Seoul nuke stance blindsides U.S

The Washington Times ^ | August 13, 2005 | Bill Sammon

[neverdem]

---

The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com

---

Seoul nuke stance blindsides U.S.

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published August 13, 2005

---

The Bush administration yesterday scrambled to repair a rift with South Korea that opened when Seoul proclaimed that North Korea has a right to develop nuclear energy.

    "When we saw those comments, phone calls were made," said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We want to remain on the same page" with South Korea.

    The source reaffirmed U.S. opposition to North Korea's nuclear ambitions, including the ostensibly peaceful development of nuclear-generated electricity.

    But that position is now at odds with remarks made Thursday by Chung Dong-young, Seoul's unification minister and National Security Council chairman.

    "Our position is that North Korea has a general right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, such as for agriculture, hospitals and electricity generating," he told Daum Media, an on-line news site. "We have a different view to the United States."

    Mr. Chung's comments, which appeared to catch the United States by surprise, were echoed later Thursday by South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon, who will visit Washington next week.

    Mr. Ban said Pyongyang should be allowed to build nuclear-power plants if it rejoins the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and readmits inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), according to South Korea's Yonhap news wire.

    Yesterday, South Korea emphasized that it would not give its blessing to a North Korean nuclear-energy program until Pyongyang jumps many hurdles.

    "Our official stance is that North Korea would be able to engage in civilian nuclear activities if and when it gives up weapons programs...

[claudiustg]

Sometimes it seems the whole world has gone soft in the head.

[snarks_when_bored]

South Korea / North Korea. Just another on-going reminder of what happens when you don't finish a damned war.

[Chode]

ok dog eaters... fend for yourselves then!!!

[spyone]

We have to get all our troops off that stinking penninsula.

[hoyaloya]

Why keep troops there? The elected government of South Korea and its younger generation want to be juvenile? So be it, let them loose.

We pull out, the meat cleavers start falling on the peninsula. Sure, there'll be a refugee problem to deal with.

On the other hand, our companies will have lost their Korean competitors. That, and the reduced costs of not being in South Korea should count for something. Of course, China's satellite will have grown, but the lesson to the rest of Asia would be crystal clear. I suspect we may find ourselves with some stronger allies for the long run.

[DeweyCA]

Please keep in mind that the current administration in South Korea is like our Dems, and does not represent many of its citizens. It did not win a big majority. Imagine if we had elected Kerry. That's what it is like in South Korea. Hopefully, they will get some realists elected in the next election.

[DefiantZERO]

Why do we even bother 'protecting' South Korea? Let them roll over for the North Koreans and be remade into a single communist Korea. What's the difference? Both will eventually be annexed into Red China anyway.

[ncountylee]

Exactly. I'm tired of our wonderful troops being at risk for unappreciative governments.

[JasonC]

Ah yes, nuclear agriculture. First you pick a location where you want a big open field, like say downtown Seoul...

[Texas_Conservative2]

yep, that's it.

I say we pull out of the South and let the North have em.