LincolnRossiter
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 1, 2018
- Messages
- 1,227
- Reaction score
- 803
- Location
- NOVA/DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
http://thehill.com/policy/international/392059-pompeo-us-wants-concrete-steps-towards-north-korea-denuclearization
Sec State also pushed back against the suggestion that omitting an explicit reference to a rigorous verification process undermined the efficacy of the agreement signed on yesterday.
Full disclosure, I was already critical of this practically weightless agreement and the kabuki show that preceded its conclusion. But I do understand the administration's position that follow-on negotiations could produce the kind of concrete assurances that would render the entire production as something more than a PR coup for DPRK and a small foreign policy feather in Trump's hat (at least as he and his supporters perceive it). I further understand that full nuclear disarmament can be a multi-year process requiring not simply the dismantling of weapons, but also the safe removal and disposal of material, the re-purposing of expertise, in-depth and independent verification, and a host of other steps.
But given DPRK's history of wringing whatever concessions they could out of the West and then reneging on their end of the bargain, I would expect a time-table that's a good bit more ambitious. The obvious parallel is the JCPOA (the Iran deal), which though it addressed an arguably less pressing and less difficult problem, had much more bite and was much more aggressive and explicit in its benchmarks and verification protocols. Its core provisions, including the removal of 97% of Iran's enriched material, were fulfilled within a matter of months of the agreement's adoption. And yet Trump and every one of his more adoring sycophants blasted that deal as weak and toothless.
Sec State also pushed back against the suggestion that omitting an explicit reference to a rigorous verification process undermined the efficacy of the agreement signed on yesterday.
Full disclosure, I was already critical of this practically weightless agreement and the kabuki show that preceded its conclusion. But I do understand the administration's position that follow-on negotiations could produce the kind of concrete assurances that would render the entire production as something more than a PR coup for DPRK and a small foreign policy feather in Trump's hat (at least as he and his supporters perceive it). I further understand that full nuclear disarmament can be a multi-year process requiring not simply the dismantling of weapons, but also the safe removal and disposal of material, the re-purposing of expertise, in-depth and independent verification, and a host of other steps.
But given DPRK's history of wringing whatever concessions they could out of the West and then reneging on their end of the bargain, I would expect a time-table that's a good bit more ambitious. The obvious parallel is the JCPOA (the Iran deal), which though it addressed an arguably less pressing and less difficult problem, had much more bite and was much more aggressive and explicit in its benchmarks and verification protocols. Its core provisions, including the removal of 97% of Iran's enriched material, were fulfilled within a matter of months of the agreement's adoption. And yet Trump and every one of his more adoring sycophants blasted that deal as weak and toothless.