By The bi-lateral talks were obviously going to happen, but I am surprised the Obama administration folded this quick:
In a dramatic policy shift, the Obama administration Friday said it is willing to engage directly with North Korea as a way to bring the reclusive regime back to six-nation talks aimed at ending its nuclear ambitions.
“There’s a consensus that we’re prepared to engage North Korea bilaterally as a means to accomplish our long-term objectives,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters.
North Korea pulled out of the six-party talks in April, protesting condemnation at the United Nations over its nuclear test and missile launches.
Crowley said the goal of direct talks would be “to encourage the North to come back to the six-party process” and take “affirmative steps towards denuclearization.”
Until now, the United States has said it would hold bilateral talks with North Korea only within the framework of the six-party negotiations, which also include South Korea, Japan, China and Russia. [CNN]
I figured the US would be able to get the North Koreans to agree to bi-lateral talks as a sidebar to the Six Party Talks, so that is why I am surprised they folded this quick and are sidelining key allies South Korea and Japan for talks that will accomplish nothing more then the Six Party Talks ever did. I have been saying for years, the North Koreans have no intention of ever disarming and the US knows that, but continues to say that the North Koreans must denuclearize before any treaties are signed or sanctions are dropped. So basically they have nothing to talk about, but the North Koreans have won one more concession from the US and that is the sidelining of the South Koreans and the Japanese.
This makes me wonder if this is the payoff for releasing the two US journalists?
3:14 pm on September 11th, 2009 1
FYI The older Ling sister was on Oprah and trying to justify why they went into NK because of "company money" and "obligation".
3:25 pm on September 11th, 2009 2
Well, obviously the 6 party talks weren't affective in disarming North Korea. Although I do not think the bilateral talks will accomplish anything, at least we're trying an alternative. I hope I'm wrong and somehow this works, but my cynical side is also telling me that this strategy working could be the North's plan all along.
4:30 pm on September 11th, 2009 3
Those two bimbos are about as much "journalists" as I am a cosmonaut.
5:35 pm on September 11th, 2009 4
Well…North Korea is a communist totalitarian regime, and thus has always used the Marxist technique of murdering the citizens it deemed undesirable for the purpose of social engineering (just as Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler did (Nazism was essentially Russian Marxism packaged for a German audience)).
Nevertheless, I would like to see them acknowledge the consequences of the visit. Have they done so yet?
5:55 pm on September 11th, 2009 5
This is stupid. More than stupid. Bilateral talks were attempted plenty before the 6 party idea came up.
Why are people put in charge of stuff so damn fixated on the idea of trying to accomplish something to the point simply trying is an accomplishment in itself? Talk for the sake of bloody talks…
What makes it something to be angry about is the fact that it harms the world's ability to deal with North Korea — you are never going to accomplish much with a gangster state like it, but doing stuff like this helps the North play the world. It encourages it.
The North just flooded South Korea using a tool that some had championed at the start as a great leap forward in North-South relations. NK also just tried to parlay two US journalists into a big global win.
And we bleeping give it to them – in appearance at least —– which with something like Pyongyang is really important to keep in mind. I personally don't care much about appearance in general when it comes to the average global, diplomatic problem, and I know this decision by the US has been contemplated and in the works for a long time —- but coming right now — North Korea is not going to see it that way at all….
….stupid, stupid timing for a largely pointless move……
10:40 pm on September 11th, 2009 6
Well, the health care sell is not going so well, support for Afghanistan is slipping, the economy is still wobbling, wait, we need a success, somewhere, foreign or domestic… Yes! Let's pull a North Korean rabbit out of the hat here! Egads, what are these "diplomatic experts" thinking???
2:01 am on September 12th, 2009 7
Nope. They never touched on how this effected politically, but just how it did not use tax payer money getting Billy there in his plane. Never talked about the people that were on the films that were seized etc.
6:21 am on September 12th, 2009 8
It's time for Tongmibongnam again. The flood was probably a run-up to the announcement.
6:45 am on September 12th, 2009 9
The real question is what is the alternative to bilateral talks? There are no real military options. Not talking only allows North Korea to continue to build its nuclear arsenal. Even if complete denuclearization is an unrealistic goal, although I do believe the Obama administration is completely committed to this objective, freezing further nuclear development would still be a significant acheivement. And deisolating North Korea is probably the best hope for regime change (hopefully one that is fairly stable). Interestingly, Obama, has been anything but soft on North Korea. Even as the U.S. has agreed to talks, it has actively attempted to tighten enforcement of the recently applied sanctions. http://tinyurl.com/nx7ks9
9:39 am on September 12th, 2009 10
Talk for the sake of talks is a problem. It leads to helping NK remained convinced it is on the right track…
It does this when it wants no matter what. Putting some nuke material under mothballs — during the time of the great famine – keep in mind — did not stop its nuclear development. The 6 Party Talks didn't stop unmothballing and coming open with the nuke development. When NK wants to help Syria build a hidden nuclear factory, it does it. When it wants to cut deals with Pakistan, it does it. NK does what it was when it wants. It allows us to delude ourselves and feel good about ourselves and our openess to "negociating" with a regime that has proven again and again it can't be trusted and thus can't really be negociated with…
There are no military options? Fine enough. We could find some. But, regardless, if that is true, how many times does NK have to poke the world in the bum before we conclude: There are no negociating options. – ???
And if I could jump over the moon, I could probably dunk like crazy and make it into the NBA. I'd be a world-class shot blocker at least…
NK's whole state is founded on the idea of remaining isolated!!!
Juche is a lie. It has always depended on the Russians and Chinese and then some other group of nations to feed its masses and keep it from breaking apart —– but the state believes it must remain ——— as isolated as possible….
Any US administration or policy team that begins with the idea that they are actually working on deisolating NK —- has started so far off on the wrong foot……It is like believing you have a good shot of completely denuclearizing it……It is simply not going to happen as long as the current regime is in power.
— If our leading minds on NK policy can't or will not accept that, which they obviously can't or don't – Bush or Obama or Clinton —- NK will continue to win what it wants at minimum through its diplomatic approach…
….and few more bodies will be collected here and there after things like this flood or a West Sea Battle —– and an uncountable number or graves will continue to pile up day to day in NK….
10:41 pm on September 12th, 2009 11
Bi-lateral talks are probably the right thing. Getting China and Russia out of the room should improve things. I think S Korea and Japan believe we will keep their best interest in mind, but I do not trust China or Russia. I don't think either of those countries (Russia or China) want to see a unified Korea with a more economically developed South, which has a larger population, controlling decisions. Heck, we may even see unificaion within the next few years – you know Kim would do anything for a beer at the White House.
10:48 pm on September 12th, 2009 12
I mean no offense whatsoever to Pete, but if I were Japan, given what I've seen out of the US for the past 8+ years, and what I remember about the deal Carter cut and how he cut it, I'd sure as hell not like the idea of Obama sending in people he likes to cut a deal one-on-one with NK that everybody has to play along with…(SK shouldn't feel too confident looking back at 1994 either….)
12:02 am on September 13th, 2009 13
You may not like or trust Russia or China, but neither one of them wants a nuclear NK, and neither likes to have an agreement broke. Its pretty simple. Breaking an agreement with the USA means nothing to NK or SK. But China and Russia carry weight too.
Also, when the bills need to be paid, do you want the USA to foot the bill. Of course SK and NK does, but 6 party talks also mean that 5 parties are responsable for the sucess and they will help foot the bill.
Now with two party talks, NK and SK will blame everything on the USA. The Korean side, NK+SK will undermine any agreement and try and extrort even more money from the USA.
Democrats hate freedom.
5:22 am on September 13th, 2009 14
This history of negotiations with North Korea shows that bilateral talks are necessary for any real progress to be made, but I agree that any agreement has to be part of a multilateral framework.
By the way, both Japan and South Korea have been extremely vocal in their support for these talks.
5:30 pm on September 14th, 2009 15
"What makes it something to be angry about is the fact that it harms the world’s ability to deal with North Korea —"
""""""""""""""
What would be this alternate plan to deal with north korea and who in the world would be agreeing with that?