# Did Kerry blow it on the "allies" front? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979 "2004-10-01T02:40:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/41 "2004-10-01T15:52:34Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > To those who think we should “engage in both:” Why do you think NK would prefer that discussions be unilateral with US? Because right now NK is not involved at all. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/42 "2004-10-01T15:58:47Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Because right now NK is not involved at all. I’m not sure you understood my question. Either that or I don’t understand your answer. I’am asking why do you think NK would prefer to deal just with us rather than a coalition? ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/43 "2004-10-01T16:01:12Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > The biggest reason for the break down between the US and NK was the death of Kim’s father who had started to get a little more realistic picture of NK. Lil Kim wants to try and remain isolationist, but NK can’t sustain itself. With China seen as the only really acceptable nation to deal with they do hold great influence. I think Bush is concerned about the PRC feeling snubbed if he tries to hold bilaterla negotiations with NK. The Chinese often get all pissy when they don’t think other nations are treating them as one of the ‘big boys’. I don’t know if that’s a real possibility in this case, but it’s something that should be considered. Thanks for the info, **kidchameleon**. I can kind of see what you mean by PRC maybe feeling “snubbed”, but - as other posters have mentioned - even during bilateral talks, it’s not like China isn’t going to come into the equation. > [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > To those who think we should “engage in both:” Why do you think NK would prefer that discussions be unilateral with US? [This kind of suggests to me that NK would prefer bilateral talks with the US.](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-02/26/content_309518.htm) > [@](#): > > **excerpt from the China Daily article:** > _The government in Pyongyang has long pushed for one-on-one talks but Washington has always insisted that contact must be in a multilateral setting._ LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/44 "2004-10-01T16:07:11Z")
I believe the thinking is that bilateral talks would be one an ego boost(talking like equals at the table across from the “only” superpower) and also allow NK to act more beligerent at the table (without local superpower China there). There might be some thinking that negotiations with the US are “at the top” and if they wrangle concessions out of the US other countries would follow. Having bilateral at the same time as mulitlateral allows N. Korea to shift focus to whichever negotiations are going better ATM. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/45 "2004-10-01T16:08:28Z")
**kidcharlemagne** , if I may, are you asking what folks think are NK’s **motives** for wanting bilateral talks? I suspect people think you’re asking what their **evidence** is for NK wanting bilateral talks. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/46 "2004-10-01T16:16:25Z")
Thanks, **LHoD** , for asking for the clarification. It probably is something that needs to be clarified. In any case, my post provides an answer to one of the interpretations, and **CarnalK** ’s post (immediately after mine) provides an answer to the other. LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/47 "2004-10-01T16:21:22Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Put China in the picture (North Korea’s sugar daddy), and suddenly North Korea can’t threaten them, and actually has a lot to lose. > > China is the key to North Korea. Says the guy who, at the time of the Hainan incident, was the most vociferous participant here about the \*threat \* to US security posed by China.Now loyally and unquestioningly supporting Bush requires that China be a US _ally_, not the US’s biggest _threat_. Gee, 9/11 changed _everything_, didn’t it? Look, talking is more effective than not talking, no matter who’s involved. Bush peremptorily decided not to talk to Kim anymore (with **Sam** ’s unqualified endorsement), and look what’s happened. Now he’s reversed field and wants to talk but a Coalition of the Willing involved (again with **Sam** ’s unqualified endorsement). ---
**Author:** ![audiobottle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc8723/32.png) [@audiobottle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audiobottle)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/48 "2004-10-01T16:59:09Z")
**CarnalK** , thanks for the explanation. But why would the two talks be necessarily completely separate? If the US is going to be involved in both one on one and in the group talks, it seems like the actual terms of the talks will be the same. I was getting the feeling that the DPRK just wants the US to talk to them directly, like we used to do. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/49 "2004-10-01T17:14:24Z")
What progress has been made towards bringing the DPRK? It seems to me, not much. Not talking doesn’t seem to be getting us anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/50 "2004-10-01T17:39:16Z")
I also doubt China’s ability to check Kim Jong Il. From NK’s perspective, China - a country that has spent centuries invading them, running them over, raping their women, conscripting their sons - are only slightly less evil than the Japanese (who did it the most recently). Sure they are communist comrades and currently friends, but I don’t think that’s enough to overcome centuries of them being a major threat to make them truly trust the Chinese. Especially when you throw in the paranoid egomanic running N Korea. (As to why Kim Jong Il would want unilateral talks with the US - the US is the worlds most powerful country. Not every national leader gets unilateral talks with us - only the most important ones. Kim Jong Il apparently has quite the ego to stroke. Somehow, I can’t shake the irrational suspicion that he is building nukes so he can have photos of himself shaking hands with every world leader of his lifetime.) ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/51 "2004-10-01T18:01:46Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Look, talking is more effective than not talking, no matter who’s involved. Bush peremptorily decided not to talk to Kim anymore (with **Sam** ’s unqualified endorsement), and look what’s happened. Now he’s reversed field and wants to talk but a Coalition of the Willing involved (again with **Sam** ’s unqualified endorsement). But this is not true. Not talking is sometimes more effective at getting _productive_ talks than simply meeting every day to talk. Look at the ongoing negotiations concerning the Korean war. Bush decided not to talk unilaterally with NK when they discovered that NK was cheating on its previous agreement. We had no way to enforce that agreement except to discontinue talks about further bribes. Bush insisted that any future talks include NKs neighbors. Any agreement including them could include provisions for sanctions which an agreemnt with the US alone could not. NK balked at the inclusion of others in the talks and began to engage in brinksmanship. A dangerous endevour, surely. But the fact of the matter is that NK was developing nukes without bothering about us before we stopped talking. Under the previous agreement, they were producing enriched uranium. Also, I need to address one other point. I don’t think the President implied that China would feel snubbed if it was not included in talks with NK. I think he was suggesting that NK would not treat any talks with China, Japan, SK and others as much much much less important than any simultaneous talks with the US. Basically he was saaying that unilateral talks take away focus from multilateral talks. **Dangerosa** I think you have a twisted view of NK - Chinese relations. Remember, it was the US who invaded them most recently, and the Chinese who came to their aid. It has been the Chinese sponsership which has allowed them to continue as a state. This is the reason why they do not want the Chinese on the other side of a table from them. They do not want the sort of sanctions the Chinese could bring to the table to even be at the table. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/52 "2004-10-01T18:10:54Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > So I’m watching the debate and a glaring inconsistency occurs. (There’s a surprise) > > Kerry first blasts Bush for not having any allies in the Iraq war, since we all know France and Germany are the only other countries on Earth. > > Then says he’ll use bi-lateral talks with Kim Jong mentally-Il to end their nuclear program. Bush counters this with the fact that right now it’s the US, Russia, South Korea, China and Japan all working together on it. Then Kerry later says again he’d use bi-lateral talks to handle the situation. Um, don’t those other 4 countries count as a coalition of allies? We’re now supposed to scrap these 4 Big Players to “go it alone”? > > For a guy so concerned about handling international threats by getting other nations to sign on to the plan, why is Kerry so insistant on abandoning 4 countries so he can handle NK all by himself? 4 countries that have a very real stake in this. Pure and unadulterated bullshit. I know at least one person who was watching Hannity and his ilk and swallow their misinformation, only to vomit it up on the board. > [@xtisme](#): > > Bush said that he will continue to support multi-national talks and that bi-lateral talks are a mistake. I agree with him there…it would be a mistake, and its also strange that Kerry would bush on Bush for NOT going multi-national on Iraq (where we were essentially bi-national ), then turn around and say he wants to drop the multi-national talks in favor of bi-lateral talks between the US and NK…wierd. Hey, look. Another one. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Bush is exactly right on his North Korea strategy, and Kerry is dead wrong. Well, it’s not actually John Kerry who you think may be wrong. It’s partisian idiots who put words in his mouth and deliberatelyl misinterpret what he says so that the unthinking masses can have some garbage to spew at the watercooler. China may or may not be absolutely necessary to negotiations, in fact, I would definitely prefer they were involved also. Kinda like what Kerry said, in fact, and not what other people said he said. > [@Brutus](#): > > Besides, what happened the last time we negotiated with North Korea? You remember, when Jimmy Carter announced that he struck a deal and Albright made her little trip? As I recall, that didn’t turn out so well. And how’s Bush’s plan working out. While Bush was president, North Korea developed a nuclear weapon program and may actually have nuclear weapons already created. On Bush’s watch. I honestly don’t know the solution to North Korea. Personally, I think multi-lateral negotiations are a positive step, but we should also not refuse bi-lateral discussions, as Bush has done. I just get sick and tired of the misinformation pumped out by certain people, both in the media and on this board. > [@duffer](#): > > So, there it is. Any more clarification will be offered if asked for. Do you admit to being misleading in your OP when you misstated Kerry’s position? Could you clarify that? > [@duffer](#): > > Oh, and I have to give kudos to everyone for not turning this into a flame war. Yet. It was a flame war when the OP misstated the debate. Transcript of Kerry’s statements: > [@John Kerry](#): > > While they didn‘t talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. > > That happened on this president‘s watch. > > Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of, reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send. > > 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.** _ ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/53 "2004-10-01T18:24:32Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Kerry first blasts Bush for not having any allies in the Iraq war, since we all know France and Germany are the only other countries on Earth. Dubya will call your “Old Europe” and raise you Poland. > [@pervert](#): > > But this is not true. Not talking is sometimes more effective at getting _productive_ talks than simply meeting every day to talk. Look at the ongoing negotiations concerning the Korean war. No. Both sides wanting something to happen is the necessary and sufficient condition for making it happen. When it was “time” for the Korean war to end, it ended. “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.” - Winston Churchill > [@](#): > > Bush decided not to talk unilaterally with NK when they discovered that NK was cheating on its previous agreement. We had no way to enforce that agreement except to discontinue talks about further bribes. Bush insisted that any future talks include NKs neighbors. Not exactly. [Timeline](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2604437.stm). He cut off talks on a \*suspicion \* that NK \*might \* be continuing its nuke program - and we know now what standard of evidence he requires. The 6-nation approach was a face-saving strategy to re-engage the US after Bush’s display of petulance, hardly a sign of Bush’s commitment to an internationalist approach to world affairs. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/54 "2004-10-01T19:34:16Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Bush is exactly right on his North Korea strategy, and Kerry is dead wrong. > > The reason you need China to deal with the problem is because China is the only country that has leverage on North Korea that doesn’t not involve military brinksmanship. China can cut trade. China can cut aid. China can do any number of things to influence North Korea that the U.S. can’t do. > … > China has the best chance of changing North Korea’s behaviour peacefully. Right now, it’s absolutely the best way to go. From the [CIA World FactBook entry on North Korea](http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html) > [@](#): > > Exports: > $1.044 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.) > Exports - commodities: > minerals, metallurgical products, manufactures (including armaments); textiles and fishery products > Exports - partners: > South Korea 28.5%, China 28.4%, Japan 24.7% (2002 est.) > > Imports: > $2.042 billion c.i.f. (2002 est.) > Imports - commodities: > petroleum, coking coal, machinery and equipment; textiles, grain > Imports - partners: > China 39.7%, Thailand 14.6%, Japan 11.2%, Germany 7.6%, South Korea 6.2% (2002 est.) > > Debt - external: > $12 billion (1996 est.) > > Economic aid - recipient: > $NA; note - over $133 million in food aid through the World Food Program in 2003 plus additional aid from bilateral donors and non-governmental organizations I’m not sure it is safe to say China is the alpha and the omega to dealing with North Korea. Certainly they are a large portion of it, nearly 40% of NK’s imports come from China. Still the facts above lead me to believe there are at least four players who could put effective non-military pressure on NK. First would be China. Second would be Japan, as a major marketplace for NK goods as well as a important import partner and a signigicant donor to the [World Food Program](http://www.wfp.org). [The Government of Japan gave a record donation of US$99.4 million for WFP’s emergency operation in the Democratic Republic of Korea](http://www.wfp.org/index.asp?section=1). This influence may be partially offset by any resentment towards the Japanese as conquers of NK in 1905, but should still be very significant. Thirdly would be Thailand, with the second largest share of the imports that NK relies so heavily on. Fourthly would be the UN itself, both as the parent of the WFP which feeds so many of the North Koreans, and as the body controlling the IAEA and numerous other organizations which could make life either better or worse for NK. This doesn’t mean the US has no non-military legs to stand on in bilateral talks however. The US is by far the [largest contributor to the WFP](http://www.wfp.org/img/aboutwfp/funding/contributions2003.jpg) and the carrot of an American marketplace or bilateral aid to help stem the terrible trade imbalance which is hindering NK should not be discounted. Plus, as Senator Kerry noted, there are a lot of points in the military realm which do not directly involve threats or shooting people. DMZ borders, weapon disposal, no fly zones, etc. Re-negotiating some or all of these points does not involve shooting people or threatening to and could ease NK’s life considerably. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/55 "2004-10-01T19:40:45Z")
I’m sorry, but this meme that Kerry’s stance on North Korea amounts to unilateralism, and is thus a contradiction of his desire for multinationalism in Iraq, is just utter bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/56 "2004-10-01T20:22:00Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **Sam** , I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the issue. Kerry is not advocating cutting China out of the picture, he’s advocating bringing NK _into_ the picture. I could have bilateral talks with the owner of the house I want to buy while still having talks involving the unilateral group of the buyers, sellers and their agents. My real estate agent would just be a _bit_ upset. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/57 "2004-10-01T20:44:01Z")
I’m not quite following your analogy, **kidchameleon**. Can you clarify? LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/58 "2004-10-01T21:12:44Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Pure and unadulterated bullshit. I know at least one person who was watching Hannity and his ilk and swallow their misinformation, only to vomit it up on the board. > > It was a flame war when the OP misstated the debate. ::sigh:: I guess there always has to be one. Read my second post where I made concessions to the Democrat view. While we’re at it, could you explain why Kerry seems to want both a multi-national group AND handle this by ourselves? [W.C.Fields] Go away kid, you bother me. [W.C. Fields/] ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/59 "2004-10-01T21:36:30Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > I’m not quite following your analogy, **kidchameleon**. Can you clarify? > > LilShieste Well, my real estate agent and a seller’s real estate agent make money off the sale. If they put us together, then we do an end around and agree to sell without the agents, they don’t get paid. Of course, China’s not going to get paid, but they could find it an insult to their honor if we leave them out of some of the discussions. Heck, Japan, Russia or RSK could claim a loss of face if they’re feeling really sensitive. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979/60 "2004-10-01T21:51:44Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No. Both sides wanting something to happen is the necessary and sufficient condition for making it happen. When it was “time” for the Korean war to end, it ended. > “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.” - Winston Churchill Agreed. But we are not talking about the choice between war and talk. We are talking about the difference between talking in a productive way and talking with no purpose at all. > [@](#): > > Not exactly. [Timeline](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2604437.stm). He cut off talks on a \*suspicion \* that NK \*might \* be continuing its nuke program - and we know now what standard of evidence he requires. Well, there seemed to be more than a suspicion acording to that article. > [@](#): > > The 6-nation approach was a face-saving strategy to re-engage the US after Bush’s display of petulance, hardly a sign of Bush’s commitment to an internationalist approach to world affairs. I’m not at all sure where you got this part. _The North adopts a mercurial stance, at one moment defiantly defending its “right” to weapons development and at the next offering to halt nuclear programmes in return for aid and the signing of a “non-aggression” pact with the US._" It seems to me that they wanted it both ways. They wanted to say that they were not breaking the 94 agreement and that they would also agree to stop breaking it in exchange for more aid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-kerry-blow-it-on-the-allies-front/266979.md?page=4)