NORTH KOREA TALKS. After some some mild hope for progress, the nuclear talks with North Korea appear to be bogging down again. North Korea has decided to become instransigent, demanding that shipments of fuel oil and electricity be started before an agreement is reached, rather than as part of a negotiated deal. This is roughly akin to U.S. demands that Iran give up its nuclear program before beginning negotiations to give up its nuclear program. The U.S. stance towards North Korea has become a bit more flexible, opening up the possibility that an agreement could be reached that would sharply limit North Korea's nuclear capability without eliminating it entirely. I suspect that this is the best that can be achieved from the U.S. perspective, as eliminating existing North Korean nuclear weapons seems both overly ambitious and unverifiable. In spite of North Korean diplomatic and economic isolation, the U.S. still has some coercive tools available, including most notably the ability to put pressure on banks that deal with North Korea. An agreement is still a good idea, as reducing the growth of the North Korean stockpile is a laudable goal. North Korea has demonstrated in the past that it is willing to limit its nuclear production in return for economic incentives. I'd like to think that negotiators on both sides could reach a fairly obvious compromise.
--Robert Farley
