NOTE TO STUDENTS:  Before answering the questions, read the "Background" below the questions.

1.  After U.S. and North Korean officials met in Beijing last week, what did the Obama administration agree to do for North Korea?

2.  What conditions has Pyongyang [the capital of North Korea/the North Korean government] agreed to meet in exchange for the U.S. concessions?

3.  Why is Republican Congressman Ed Royce skeptical about North Korea's sincerity?

4.  How does the U.S. State Department view its latest agreement with North Korea?

5.  What condition requested by the U.S. did North Korea refuse to agree to?

6.  What problem do nuclear inspectors now allowed into North Korea face?

7.  The WSJ reporters state at the end of the article: "The [Obama administration] for months has insisted there were no links between food assistance and its effort to curtail North Korea's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction."  What do you think of the administration's claim and the conditions that have now been agreed to?

8.  Reacting to North Korea's agreement, even the Russian official involved said: "We'll need to be patient to be sure whether these are really positive moves in the policy of the new North Korean leadership or just the latest game on the part of Pyongyang to attain its goals."  

The majority of WSJ reader comments were skeptical of North Korea's sincerity, responding to the agreement with the following thoughts:

• "So they give us another 'gesture' and we send them 240 tons of food.  Haven't we heard this all before?  When will this administration catch on? Dismantle the entire complex of facilities, and then we will offer to teach them how to develop an agriculture industry with the money they don't spend on their nuclear weapons programs.  The US isn't the country with the 'hostile intent'." (WSJ reader Terry K.)
• "Lucy and the football, take #567. But hey, somebody's got to feed their army. And don't forget, Iran's not developing nuclear weapons..." (WSJ reader Rob S.)
• "Unfortunately though this isn't the first time North Korea has run this game on us. Or the second, or the third, and so on. Every time they are about to go over the precipice they agree to halt everything and be good. Once they get the food and their time on the international stage they'll head back to Yongbyon, bulldoze away the rubble from the old cooling tower that they destroyed in early 2012, and have it back up and running by early 2013.  It's sad that we fall for it every time. Maybe they're serious THIS time." (WSJ reader James B.)
• "How about demand that North Korea also end their counterfeiting of US Dollars, drug smuggling, kidnapping and assassinations." (WSJ reader Mike E.)
• "We've seen it before - in 1994 Bill Clinton sent them piles of money in exchange for cessation of their nuclear pursuits and the ink wasn't even dry on the agreement before they had broken it and continued construction. This is a farce." (WSJ reader James J.)
• OR an opposite reaction from WSJ reader Ellery K.:  "How about a little trust. North Korea and South Korea need to move towards a more symbiotic relationship. This is the first big step. North Korea should be congratulated on taking this step to normalize relations with its southern counterpart and the United States. Mutual respect and cooperation will be to everyone's advantage on every level."

What do you think - will North Korea live up to their end of the bargain and truly put a hold on their nuclear program (and/or ultimately agree to end their proliferation of nuclear weapons)?  Explain your answer.