Rightful suspicion

China is apparently splitting off from the other states involved in negotiations with North Korea by demanding that an IAEA resolution include both sides of the bargain. And it's tough to blame them from the sound of the resolution as it stands:

A split between China and the four other countries that negotiated with North Korea on scrapping its nuclear arms could doom efforts to come up with a resolution welcoming the North's decision at a meeting of UN nuclear agency, diplomats said Thursday.

The diplomats, who requested anonymity in exchange for discussing the confidential details of the dispute over a North Korean resolution, said China wanted mention of a light-water nuclear reactor and other commitments made to the North in exchange for its decision – something that the four other nations opposed.

It only seems sensible that if an agreement is going to be effective, it has to fairly thoroughly set out the obligations on both sides. And any fair commentary on the agreement also has to point out that it's not a one-sided surrender, particularly in light of Bushco's past eagerness to turn vague terms into a basis for war.

In a sense, the second-biggest thing North Korea has going for it right now (after nuclear deterrence) is the lack of standards that it's obliged to meet. Bush has shown a ready willingness to be judge, jury and executioner in determining whether a state has met its standards or cooperated thoroughly enough in meeting them...but he's been unable to plausibly say that North Korea has fallen short of any agreements that were followed by the other side. Part of that is due to lack of knowledge resulting from the secrecy of Kim's regime, part of it due to the U.S.' failure to meet the terms of the previous agreement.

If North Korea is now going be at risk of being on the wrong end of Bush's assumptions, at the very least it needs to receive some very clear assurances as to when and how it'll benefit from doing so. And a vague intention to provide unspecified rewards doesn't fit the bill, as "future commitments" could ultimately be minimized just as much as "serious consequences" were overblown.

It's great that there's cooperation happening now, and all the better if the IAEA wants to go out of its way to acknowledge the fact. But the rest of the world needs to pay close attention to the obligations on both sides of the deal...and any resolution which pretends otherwise only further damages the international perception of the IAEA.