North Korea Opts For Multilateral Talks

[j2k4]

They have consented to "talk" with a six (?)-member multilateral group, but still want to sit down individually with the U.S.-why?

Any speculations?

[J'Pol]

There's little point in having the cosmetic conferences if you don't sit down with the organ-grinder at some stage and come to some sort of agreement.

Now far be it from me to make any suggestions here. However it appears to me that your country is gradually spending more and more on what other people don't do, rather than what they do.

[kAb]

i am so confused on what N Korea is doing. do they WANT to go to war?

i know they want free shit from the US, but its not gonna happen.

[Neil__]

They got the nuke so, "Bush shitting it."

Neil

[J'Pol]

Do you really think that nuclear weapons are like a pea shooter.

To have the capability to make a war-head is one thing.

To have the ability to accurately deliver it, over thousands of miles is another.

To be prepared to live with the ramifications of using it is yet another.

[ClubDiggler]

I think North Koreas' strategy by dealing only with the U.S. is to make the U.S. look like the bullies trying to pick on yet another nation. If the North Koreans deal with the other 6 nations which are their neighbors their argument is reduced to nothing. Six neighbors concerned about their nuclear weapons program is harder to argue against than the U.S. which is much further away.

[clocker]

That's an interesting theory CD, but I,m wondering if there is a rational reason behind KJ Il's actions at all.

He may just be motivated by a desire for more Scotch and DVD's.

[ClubDiggler]

True Clocker!!!

Why bother with the poor when you can talk directly with the rich.
The US can provide "mucho dinero" for them which I believe they've done in the past.

[j2k4]

I'm still baffled, and if I'm still baffled, I then wonder how detailed media accounts of any one-on-one talks are likely to be.

[Biggles]

I would be very surprised if there were any media coverage of the 1:1 talks.

There may well be a blanket press release agreed by the 6 regarding the overall summit but the talks between the US and NK will be held in camera. Colin Powell may emerge to say the talks were "useful" but that will probably be all.

I have always understood the primary aim of NK was to secure a non-aggression pact with the US. In return the North will continue to observe the 1953 armistice.

The situation regarding nuclear power is one for the region to deal with. NK has a large if rather elderly industrial complex (mostly tanks and tractors) it needs power but has little oil and coal. Nuclear energy is its only viable means of energy that is not subject to sanctions and blockade. If it could obtain favourable agreements with its neighbours and the US then it could ease up on the nuclear front.

The difficulty is that everybody (but not least the NK leadership) is suffering from a great deal of paranoia regarding the motives of the other side. Given the NK propensity to believe everyone is against them it is unlikely any assurances given by the US in the 1:1 will paper over the cracks for long.

I am working on the assumption that the US will not sign a non-aggression pact. I may be wrong and some move towards this may be made. A war with a country with the military resources of NK would wreck the region, kill 100,000s and plunge the Pacific rim into further recession - this is unlikely to make good copy prior to an election in 15 months.