Ignatius J. Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 One thing I am honestly confused about. Why does bush think that bilateral talks will spell the end of multilateral talks? It seems to me that Kerry wants both. I think the important uestion is "how does china feel about bilateral talks?" Is bush the only source who believes this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghetto-smoove Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Ignatius J. One thing I am honestly confused about. Why does bush think that bilateral talks will spell the end of multilateral talks? It seems to me that Kerry wants both. I think the important uestion is "how does china feel about bilateral talks?" Is bush the only source who believes this? I dont know why Bush thinks bilateral talks wont work...because if Im not mistaken, didnt the U.S. have bilateral talks with Russia during the cold war ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Because we gave a buttload of money to NK during the Clinton Administration to not make nukes, as a result of Bilateral Talks, and they made them anyway. You have to look at the history of NK with the current regime. They constantly bargain to get what they want and then up the stakes. China has to be a player so that there is a country with nuke capability close enough to NK to act as a defacto enforcer. Personally, I think we out to strike their facilities with Cruise Missles and let it be known that if they ever use any nukes they might already have, or if they export one or nuclear material, we'll bomb them to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Actually, China asked us to open bilateral talks, so the suggestion that bilateral talks would push China out is ridiculous. But each of the other four countries in the talks has held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process -- and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea. Moreover, the Bush administration has talked directly with North Korean diplomats on the sidelines of the six-party talks, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met with his North Korean counterpart over the summer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63944-2004Sep30.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I think this was adressed in the debate thread. Bi-lateral talks with NK is stupid because it then legitimizes their having weapons and it accomplishes what they wanted. They want to get us to the table alone so that we end up bribing them again just like in 1994. A failure then it will be a failure again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Simple: NK absolutely needs China to survive. Korea's entire economy comes from Chinese handouts, and without such handouts, they can't pay for their military either. If China says jump, Kim Jong-Il says "How high?" If the US threatens to allow Japan, Taiwan and South Korea to develop nuclear arsenals to defend themselves against NK, this would disturb China greatly. So the US can squeeze China into squeezing NK. It's the most effective strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Having bilateral talks on the side wouldn't hurt, but we definitely need multi-lateral talks so we can keep international pressure on NK. I just think that the more countries that bear down on NK, the more effective it would be. We shouldn't pay them to disarm, we should force them to. The same goes for Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Just so I get this right Kerry says that 30+ nations isnt enough of a coalition to deal with Iraq, but wants to go it alone with NK. Can anyone on the left explain this thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry isn't saying to cut off the multilateral talks. He's saying we need to also open bilateral talks. Bush couldn't seem to understand this last night, and I can't believe people here can't understand it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Just so I get this right Kerry says that 30+ nations isnt enough of a coalition to deal with Iraq, but wants to go it alone with NK. Can anyone on the left explain this thinking? I noticed that too. I guess he feels that not only can he talk France, Russia, and Germany into helping out in Iraq, but he can also talk Kim Jong-Il into disarming! That was a little confusing to me as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry didnt say that. And even if he did, I dont see how that would help. If we are haviung multilateral talks, what would be the benefit of ALSO having bilateral talks? What does that do to help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Kerry didnt say that. LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this. You want to continue the multinational talks, correct? BUSH: Right. LEHRER: And you're willing to do it... KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table. Later on... Now, I'd like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to that issue about China and the talks. Because that's one of the most critical issues here: North Korea. Just because the president says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the president who said "There were weapons of mass destruction," said "Mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on the cheap -- none of which were true. We could have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il. And we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China. Because China has an interest in the outcome, too. And even if he did, I dont see how that would help. If we are haviung multilateral talks, what would be the benefit of ALSO having bilateral talks? What does that do to help? China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia have each opened bilateral talks with North Korea while our 6-party negotiations have been going on. China has specifically asked us to resume bilateral talks. Why are we the only ones not doing this? When you're trying to make a deal, there are certain things that are better said between two parties rather than six. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by DjTj Kerry isn't saying to cut off the multilateral talks. He's saying we need to also open bilateral talks. Bush couldn't seem to understand this last night, and I can't believe people here can't understand it now. I missed exactly what Kerry said, but if he didn't explicitly say both bilateral and multilateral, then Bush was right to go after that. I'm sure Kerry supporters know what he meant, but those on the fence who don't know Kerry particularly well might be confused by that. Again, I didn't see exactly how he worded it though. Also, that link you posted said that the Bush admin. is already having informal talks with NK. I don't think Kerry mentioned that, but how is that all that much different than what Kerry wants to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 What Kerry say's is "both" but to what is he referring? I read it, and heard it, to mean he wanted Bilateral talks that addressed the issues (armistice etc). Bush is right on this issue. Granting bilateral talks with NK would only give them credibility. The last time we did it, we gave them the moon and they broke their end of the deal. Why should we do it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by DjTj China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia have each opened bilateral talks with North Korea while our 6-party negotiations have been going on. China has specifically asked us to resume bilateral talks. Why are we the only ones not doing this? When you're trying to make a deal, there are certain things that are better said between two parties rather than six. It's that simple. They also have a more immediate concern in the situation seeing as they are all in close vicinity to NK. Is having formal bilateral talks with NK really going to make that much of a difference than what we are doing right now? We're already heavily involved and we've got a lot of other issues on our plates right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I guess even though Lehrer was trying to clarify the positions there, it didn't really happen. I think it's pretty clear though that Kerry still wants China at the table, which means continued multilateral talks. Correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the North Koreans start their most serious weapons programs after we walked away from bilateral talks? I don't think it's an issue of credibility so much as an issue of losing face for the North Koreans. If we give them the impression that we don't want to listen to them, they're not going to listen to us. If we got burned on the last deal, the third-grade solution is to cover your ears and refuse to talk. We need to keep talking, we just can't give them the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I'm sorry to do this, but as a few people around here might be aware, I'm going to be incredibly busy this weekend and won't be around to post, so this is going to seem like a post and run, sorry about that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3705948.stm But US Secretary of State Colin Powell stressed on Thursday - after talks with his Chinese counterpart - that Washington was still committed to this mechanism."I'm quite confident that the six-part framework is a framework in which this matter will be dealt with for the foreseeable future, because it serves the interests of all parties," Mr Powell said. He said that North Korea's neighbours in particular had "an even greater equity in seeing a denuclearised peninsula than does the United States". Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, standing at his side, said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 You are incorrect. We walked away from the talks BECAUSE they were developing the weapons they promised not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Riggotoni Simple: NK absolutely needs China to survive. Korea's entire economy comes from Chinese handouts, and without such handouts, they can't pay for their military either. If China says jump, Kim Jong-Il says "How high?" If the US threatens to allow Japan, Taiwan and South Korea to develop nuclear arsenals to defend themselves against NK, this would disturb China greatly. So the US can squeeze China into squeezing NK. It's the most effective strategy. That sounds like the best possible approach. I would be open to bilateral talks, but coming from a pressured position of strength as opposed to appeasement. I thought NK wanted some trade concessions and ending sanctions in return for dropping its nukes ... if (and it is obviously IF) that is the case, that is not too unreasonable. But this guy is a total nutcase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 It scares me that kerry wants bi-lateral talks. Clearly he wants the multi-lateral talks to shield from what he is planning on doing in the bi-lateral ones. He has already said many times that we should go back to paying them into not making MDS like Clinton tried to do (it failed). Now he obviously wants to be able to pretend to work with other countries and act as if the pressure of the other countries is what will get an agreement made, when it will truly be him and the US paying off the North Koreans once again. But this will not work, because like they did with Saddam (when he paid them for nuke materials which they never gave him) they will take the money or whatever we trade them and use it to build more weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.