It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


FOREIGN: North Korea and the Bilateral Approach

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 11:54 AM
Unsure of whether or not this has already become culprit of fading interests, I have chosen to revive this seemingly very critical question. The evidence for North Koreas refusal to follow stipulations enforced in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is clear. However, the decision that one of our soon-to-be-elected Presidents shall make will ultimately represent the way we handle potentially imminent threats in the future.

John Kerry made his opinion on this matter clear before the debate.

The mere fact that we are even contemplating a nuclear weapons test by North Korea highlights a massive national security failure by President Bush. During his administration, North Korea has advanced its nuclear program and a potential route to a nuclear 9/11 is clearly visible. North Koreas nuclear program is well ahead of what Saddam Hussein was even suspected of doing yet the president took his eye off the ball, wrongly ignoring this growing danger. What is unfolding in North Korea is exactly the kind of disaster that it is an American presidents solemn duty to prevent.


Of course, after the debate we learned of his approach. He plans on taking his former fellow party members plan of action and initiate a bilateral approach. For those confused as to what this means, it can be summed up by simply saying that under the Clinton administration, the United States sought to carry alone the full weight of negotiations with North Korea, indirectly representing the international community and allies such as Japan and South Korea; allies whose security interests were directly at stake.

Bush has also made his opinion clear on the matter...

Bush also declared that Kerry's idea for bilateral negotiation between the U.S. and North Korea is a bad idea, asserting, "It failed once, it will fail again." The Clinton administration undertook the bilateral approach, which Bush expanded to include China and other neighbors of North Korea.


The issue is at hand - The resolution undecided. Some squabble over the inconsistencies in reports...

On Thursday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said North Korea possessed "four to seven" nuclear weapons.

But Charles Kartman - executive director of the New York-based Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, or KEDO - said North Korea may have only a single nuclear weapon and there is no proof that it has actually produced any.


Regardless...action must be taken...

In Seoul, former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, said North Korea must give up its nuclear weapons development and the United States should guarantee the North's security.


Kerrys plan is as murky as Bushs, although both voice that a potential threat does loom...For the sake of argument, however, both disagree on how to approach this issue. Clearly bi-partisanship is needed to solve this before it escalates into an uncontrollable situation...So I ask my fellow ATS members to answer the campaign issues that the candidates are not answering!

[edit on 10/5/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:53 PM
I'm with you on this one Enron.

NK is a very pressing issue that is not getting enough attention.

I have been posting on North Korea for tha last couple of days but no one seems interested. For more information on why both candidates have the wrong approach see my post The Korean Issue.

There is lots of analysis and information in the links provided.

I'm hopping the lack of responses is because people are busy reading all of the information
but I'm not holding my breath.

edit: can't spell today!

[edit on 10/5/2004 by Gools]

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:57 PM
Ah...I didn't see that thread...I've posted a comment there

It surprises me as well that this issue has remained realtively untouched...I hope others will add their opinons - this issue is of a country PROVEN to have WMDs...not of a country where we've invaded and destroyed and merely come up with cookie crumbs...

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:00 PM
I am not sure I agree with Kerry on the Issue of Bi-Lateral talks. I would agree with Bush (a rarity) that having the leverage of the sourounding neighbor nations in turning up the heat on NK would be better than just bi-lateral talks with only ourselves. The Chinese can put pressure on NK, as can the Japanese and the South Koreans. Ii's interesting that NK is eager for Bi-Lateral talks only, it makes one wonder what on earth is up.

I think the world needs to push North Korea and keep the heat on. I dont think we alone would be effective enough in dealing with them. They need to know it is not just the US that wants them disarming, but many other nations as well.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 05:39 PM
The question has to be asked - what was gained by bilateral talks in the past?

The Clinton administration tried this and entered into an agreement where they would pay extortion monies to NK and they would quit seeking plutonium. This plan fell through once it was discovered that NK were enriching uranium instead. NK lied - who'd thunk it?

Kerry's plan to enter into these bilateral talks again has disaster written all over it. What's the old saying - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...well you get the picture. The fact that NK is actually receptive to Kerry's offer speaks volumes.

My fear is that if Kerry's plan is implemented North Korea will immediately withdraw from multi-nation talks and we'll be left holding the bag. At the very least shouldn't those countries - Japan, South Korea, China, etc. - who are directly affected by NK nuclear program be active participants in talks?

Links to the NK issue:
Washington Post

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 03:05 AM
A bilateral approach would be destructive to allies like Japan and South Korea who have just as much valid interest in the matter. Of course, Kerry wouldn't care about that.

He wants bilateral talks with North Korea, but didn't want that with Iraq.

Wishy-washy-flip-flop liberal socialist dirt rag.

posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 03:30 PM
The reason NK was ignored while teh Iraq thing was taking place was because the chinese have had them on a leash. THe NK situation is a completely different situation then the saddam situation. .Yes NK does support terrorist but in an indirect way. Saddam was paying for terrorist. The NK nuke threat isnt that great due to the fact they cant deliver one here to the US and secondly they really havent made the same bold statements saddam had. Dont approach this threat the same way we approached the iraq threat cause like i said before they are way different.

Also bilateral talks would be useless adn stupid. First NK says no bilateral talks. And we need china,japan, and SK to all have an influence on this thing. China controls them, Japan wont play around with em and will take em out if they do sometin stupid, and the SK dont want a war adn would rather have peace.

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 08:44 PM
Well for anyone who has seen Team America you will know that we should keep the film actors guild away from any talks with North Korea,

But on a serious note, the US should seek multi-nation talks to contain NK. The only viable option on NK is containment.

Accepting NK for what it is would just be giving in which is what Kim Jong-Il wants. An invasion would only lead to disaster.

Meaning that keeping the status quo is what is best. To keep the status quo multi-nation talks are probably the best thing.

top topics


log in