Kerry and North Korea - WTF?!

[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.

[PhAntoM MeNaCe]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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'.

[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?