By From the Chosun Ilbo:
The U.S. is not seeking regime change in North Korea but believes a change in the North’s behavior is a prerequisite for any improvement in bilateral relations, the special representative for North Korea policy, Stephen Bosworth, said on Tuesday. “We do not regard regime change as the outcome of our policy, but we do regard a change in regime behavior as necessary to any fundamental improvement in the overall relationship,” he told a Senate hearing.
Bosworth added North Korea should not fear harm from the U.S. Regarding calls for the international community to wait until the North Korean regime collapses, Bosworth said, “I’m not very confident about regime collapse as a route toward stability on the Korean Peninsula. No, I think we have to deal with North Korea as we find it, not as we would like it to be perhaps at some point in the future.”
John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in the hearing that U.S. and North Korean representatives need to hold talks at some point and that the best option would be for Washington and Seoul to closely cooperate on the matter. Bosworth responded that the Barack Obama administration does not want to hold talks to discuss the prospect of holding more talks, and wants to see evidence that Pyongyang is living up to its promises to dismantle its nuclear program. [Chosun Ilbo]
Let me translate the current US position for everyone based on this article; basically the Kerry position is that he just wants everyone talk, which all sides know is pointless but it makes it appear that the US is trying to do something. The Obama administration cannot possibly believe that North Korea has any intentions of denuclearizing, but just may be stating this to sound tough before any talks begin.
So basically the policy of everyone pretending to want to hold talks to denuclearize North Korea may not appear to be much of a policy, but it is still better than past policies where our government sold out to the North Koreans to keep them quiet for a while.
Pretending to want talks I don’t mind as long as efforts to subvert the regime are being executed simultaneously.
4:51 am on March 4th, 2011 1
Respectfully, GI Korea, I think the Obama administration is taking a different tack from what you describe.
I would interpret the meaning of Bosworth's comments in this way: He is a diplomat locked into diplospeak, so he has to say, "don't worry, we're not trying to take you down," even as the people he works for are trying to take him down.
6:16 am on March 4th, 2011 2
Why don't we send Hans Blix?
10:58 am on March 4th, 2011 3
I have a wild and crazy idea. Phase 1=Smart bomb the hell out of the arti on their DMZ. Phase 2=Stop any and all aid we might be sending. Phase 3=let the DPRK and the ROK work it out. (don't tell me it isn't possible)
I know, someone is going to have some BS reason why we (shouldn't).
Basically, no one wants this to end. Not even me. What would I have to rant about then? Oh yea — Obama. See, he does serve a purpose.
11:17 am on March 4th, 2011 4
I'm not sure we could gett all the gun tubes before they killed folks in Gyeonggido or Seoul. Other than that, I just about agree with you.
We might have trouble with the Chinese tho'… They are acting like drunken teens lately…
1:42 pm on March 4th, 2011 5
Na, we could do it. Seoul would be out from under the guns at last. (not like they know anyway)
Chinese would be jumpy, but as long as no troops crossed the 38th, it would be fine. Better than fine! Everyone would be scared.
3:37 pm on March 4th, 2011 6
Do we know where their guns are and could we launch a strike of sufficient magnitude… Like half of our 509th Bomb Wing?
10 aircraft x 16 JDAM each = 160 smart Mk84s…
If we added in 20 B-1Bs each from the 7th and 28th Bomb Wing, that would add a few more:
40 aircraft x 24 JDAM each = 960 smart Mk84s…
But there are considerably more than 1,180 gun-tubes.
So if we mobilized the 2nd Bomb Wing's B-52Hs:
60 aircraft x 12 JDAM + 20 CALCM = 720 JDAM + 1,200 CALCM
That brings us up to a "first strike" capability (leaving about half of our bombers at home to deter others) of putting smart bombs and cruise missiles on 3,100 sites… but I thought I read they have about 35,000 cannon within range, not counting missiles?
And China might get mad if we sent that many bombers that close to Beijing…
Now, if we just dropped iron bombs, you can figure about 51+12 per B-52, 84 per B-1B, and 80 per B-2 or about 7,940…
But those would have a less accurate result than the smaller number…
3:38 pm on March 4th, 2011 7
Okay, maybe 70,000 cannons: http://www.forexcrunch.com/north-korea-has-70000-…
11:29 pm on March 4th, 2011 8
@#1 – I think we are both saying the same thing. There is nothing wrong with the diplomats pretending to want talks and playing nice as long as efforts to subvert the regime are taking place simultaneously.
3:18 am on March 5th, 2011 9
Well, I agree with your comment #8, but I guess I misinterpreted this part…
… to mean that the US is trying to look like it's doing something when it's actually doing something significant. Even Joshua Stanton gives props to Obama, someone he'd initially assumed would be soft on Pyongyang, for making serious efforts to implement what Joshua calls "Plan B."
8:34 am on March 5th, 2011 10
I'll believe the President has a "Plan B" after he shows up with "Plan A"…
9:42 am on March 5th, 2011 11
setnaffa 2, Hans Blix correctly found that Saddam Hussein no longer had weapons of mass destruction. I don't understand the compulsion to ridicule him.