Kerry and North Korea - WTF?!

[krelm]

In watching the debate, something about the whole North Korea point really stuck out to me and left me scratching my head.

Multi-lateral talks vs. bi-lateral talks

Bush wants to keep going with the 6-way talks whereas Kerry was strong about wanting to have bilateral talks. From the outset, I have to really question what Kerry is wanting to accomplish with this. What is the advantage to 2-way talks? Anybody?

To me, it seems as though multilateral talks of some kind would be a much better idea to actually establishing a dialogue. China is the closest thing that North Korea has to a friend - IMO, they must be involved for anything constructive to actually come out. If you suddenly drop that and go with direct 2-way talks, it will take on more of a threatening tone. North Korea will undoubtedly go more on the defensive and nothing is going to happen.

Is this what Kerry is after? Is he wanting to up the direct pressure on North Korea? Is this going to be his Iraq if he gets elected? I just can't find any other logic in his stance on this.

Or is there some other clear advantages to shutting out the other nations that I'm just not seeing here?

[PhAntoM MeNaCe]

krelm, it is undoubtedly very counter-productive just as you mentioned. I cant think of one benefit to bi-lateral talks either, now we already have a stroong coalition in place(who happen to be N. Korean neighbors) to tackle that issue, why loose it and take on 'a more threatening tone'.

[factorg]

now we already have a stroong coalition in place(who happen to be N. Korean neighbors) to tackle that issue,

Thats the important part imo. If the US had to have one on one talks with N.Korea they'll just be made out to be the bully's etc. My hopes lie with China on this one.

[timkell]

Bush has gotten nowhere with Korea. They had one session of talks that was useless, and he hasn't been pushing for more.

The benefit of bi-lateral talks is getting more accomplished. Things take forever when you have so many parties. The last multi-lateral talks didn't accomplish anything because there are too many relationships to deal with.

Kerry wants the next negotiation session to be productive, not a waste of time like the last one was, and he sees bi-lateral talks as a more productive method.

We can't wait for China to take the situation over. We need to deal with it ASAP. It would be ideal if China would deal with it, but so far they're content knowing Korea won't attack them. Short sighted thinking on their part for sure.

[AfterHours]

multilateral talks only twist more and more the situation.. lets not forget that the whole world has different interests and every country will look after their own interests specially US allies... I totally agree on CHINA being the one doing the bilateral talk, they know both US and Korean Interests and they are in the middle... I'm pretty sure that just as they are happy with N.Korea not attacking them they are happy with the US not attacking them either so I believe Mr. Kerry's idea on the issue is pretty accurate, and deffinetly I don't think that Kerry would go to war with N.Korea... if Iraq is hell right now for the US I can't imagine what N.Korea could be...

[Leha]

I think both of US candidates sucks, sorry. I was against Bush, but to look on Kerry, i will say i like more Bush, at least he says something funny occasionally
And about Korea, i think multi-literal talks are better. In this region all countries (China, Russia, Japan, South Korea) are for non-nuclear Korea. And btw USA is much more farther from the NK, if problems will be, they will be there, not on your continent. Or you just want another war?

[ok67u4]

Re: Kerry and North Korea - WTF?!

obviously multilateral talks is the best strategy in dealing with north korea. i think though, that china will only go so far in helping to put pressure on north korea. china is probably uncomfortable with the idea of a group of democratic countries putting pressure on dictatorship to open up for international inspections. also, if there were an agreement among north koreas neighbors to take action and north korea failed to follow through and was then invaded, millions of poor, starving refugees would flood into southern china. thats a huge insentive to keep the status quo.

[PhAntoM MeNaCe]

Leha, honey, um...dont think that a nuclear threat from N. Korea wont effect the US, same continent or not, there is something called 'missiles' that are a vessel for nuclear destruction. This is a serious threat for everyone, and we need to monitor it closely.

[superdave]

Re: Kerry and North Korea - WTF?!

the funny thing I can't get out of my mind about Kerry wanting bilateral talks and Bush wanting multilateral talks with North Korea is that they're flip flopping on how they handle countries with WMDs.

Bush according to Kerry went alone to invade Iraq, but wants to take on North Korea alone. Bush wants to include other nations in North Korea talks.

[PhAntoM MeNaCe]

superdave, very good point indeed, interesting irony in that.

[brakada]

If I remember right it was the North Koreans who "demanded" the billateral talks with the USA. And if I am correct the condition to allow UN inspectors to inspect their nuclear capabilities was a non agression pact with US.
I think it's not good that Bush's administration includes N. Korea among countries which support terrorism. I mean I've never heard of a north korean terrorist?? :wink:



...but of course... I may be wrong.

[Leha]

btw i'm sure that NK don't have any weapon of mass destruction. The same shit as with Iraq, everybody was talking about WMD in Iraq, and all what they had were old AK's.

[Morgan]

Leha, honey, um...dont think that a nuclear threat from N. Korea wont effect the US, same continent or not, there is something called 'missiles' that are a vessel for nuclear destruction. This is a serious threat for everyone, and we need to monitor it closely.

N Korea does not have the means to buy/build/steal missles with a range to threaten any country within 500 miles.

N korea is not a threat, FFS if we(the west) stopped all grain and fuel oil imports then within a year the majority of the country would have starved to death.

Cruel i know, it would be the peasants and middles classes that would suffer, the leaders would still be fat and well fed.

You Americans are shitting your selfs about N Korea, and i cannot understand why, they are no threat, but i suppose if your fed the same lie over and over then you?ll eventully believe it,

[brakada]

N Korea does not have the means to buy/build/steal missles with a range to threaten any country within 500 miles.

I'm not quite sure, that you're right about the N. Korean missile range...

Found this article on the internet, although I don't know if it's credible enoguh:

North Korea missile test 'brings US within range'
By Richard Spencer in Beijing
(Filed: 11/06/2004)

North Korea has tested an intercontinental ballistic missile engine capable of hitting the United States, according to a South Korean report.

The potential range of the missile was established by American intelligence from scorch marks and other traces of the engine test, the newspaper Joongang Ilbo said, citing diplomatic sources.

It could reach up to 3,700 miles, enough to hit Alaska.

North Korea is developing a family of long-range missiles called the Taepodong. Taepodong 1 was test-fired over Japan in 1998. It caused consternation, not least because of the determination of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, to pursue a nuclear weapons programme.

The engine test for Taepodong 2 was carried out last month, Joongang Ilbo said. A full missile test - which would cause a diplomatic crisis - would be the next step.

America has been diverted from its attempts to force North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons by the war in Iraq but the possibility of nuclear-armed missiles being aimed at it would provide a new spur to action.

and here's the link:

click here

Although I do agree, that N. Korea isn't a serious threat, even with weapons of mass destruction; there's just too many nuclear weapons and other "super-powers" in the neighbourhood, that they would allow N. korea to try anything...

[bren]

Re: Kerry and North Korea - WTF?!

In watching the debate, something about the whole North Korea point really stuck out to me and left me scratching my head.

Multi-lateral talks vs. bi-lateral talks

Bush wants to keep going with the 6-way talks whereas Kerry was strong about wanting to have bilateral talks. From the outset, I have to really question what Kerry is wanting to accomplish with this. What is the advantage to 2-way talks? Anybody?

To me, it seems as though multilateral talks of some kind would be a much better idea to actually establishing a dialogue. China is the closest thing that North Korea has to a friend - IMO, they must be involved for anything constructive to actually come out. If you suddenly drop that and go with direct 2-way talks, it will take on more of a threatening tone. North Korea will undoubtedly go more on the defensive and nothing is going to happen.

Is this what Kerry is after? Is he wanting to up the direct pressure on North Korea? Is this going to be his Iraq if he gets elected? I just can't find any other logic in his stance on this.

Or is there some other clear advantages to shutting out the other nations that I'm just not seeing here?

I believe that what Kerry actually said is that we should have bi-lateral talks in addition to the multi-lateral talks. The advantage here is that we can make progress with Korea and at the same time get general agreement in the multi-lateral talks.

I think the largest problem is the assumption in the multi-lateral talks that China cares if NK gets WMD. China would be just about the last country to face a threat from NK IMHO.