As for the 6 party vs bilateral discussion, I’ve already written why I think it makes no difference, but you repeat the same points that everyone on this planet already knows. Your essential point is, not only is it unfair for US to “solve” this alone, it’s unrealistic to expect US to “solve” it without other interested parties involved. My point has been that this Bush stance doesn’t make any sense because either the chairs are 2 or 6, China and ROK doesn’t yield to US hardline stance. I can only see two things it accomplishes. 1: destroy relations with the China and ROK. 2: wastes time for DPRK, in the hope it collapses in the intervening time.

I want to point out to you that US conservatives have been bashing at China for months asking for them to stop oil. The news that China did exactly that in September seems to be a message from Hu Jin Tao to W Bush–”Hey, I did exactly what you wanted me to do to get this f*9ker back to 6 party table and he popped the bomb. Now what?”

It’s always possible for Bolton to sit on a 2 chair table and not give concessions to DPRK as opposed to not sit on any table and not give concessions to DPRK. Only difference in sitting and not sitting is that it makes it seem like US is doing something as oppose to nothing–although in reality nothing is being done. This sort of dancing around might make things go a bit more smoothly with China and ROK.

And of course, you are going to go, “oh why should we do anything to make go smoothly with China and ROK when they are f*9kers too?” That’s where our dialogue ends, because I think at least trying diplomacy is better than no diplomacy.

I wasn’t saying you were pro-Roh. I was saying that you gave Roh and crews claims way to much play in imagining that Bush lied to them. I didn’t even suggest that your anti-Bush thinking was causing you to miss the point, but it might be.

My point was that is much easier to picture Roh and crew’s comments not making sense. What they claimed the US was ready to do is out of character with what they have shown. It is much easier to picture Roh and crew making a moutain out of a mole hill in order to justify their righteous indigation and to justify not trying to coordinate policy with the US “again” since they were “lied to” the first time.

And there is an important point to making the talks 6 Party which I stated before but you didn’t seem to hit on. To make any deals worth having, it cannot be just the US and NK cutting the deals. It must include all the concerned players including Japan.

There must be a clear idea of what China and SK in particular are going to do if the North breaks yet another deal.

And having to sign their own names on the dotted lines of such an agreement is not something Seoul will even contemplate and China has been resisting. They do not want to commit themselves to making NK pay for breaking any future deal. So of course they want to cut their responsibility and call for 1-on-1 talks.

Time for the U.S. to stop playing earnest boy scout here and start with some cynical diplomacy. What’s that? Well, to announce “bilateral talks” with North Korea, then to meet them and have the U.S. negotiator spend 3 hours yawning and looking at his watch, and agreeing to nothing. After, it can be announced the talks were “pointless”. Moronic criticism defused. Repeat as necessary.

Thanks for that. If that indeed is the “Ukrainian model” it doesn’t seem as appropriate as the Libyan one. The Ukraine was not an isolated land and had legit ICBMs w/ legit megaton warheads. Libya was an isolated land and was suspected of pursuing a nuclear program–later confirmed when Khaddaffi took the deal and the Pakistani role was revealed/confirmed.

When I write that Roh is crazy for demanding a “security guarantee” you and I are seeing eye to eye here. We are in full agreement. Just because I’m anti-Bush doesn’t make me pro-Roh.

Also, I don’t think I’ve ever missed the point about KJI kickin’ ROK in the ‘nads. My anti-Bush stance does not equate to pro-Roh stance. Enough blame can be attributed to all.

As for the 6 party, your point isn’t so different from Bush’s point–which is that 6 party is to prevent the mentality of “US must do everything”. And my point was that that seems like the mentality held by ROK and China already, so regardless of sitting down on a 6 chaired table or 2 chaired table, the response from ROK and CHina is the same. So then why insist on 6 party? It really doesn’t matter anymore. My guess is maybe Bush came to the same conclusion as Clinton–wait it out till DPRK implodes on it’s own.

For what it’s worth, the U.S. did give North Korea security guarantees a bit later, last 19 September, via the Joint Statement of the Fourth Round of the Six-Party Talks (DOC);

The United States affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or conventional weapons.

[...]

The DPRK and the United States undertook to respect each other’s sovereignty, exist peacefully together, and take steps to normalize their relations subject to their respective bilateral policies.

Which North Korea promptly pissed away (DOC). Ball was and still is in their court.

Whatever ‘models’ suggested are pure fantasy. It’s clear to any thinking person that North Korea wants to remain a nuclear power, and have refused every chance to come out of this the better.

You missed the point(s).

“The crazy thing about Roh is that, what kind of “security guarantee” can the United States POSSIBLY give to DRPK? A piece of paper that has the word “peace” and has Bush’s signature on it?”

That is why the Roh crew crying foul is ludicrious. What they are claiming was a promise has to be interpreted from the Roh point of view to mean that.

Think of it like this: it is similar to how the last Korean king decided that the “good offices” clause in the treaty with the US was a de facto security agreement - and when the US did not come to Korea’s aid against the Japanese colonization, it was a huge betrayal. You hear Koreans of all stripes saying this, but it doesn’t make it so.

It seems to me from what was quoted, Roh decided to take what was not really any statement outside the lines of what Bush and crew have said over the years with this second nuke crisis and spin it into a treaty to do what he wanted (Roh that is) when it came to appeasing the North.

And you also missed the point that NK has routinely kicked both Roh and South Korea in the balls the last couple of years - truly embarrassing them over the Sunshine policy and doing NOTHING to help Uri party’s chances to gain favor among voters, like throwing them a bone, or at least not rubbing SK’s nose in shit by acting up to gain attention by the international community which would make SK’s appeasement an embarassment.

Then “So why not 6 party? Only Bush knows why.”

That only works if you want to ignore things too.

The drive behind making it 6 Party Talks is so it does not boil down to a “US must do this” situation. It is meant to place all the major players who have a stake in what is going on in North East Asian at the table. It is meant to make sure South Korea and China (and Japan) sign on with whatever agreement might be made — so when North Korea breaks it again, the US can say China and SK have to do something about it since they were at the table from the start.

engagement at this point looks hopeless. We put more thought and care in training our dogs than in forming a policy of sticks and carrots towards the DPRK. Let’s review how each of the 5 nations acted towards KJI since 1994.

1. ROK- Simple appeasement regardless of actions from the DPRK. This is neccessary to “prove” that ROK isn’t taking a hostile turn, and hopefully stopping war. Sometimes they stop sending rice to show displeasure. All carrot approach

2. China- follow ROK example, but give a bit more. Sometimes they cut off oil to get them to talk. Initially the lifetime, but recently getting sick of footing the bill. Now willing to give enough to keep DPRK from falling apart. All carrot approach

3. US- Clinton to Bush. From one end to the other. DPRK has seen the face of heaven and hell. Unfortunately, the transition in change of policy was not really related to “bad” behaviro on DPRK, because DPRK is perpetually in “bad” behavior. Really, you didn’t know DPRK was doing something naughty while they had their plutonium piled up? Since then, in perpetual argument with DPRK over the issue of the shape of the table. Does not belive in the feasibility of engagement, so does not bother with talks. All stick approach

4. Japan- Initially one of the greatest benefactor to DPRK giving them untold amount of rice. Then one day KJI saw the light and do something that he has never done in his lifetime–which is to tell the truth and admit he kidnaps people. Japan decides to respond by taking punitive measures. All stick approach

5. Russia- Putin says, “Not my problem.” So why does he let KJI visit tank factories? No approach

6. DPRK- The real culprit. Regardless of what we do, destined to explode or implode. World is hoping that it implodes rather than explode.