Who's got the better North Korea policy?

[Blue Rectangle]

The Bush administration fought long and hard to open multi-nation talks with North Korea.  Basically, North Korea has to face down China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and the US.  NK desperatly wanted to keep the issue between themselves and us.  Now Kerry thinks it would be a good idea to simply give them what they want and ask for nothing in return.  How is this good negotiation?  Oh wait, this is the same guy who advocated a quick concession in Vietnam and who pushed for unilateral nuclear force reductions during the Reagan administration.  See a pattern here?  I find this revelation far scarier than any statement Kerry has made about Iraq or terror.

I was hoping for Kerry to make a major mistake on his Iraq policy, but he left almost no opening for Bush.  This very well may be as important of a mistake, but will the voters care about North Korea this election?  Will the Bush team pick up this issue and run with it?

[Blue Rectangle]

 

Kerry is right about bilateral talks, but wrong for being willing to put the terms of the 1953 armistice back on the table.  He's giving away things North Korea hasn't even asked for.

How can Kerry be right about bilateral talks?  What do we gain by conceding that point?  I agree that bilateral talks could be held out as a bargaining chip, if we can get something substantial in return, but how Kerry's public concession strengthen our position?

Kerry just ensured that no meaningful talks can occur until after the election.  North Korea now sees that all they have to do is wait and maybe the US will choose a president that will give them what they wanted for free.

[Blue Rectangle]

The aid is not for practical reasons, the PRC has aided the DPRK for decades.  Its out of legitmate friendship.

The bilateral talks failed because Clinton signed a bad deal, not becuase they were destined to fail.  A better foreign policy team could have gotten it done.  In any case, all we should hope for is a holding measure.  The final solution will be to bring about the collapse of the DPRK from within.  We just need to hold them off for a while.

I think the relationship was friendship 30 years ago, but now it is out of necessity.  China has evolved, North Korea has not.  I'm sure some of the old guard in China still like NK, but most of the leaders probably see it as a dangerous burden.

Bilateral talks could lead to "progress" and six-way talks will not--I think we agree there.  I also agree that "holding them off" is a good strategy for the time being.  I am not sure that any progress we could make in bilateral talks would benefit us.

Perhaps if we suggest to China that a nuclear Korea is a threat to our economic investments in the area (i.e. we may "re-examine" our trade status with China) then maybe we could prod China into putting more pressure on North Korea.