Category: Uncategorized

Senator John McCain recently came out and criticized former President Clinton’s failed 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea for leading to the current nuclear crisis. In fairness to Clinton I do believe diplomacy should be tried before starting a war and he tried diplomacy and failed due to the untrustworthiness of the North Koreans who went ahead and continued a covert nuclear program while simultaneously moving even more troops and equipment to the DMZ between North and South Korea. Clinton tried diplomacy which I think no one should fault him for and it didn’t work. The Democrats accused McCain of playing politics, but what do the Democrats do in response? Continue playing politics themselves of course; with former Clinton Secretary of Defense William Perry writing this blame Bush editorial in the Washington Post:

North Korea’s declared nuclear bomb test program will increase the incentives for other nations to go nuclear, will endanger security in the region and could ultimately result in nuclear terrorism. While this test is the culmination of North Korea’s long-held aspiration to become a nuclear power, it also demonstrates the total failure of the Bush administration’s policy toward that country. For almost six years this policy has been a strange combination of harsh rhetoric and inaction. President Bush, early in his first term, dubbed North Korea a member of the “axis of evil” and made disparaging remarks about Kim Jong Il.

Continue reading “Playing Politics Over the NK Crisis “

I wonder if Perry prefers that Bush call Kim Jong-il the “Dear Leader” instead of the tyrant that he is?

Some of you may remember that Perry also wrote an editorial before the July NK missile tests in the Washington Post advocating a bombing campaign against the NK Taepodong missile before it could be tested. Perry like many former Clintonites are trying to rewrite history. Their policies were a failure then and their advice is a failure now.

Just think about if the US followed Perry’s advice before July’s missile test. A bombing campaign against NK would validate the very reason Kim Jong-il proclaims for needing both a ICBM and nuclear programs; to protect the country from US aggression not to mention possibly causing a second Korean War which the US would have clearly been the aggressor. Additionally the US would have never gathered the valuable intelligence of the failed test. The US didn’t totally know the NK ICBM capabilities, now the US does. It is the same thing with the nuclear test. The US now knows that the NK nuclear program is not as advanced as the North Koreans would want you to believe. Plus the NK actions have driven a wedge between China and North Korea which a bombing campaign would have never done. If anything it would bring the two allies closer together against US aggression. Now this is not the case after the nuclear test because China is actually seriously considering backing a UN resolution that would allow a US naval blockade of North Korea. Do you think a bombing campaign would have brought this close cooperation with China about?

So what does Perry advocate in the wake of the nuclear test, when his bombing campaign policy would have been an obvious failure? Well I really don’t know because the article is all blame Bush with no policy alternatives. Maybe he learned from his last article that blaming Bush is safer politics than actually providing alternative policy ideas.

HT: Marmot

Who can name specifically what this place is called?

I can’t say I agree with this letter to the Korea Times, but it did give me a good chuckle because yes, things would be so much easier if Kim Jong-il would just hurry up and nuke somebody:

  I am a citizen of the United States. It is my understanding that the North Korean president has made a threat against my country in that North Korea would launch (if capable) a nuclear-tipped missile toward the United States if we do not do what they want.

As a citizen of the United States I would welcome such action from North Korea. Simply stop talking and do it. It would make things so much easier for us since nobody in the world (aside from possibly Iran) would argue about our right to return fire upon North Korea.

There would be no need for a ground assault that can require so much military manpower and expense but rather a nuclear attack by North Korea upon the United States would allow us to respond in kind with nuclear weapons.

It is sad that North Korea would be so incapable with their limited nuclear weapons program to respond to our thousands of nuclear weapons that would could fire from our soil without having to dispatch a single aircraft or human military person.

This is the difference between how we could deal with North Korea as opposed to how we are dealing with Iraq and possibly Iran at this time.

By North Korea opening the nuclear door it would save us from having to dispatch troops from the middle east _ we could just simply respond with a much stronger nuclear response.

Please tell Kim Jong-il to stop talking and just do it so we can send a message to the world that we are NEVER going to be intimidated by this type of threat but we will ALWAYS be able to give a response thousands of times greater than any attack like this upon us.

We simply need an excuse to attack North Korea. Tell the North Korean president to stop tap dancing around like a little girl with a big mouth and be a man and … just do it. And, then find a comfortable place to tuck his head between his legs and kiss his ass goodbye.

Sincerely,

David Lee

HT: Jodi

What do you do during times of a nuclear crisis, kick out the missiles that would intercept any incoming nukes:

North Korean nuclear threat or not, anti-base activists camped out at the gate to Tengan Pier vowed Tuesday to remain until a ship leaves without unloading Patriot missiles for a new U.S. Army battery on Kadena Air Base.

Monday’s announcement by North Korea that it successfully conducted a small-scale nuclear test has given the protesters more verbal ammo to oppose the U.S. military presence on Okinawa and the deployment of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile interceptors on U.S. and Japan Self-Defense Force bases.

Protesters took up their positions Sunday, and U.S. Army officials were to meet Tuesday evening with Okinawa prefectural police officials to request their removal from the gate.

You have got to love the protesters logic though for kicking out the PATRIOTs:

“I respond by saying that peace will come only to places where there are no military bases.”

If that’s your definition of peace then you will be waiting a very long time to realize it.

It really was only a matter of time before Jimmy Carter surfaced again due to the latest North Korean crisis.  Carter has surfaced this time in a New York Times editorial which like other editorials from those involved in the failed 1994 Agreed Framework blames Bush for everything going on with North Korea:

Responding to an invitation from President Kim Il-sung of North Korea, and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the atomic agency to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. It was also agreed that direct talks would be held between the two Koreas.

The spent fuel (estimated to be adequate for a half-dozen bombs) continued to be monitored, and extensive bilateral discussions were held. The United States assured the North Koreans that there would be no military threat to them, that it would supply fuel oil to replace the lost nuclear power and that it would help build two modern atomic power plants, with their fuel rods and operation to be monitored by international inspectors. The summit talks resulted in South Korean President Kim Dae-jung earning the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize for his successful efforts to ease tensions on the peninsula.

First of all in June 1994 Carter wrote a letter to Clinton that he was going to Pyongyang with or without Clinton’s approval.  On the advice of Al Gore, Clinton approved the visit if Carter would agree that he was only going as a private citizen and not a US Ambassador.  When Carter visited Pyongyang and cut the deal with then North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung the father of the current leader Kim Jong-il, he informed his contact in the White House of the deal and then proceeded to give a CNN interview announcing the deal.

His White House contact walked into a on going policy meeting with President Clinton and his top advisors to inform Clinton of Carter’s call.  Clinton was about to give a go ahead on a military force build up in Korea along with increased sanctions that would ultimately lead to possibly a naval blockade if North Korea did not give up their nuclear program.  Does this all sound familiar?  It should because it is 1994 all over again today, we just need Carter to go to Pyongyang, and hopefully this time he will stay there.

Carter’s announcement was a bombshell to the White House because somebody acting as a private citizen had taken control of US foreign policy and the White House appeared to be by standers.  People in the meeting actually called Carter’s actions of cutting a deal without White House approval as “near traitorous” and Clinton actually put out an order for people in the meeting to not engage in Carter bashing to media despite their private feelings.

Clinton’s instincts initially was that the North Koreans could not be trusted and only understood force to get them to quit their nuclear program, however Carter’s actions made it politically impossible for him to take action against North Korea when Carter publicly announced on CNN that he had prevented war by cutting a deal with Kim Il-sung.  Attacking a country after publicly announcing that you cut a deal with them never goes over to well internationally or domestically for that matter and Clinton knew it and he was forced to deal.

Additionally the deal was cut with Kim Il-sung who Clinton and even I believe may have been acting in good faith at the time when he agreed to end his nuclear program and allow in IAEA inspectors if the US gave him aid and built two light water reactors.  Kim Il-sung I think was beloved by his people enough that he would have been able to survive any reforms that would have opened up the country.  Thus he saw this deal as opportunity to feed his people and provide them energy, which in turn allowed North Korea to then focus their limited resources on rebuilding a post-Soviet Union economy.

However, Kim Il-sung died a month later after striking the deal with Carter.  Was this just coincidence or did Kim Jong-il have something to do with it?  I for one wouldn’t be surprised if Kim Jong-il and others in the military who wanted the nuclear bomb and resisted opening the country did away with Kim Il-sung and installed Kim Jong-il because he promised to implement the Songun (military first) policy which would ensure the elite status of the North Korean military within North Korean society.

Something else I found disingenuous about Carter’s article was his claim that his 1994 deal led to the 2000 inter-Korean Summit between then South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il.  Carter made no mention of the fact that the summit only happened, not because of Carter’s 1994 deal, but because of the $156 million dollar bribe that Kim Dae-jung authorized Hyundai to give to Kim Jong-il in order for the North Koreans to agree to host the summit.

The dishonesty only continues in Carter’s editorial:

But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime.

Carter makes no mention of the fact that North Korea cheated on the 1994 Agreed Framework deal and continued a covert nuclear program, which the Bush Administration called them on and to everyones surprise, the North Koreans even admitted to.

The dishonesty in this article only gets worse:

Six-nation talks finally concluded in an agreement last September that called for North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and for the United States and North Korea to respect each other’s sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize relations. Each side subsequently claimed that the other had violated the agreement. The United States imposed severe financial sanctions and Pyongyang adopted the deeply troubling nuclear option.

Carter leaves out some more critical information by forgetting to mention that the financial sanctions had nothing to do with the six party talks.  The financial sanctions were due to North Korea’s counterfeiting and money laundering of US currency.  Ever wonder why the US$20 dollar bill keeps changing?  It because of North Korean counterfeiting which Carter makes no mention of.

So what does Carter suggest to end the current stand off?  Well implementing pretty much the 1994 Agreed Framework again:

The other option is to make an effort to put into effect the September denuclearization agreement, which the North Koreans still maintain is feasible. The simple framework for a step-by-step agreement exists, with the United States giving a firm and direct statement of no hostile intent, and moving toward normal relations if North Korea forgoes any further nuclear weapons program and remains at peace with its neighbors. Each element would have to be confirmed by mutual actions combined with unimpeded international inspections.

You have to give Carter credit for one thing, he is persistent in wanting to implement failed policies.

As you can see there were various factors that led to the failed 1994 Agreed Framework.  Was it Clinton’s fault?  Even though the policy failed I don’t see it as being Clinton’s fault because due to the circumstances he had no choice but to cut the deal.  This issue has taken on it’s current political context solely because of next months elections.  None of this rhetoric is helpful in actually resolving the crisis but since when have politicians cared more about solving issues over protecting their own political power?

So what do I think it going to happen?  Kim Jong-il counted on sanctions before he decided to test his nuke and knew that the international community would condemn him including China and South Korea.  Even though he would be condemned for the test, Kim Jong-il gambled that China and South Korea would still protect him from sanctions that would lead to the end of his regime like a naval blockade.  I would love to see a naval blockade because I doubt the North Korean regime would last a year if a naval blockade is implemented.  However, all signs are that the South Koreans and Chinese will not support a blockade and I find it unlikely the US would implement a blockade without a UN Security Council Resolution.

So what does this mean?  Well it means that North Korea will get hit by increased sanctions, but China will keep the oil flowing and the South Koreans will keep the food and fertilizer coming in because neither country wants to deal with a collapse North Korea.  China doesn’t want a possible war or a humanitarian crisis to threaten their hosting of the 2008 Olympics and the South Koreans do not want to pay both the financial and social costs that reunifying with North Korea would cost plus the possibility of war would devestate the peninsula.   Plus the North Koreans will be allowed to keep bringing in hard currency through their weapons sales, counterfeiting, and other illicit activities without a naval blockade, which means that the Kim Jong-il regime will survive with more time to develop and perfect their nuclear weapons, while our political leaders aided by the irresponsible US media continue to play politics and blame each other for the crisis, which is just what Kim Jong-il counted on.

Note some great reading on the 1994 Agreed Framework can be read in Don Oberdorfer’s book, The Two Koreas.

Is this supposed to make me scared?

 The Bush administration rejected anew Tuesday direct talks with North Korea and said it would not be intimidated by a reported threat from Pyongyang that it could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts to resolve the standoff.

“This is the way North Korea typically negotiates by threat and intimidation,” said U.S. Ambassador John Bolton. “It’s worked for them before. It won’t work for them now.”

The White House said, meanwhile, there is a “remote possibility” that the world never will be able to fully determine whether North Korea succeeded in conducting a nuclear test Monday. While acknowledging that the action was provocative, White House press secretary Tony Snow suggested that it’s possible that the test was something less than it appeared.

(…) 

North Korea stepped up its threats, saying it could fire a nuclear nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts, the Yonhap news agency reported Tuesday from Beijing. But even if Pyongyang is confirmed to have nuclear weapons, experts say it’s unlikely the North has a bomb design small and light enough to be mounted atop a missile.

Go ahead and fire your stupid missile and watch Pyongyang become a parking lot after our missile defense system intercepts the missile; that’s if the NK missile even makes it off the launch pad.

This is just another indication of how little the North Koreans understand Americans.  Americans do not respond to threats well and if anything it brings people together against a common enemy.  The more threats they make, the more likely the North Koreans will never get the aid deal and security assurances they want because it would be politically impossible for the US government to give them a deal if they are doing it in response to all these threats.

Threats and intimidation may work with South Koreans to get what they want, but it will never work with Americans.

You wouldn’t know the Army recruiting numbers were surging judging by this AP headline, Lower Standards Help Army Recruit More:

 The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties.

The recruiting mark comes a year after the Army missed its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, which had triggered a boost in the number of recruiters, increased bonuses, and changes in standards.

The Army recruited 80,635 soldiers, roughly 7,000 more than last year. Of those, about 70,000 were first-time recruits who had never served before.

According to statistics obtained by The Associated Press, 3.8 percent of the first-time recruits scored below certain aptitude levels. In previous years, the Army had allowed only 2 percent of its recruits to have low aptitude scores. That limit was increased last year to 4 percent, the maximum allowed by the Defense Department.

The Army said all the recruits with low scores had received high school diplomas. In a written statement, the Army said good test scores do not necessarily equate to quality soldiers. Test-taking ability, the Army said, does not measure loyalty, duty, honor, integrity or courage.

This is great news for the Army yet again, so the biased media has to find a way to bash the Army with this lower test standards nonsense.  The Army is expanding thus more soldiers need to be recruited.  That is why the recruitment goal is 7,000 soldiers higher this year than last year because the Army is adding approximately 20,000 soldiers in the next few years, particularly in the infantry.

How well you do on the entry test that this AP article is making such a big deal about determines what job you are eligible for in the Army.  Generally the lower the score, the more likely you will end up in a combat arms occupation like the infantry.  You don’t need to be a test taking genius to figure out how to fire a rifle and throw hand grenades.  Especially when the recruits allowed in who scored low on the entry test all have high school diplomas.  Students who score poorly on an SAT for example are still eligible to attend college if they have a high school diploma or GED, why should they be denied entering the military?

I have always been of the opinion that if someone wants to serve their country they should be given every reasonable opportunity to do so.  However, the US media wants to feed the Vietnam era military stereotype of a military filled with uneducated and poor kids with no other options in life, when in fact the military is becoming increasingly more educated and professional than any time in it’s history.  Plus the media is continuing it’s agenda of undermining the war effort.  Surging recruiting numbers means that the US public is still supporting the war effort.  The media wants and needs the military to miss their recruiting goals in order to support their own political views that the War on Terror and by association President Bush is wrong.
Just think, all these  new recruits joining the Army now, know they are going to war, unlike past years when people may have just been joining for the GI Bill.  The fact that the Army is able to meet it’s recruiting goals while simultaneously expanding the Army is really a tribute to the American public who have entrusted their sons and daughters to the military and to all the Army recruiters out there doing a thankless job with tougher recruiting conditions including being banned from some schools and universities and being attacked by leftists, but yet they continue to do a great job filling the ranks of the US Army.

Some Time In Early 1968 I Was Going Up To Our Q-4
Radar For A Night Radar Registration Mission.  I Was In A Jeep With The
Top Up Next To My Driver.  Just North of Munsan A Bus/truck Passed Us
And Slowed Down, Causing Us To Almost Stop Before It Shot Off Again
Down The Dark Rutted Road.  A Few Minutes Later I Looked Back And
Saw A Head In The Window of The Jeep Top.  I Screamed At My Driver
To Stop And He Did.  As Soon As The Jeep Came To A Halt I Jumped Out
To Find The Spare Tire Lock Cut And All Lug Nuts Gone But One.  It Was
Almost Gone, Too. A Minute Later And Where Would That Spare And
Slicky Boy Have Rolled To? Submitted by ; 1Lt Gene P. Moser     
                          HHB 5/38 Arty              
                          Korea, 1967/68
This slicky boy story was from Korea, A Tour of Duty.
 If you have your own slicky boy story to share e-mail me your story at gikoreaonline@yahoo.com and I will be happy to post it.

First of all some are not even sure if this explosion was even a nuclear blast:

“We have assessed that the explosion in North Korea was a sub-kiloton explosion,” said the intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. He added, “We don’t know, in fact, whether it was a nuclear explosion.” He spoke as intelligence analysts in Washington were in the early stages of assessing the explosion.

A one-kiloton blast would be extremely small for a nuclear weapon. But regardless of the size of the blast, the North Korean announcement reverberated throughout the world of diplomacy, and seemed likely to be felt in American domestic politics as well. There were suggestions, moreover, that the Communist state might be preparing a second test.

That’s right folks there might be another test either today or in the coming days. Could this be a sign that their first test wasn’t as successful as they claim?

France has been even bold enough to say that the test might have failed:

France estimated it as merely the equivalent of about 500 tons of TNT, and did not confirm that it was the result of a nuclear device, The Associated Press reported.

Russia tends to think the test was a success:

Russia’s defense minister, Mr. Ivanov, said that the Russian military had confirmed the test and estimated its force at somewhere between 5 and 15 kilotons — much larger than estimates from South Korea.

Predictably nations around the world have condemned the North Korean nuclear test. Even Venezuela condemned the nuclear test, however one country didn’t:

Iran, which is already at odds with the United Nations Security Council over its own nuclear program, stood out from the general mood of condemnation. Its state-run radio today blamed pressure from the United States for North Korea’s decision to test, A.P. reported, calling it “a reaction to America’s threats and humiliations.

Pressure? Like enforcing our counterfeiting laws and allowing North Korea international aid so they can use their scarce resouces to build nuclear weapons? How would Iran like the North Koreans counterfeiting their money? I do think this test is not good for Iran because if quick and decisive action is taken on North Korea the global community may wrap Iran into any resolutions to come in stopping the development of nuclear weapons.

Here is what the US President George Bush had to say:

President Bush on Monday said North Korea’s claim that it has tested a nuclear weapon is a threat to international peace and said the world “will respond.”

“The transfer of nuclear weapons to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States,” Bush said. “And we would hold North Korea fully accountable to the consequences of such action.”

Bush said the U.S. was still trying to verify North Korea’s claims that it had tested a nuclear weapon on Monday.

Here is what US Democrats had to say:

Senate Democrats quickly condemned North Korea, but they criticized the Bush administration as well.

The Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, assailed North Korea for its “reckless and counterproductive actions.” But he asserted that the Bush administration has been in a “state of denial” about North Korea, in part because the administration has been “distracted by Iraq and parayzed by internal divisions.” A comprehensive review of American policy toward North Korea is essential, the senator said.

Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said the administration had “wasted the last five-plus years sitting on the sidelines” and must now use its influence with China and South Korea to bring the North to the table. Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said the administration “must go into diplomatic overdrive” and work with its allies in the region. And Senator Charles Schumer of New York said that, in addition to undertaking a diplomatic offensive, the United States must develop nuclear-detection devices as soon as possible.

“North Korea going nuclear shows how much we need allies to succeed in the war on terror,” Mr. Schumer said.

“State of Denial” is new the Democratic catch phrase after the name of Bob Woodward’s new book critical of the Bush Administration. I guess the “Culture of Corruption” catch phrase just wasn’t cutting it anymore. So what review of policy do these Democrats want? Give Kim Jong-il his pay day that he has been demanding? That was tried in 1994 and didn’t work. Then of course Senator Kennedy uses the other Democratic catch phrase, “work with our allies”. If there is any issue that the US government has worked with allies on, it is this one. The US has consistently made it a policy to deal with North Korea in the context of the six party talks so that regional allies in the area were involved in resolving the crisis. Now the Democrats are coming out and saying we need to work with our allies when before they were blasting Bush about not holding bi-lateral talks with Kim Jong-il. Then Schumer talking about developing nuclear detection devices I can only assume he is referring to nuclear detection devices in all of the US ports so North Korea can’t send a boat into New York and nuke it as absurd of a scenario that, that is.

So what should the US do? Well you can post your opinion and read many others over at the New York Times Blog. The responses are definitely all over the place from people wanting to attack North Korea, which is easy to say when you wouldn’t be the person crossing the DMZ to do it, others saying that Bush will nuke North Korea in order to win more votes for the Republicans, more saying that Bush created this nuclear crisis to win votes as well (that Karl Rove sure is clever), and a Korean commenter even complained that the Sea of Japan is really the East Sea. In a time of crisis you can always count on a VANKer to remind us what is really important.

Looks like a UN resolution condemning North Korea is in the works that includes a very provactive naval blockade of North Korea to inspect all ships entering and exiting the country:

The United States circulated a draft resolution Monday to U.N. Security Council nations calling for stiff weapons sanctions and other restrictions on North Korea following its claim to have conducted a nuclear test.

The United States is suggesting international inspections of any cargo going into or out of the reclusive, communist country.

Washington also is proposing a U.N. embargo on any goods or materials that could be used in Pyongyang’s missile and nuclear programs.

Security Council members will resume closed-door discussions of the proposals Tuesday.

The council voted unanimously Monday for a statement opposing North Korea’s reported test, but it is unclear whether the council will favor economic sanctions.

John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said he was “strongly encouraged by the mood of the council.”

“No one even came close to defending it,” Bolton said.

Japan also added its own proposals to deny North Korean ships and planes permission to enter other territories, to ban the import of any North Korean products and to ban travel by high-level North Korean officials.

The U.S. draft calls for an overall arms embargo, prohibitions on any financial transactions that might support missile activities, a freeze on any assets related to North Korea’s weapons programs, measures to prevent counterfeiting by North Korea and a ban on luxury goods.

The draft also calls for North Korea to cease any missile and nuclear-related activity and return to the six party talks.

If the resolution passes with the implementation of a naval blockade and a full embargo of the country, both the South Koreans and the US better be prepared for a possible confict.  I don’t think the North Koreans would wage war from the start of the blockade but I would expect them to conduct smaller scale actions such as DMZ shootouts, West Sea naval clashes, or even terrorist style attacks in South Korea in order to pressure the South Koreans to get the blockade lifted.  They will also simultaneously play up the humanitarian crisis of the sanctions to the global media and the global media will probably fall for it, it worked for Hezbollah why not North Korea too?

Over the course of an entire year I don’t think the North Korean regime could survive a full embargo.  When it reaches the point that the regime is on the verge of collapse what do they have to lose by going to war?  If the embargo is implemented the US and it’s allies better be prepared for possibly a bloody war.  Is the US and South Korean publics ready for a bloody war or would they rather just appease the North Koreans, work out a deal, and get back to the status quo?  The coming months will tell.

Another possibility is that a military coup happens in North Korea and Kim Jong-il is replaced.  A new leader takes over, works out a face saving deal for all sides, and begins a real process towards reunification.  Maybe US and South Korean intelligence knows something that the public doesn’t.  Then there is always the possibility China could take matters into their own hands and move in and occupy North Korea on their own accord.

Who knows but one thing you can count on is that North Korea will remain very unpredictable and the coming months would be very interesting.