean Security Dilemma 1992-2001, 2008. Rwendland (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

This article clearly sided with North Korea, highlighting the American failures to comply with the agreement, but none of the Korean violations. Lizrael (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lizrael, could you list the Korean violations you think should be covered. Everything stated in the article is heavily sourced, so I don't think the existing content is NPOV. I would agree exploring the reasons for slow implementation from 1994 to 1999 would be useful, it is just a case of someone serious getting down to do the required research - when I was looking a two years ago, I didn't find good sources for this period. Rwendland (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this for the first time with a critical eye, I agree that the facts are presented in a one-sided way. I don't know the early history, when I believe most of the problems were on the U.S. side and were the result of the change in Congress, which refused to fund certain U.S. commitments. However, the USG got others to step in so that KEDO was meeting the commitments, albeit with occasional delays in fuel shipments and general slowness in the LWR construction project. Some of what's missing is North Korea's repeated refusal to allow the IAEA to verify "correctness and completeness," which was an essential precondition for the transfer of key reactor components. As a result, North Korea never came into compliance with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA. North Korea also dragged its feet on canning the spent fuel at Yongbyon. Most of the pre-2002 history was of delays on both sides without any fundamental violations by either. I don't have sources for this.
The pattern changed in late 2002 with a string of escalating tit-for-tat responses. Among the North Korean actions that are not mentioned are that North Korea kicked out IAEA inspectors and disabled IAEA equipment before announcing its withdrawal from the NPT. The series of IAEA resolutions - the request to reconsider, the ultimatum and the non-compliance finding - should be mentioned. North Korea also claimed that it was simply ending the suspension of its previously announced (1994) NPT withdrawal, restarting the 90-day clock on day 89. No one else accepted this legal claim. Much of this can be found on the IAEA web site. NPguy (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even when the PWR project was abandoned in 2003, it was only at the initial concrete pouring stage on PWR1, so nowhere near "transfer of key reactor components" requiring DPRK to come into full compliance with its safeguards agreement. ("first concrete for the foundations of the main power plant buildings" - August 7, 2002.) I think the interesting period was 1995 to 1999; it would be good to understand how both sides understood the sequencing - plainly something went badly wrong there. By 2000 lack of progress had seriously damaged credibility. A useful lesson perhaps for the current six-party talks implementation! I don't have proper sources, but I don't think financing the PWR was sorted until about 1998/9, and I suspect the earlier DPRK view was that they had to be hard-nosed to get this funding in place. Rwendland (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the loans to build the LWRs weren't actually finalised until January 2000, according to the 2001 KEDO accounts.[3] Later than my 1998/9 guess. It is hardly a surprise that DPRK were annoyed by this, when the original deal had 2003 as target for LWR completion. (Loan Facility A: $45,000,000 (1998), Loan Facility B: 3.542 trillion Won (December 15 1999), Loan Facility C: 116.5 billion Yen (January 31 2000)) Rwendland (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verification

[edit]

I don't know much about using Wikipedia but I know that the Director General of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei claimed that the Agreed Framework failed because "the Agreed Framework, unfortunately, did not insist on prompt, comprehensive verification by the IAEA" (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebWSJ20030522.shtml) This helps solve the question of neutrality because neither side was deliberately responsible for its failure but rather it was the technical failure of the agreement itself that put too much strain on the provisions of the NPT. 27/04/08 IRHistorian (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

confidential minutes

[edit]

Hi NPguy. The info you have added is essentially the same as in the public agreement - see the last bullet item above your change. I was attempting to pick out what was beyond the public part of the agreement, which seemed to be IAEA special inspections - probably of the semi-hidden nuclear waste areas, though that was not made clear in the source. It seems to me your change has removed the info about this subtle refinement in the confidential minutes and restated the public agreement. Do you agree? (NB I was rather expecting the confidential minutes to include something of more significance than this small refinement, my guess was some limit on missile launches and/or more specific sequencing on implementing the parts of the agreement.) Rwendland (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the secondary source, it seemed to be a commentary that comprehensive IAEA safeguards would include special inspections, rather that a claim that the Confidential Minute (which I believe should be singular) referred to special inspections. If you want to add a parenthetical (which would include special inspections). Have you checked whether the confidential minute has been declassified? I seem to recall there was a FOIA request. NPguy (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New shorter name

[edit]

I agree the old name was too long. This article has had many names over its life! I'd suggest we go back to the older U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework, which has some academic use eg [4] and [5], rather than coin another name. Views? Rwendland (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a name that begins with the words "Agreed Framework," e.g. "Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea." NPguy (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move (formal request)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Agreed Framework - There are no other existing articles with this title, therefore the disambiguation is unnecessary. Neelix (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Framework (1994) → Agreed Framework – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC) There is no other treaty known as "Agreed Framework" (only two more "framework agreements"). It has been argued before that "Agreed Framework is very generic". So, WP:PRECISE nonwithstanding, this request may not be totaly uncontroversial. ospalh (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC) (edited for spelling 08:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comparison to Iran nuclear deal framework? Criticism around it over time?

[edit]

(as usual, just dumping work on other people here :-p)88.159.79.223 (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Agreed Framework. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agreed Framework. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Agreed Framework. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort. .—InternetArchiveBot, Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agreed_Framework&oldid=1204596492"