It was either Dan Rather or Joe Biden who pointed out after the debate that China has asked the U.S. to take on a larger role in the negotiations with North Korea. So China wouldn’t be “out of the loop”.
With respect to the OP, I thouight it was made pretty clear that Kerry favored bi-lateral and multi-lateral talks while Bush only wanted multi-lateral talks. Jim Lehrer even paused the debate to make sure that he was hearing it right, and the candidates agreed.
As one who was uneducated on the bi/multi-lateral talk issue, I will say that Bush didn’t make a very strong argument as to why talking to North Korea was a bad thing.
So is it Brutus and Sam Stone’s position that China doesn’t care about North Korean nuclear weapons or that China will run off in a snit if we have bilateral talks? If as the president suggests that North Korea will bail on six-party talks (given bilateral talks) I would think that such a move would give China every incentive to lean heavily on North Korea. Googling a bit it seems the Chinese consider most of the issues having to be resolved between the DPRK and the US (perhaps with China as a broker), while the Bush administration wants the six party talks to be China, Russia, South Korea and Japan backing up the US.
Some PRC links somewhat backing up what I said:
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/t160214.htm
(the previous week a similar answer was given)
Hmm…good points made here. I’ll hold off on any judgements until I find out more about what is exactly happening.
Just to clarify, what had me confused was Kerry insisting (it sounded like) on handling NK one-on-one, while Bush seemed to say that it was best for China, et al to have a greater role in dealing with NK. That leads me to look at the 2 plans this way:
Kerry: Negotiate with NK through direct talks and dangle the carrots of economic and humanitarian aid to get mentally-Il to drop the nuke program. (The reason I’m resistant to this is it didn’t work when Clinton tried to deal with this psycho in the same manner)
Bush: Allow China and Russia to deal with a threat in their backyards in a way (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) that the US would never be able to pull off. Can’t see the US sanctioning either country for taking Il out. Hell, it’ll most likely earn them some sweetheart deals as a thanks. (The problem with this is Russia absorbing NK into the country, though that would still be an improvement.)
So, there it is. Any more clarification will be offered if asked for.
Oh, and I have to give kudos to everyone for not turning this into a flame war. Yet.
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.
Bush missed a major opportunity by not recognizing the irony of Kerry criticizing him for acting unilaterally in Iraq while proposing to do the same thing with North Korea.
If ever there was a pretty clear cut illustration of power in numbers, it’s in NK. We are hardly “outsourcing” our national security to China by acting multilaterally and I would imagine none of you really believe that this is really the case. Why do you think that NK wants to deal with the US alone in the first place?
The real problem with respect to North Korea is that Bush refused to act without multilateral talks. NK announced that they were working to develop nuclear missiles. Bush said, “Aha, Clinton’s policy failed.” Then he refused to talk to NK. NK said “We’re going to kick out the inspectors and remove the cameras.” Bush refused to act. NK ensured that they backed the trucks up and broke the seal on the containment facilities when the sun was out and our satellites could get nice clear pictures. Bush said, “We won’t talk to NK. China and South Korea have to.”
At every step of the way, NK has been jumping up and down trying to get our attention and telling us exactly what they were going to do. At every step of the way, Bush failed to intervene, deferring to multilateral talks and specifically excluding the possibility of the US engaging NK directly.
This is the polar opposite of his strategy vis a vis Iraq. The results: No change in Iraqi WMD status, since they had none, and, by all accounts, a net increase in NK nuclear weapons.
I would have preferred a president that would have tried anything to prevent NK from developing weapons, even if that included sitting down face to face with them. Bush failed.
Bush: “Aha! See? It’s exactly what Kim Jong Il wants!”
And he’s right. North Korea has a history of negotiation through belligerance. That is what North Korea wants. 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.
Take China out of the picture, and North Korea reverts to threats and brinksmanship. And all the U.S. can offer is a security guarantee, which ensures more belligerance in the future.
China is the key to North Korea.
What we’re doing right now isn’t working. That, to me, seems to be the key.
That said, I think Bush won this point by obfuscating what Kerry was saying. This, and the whole “Global Test,” were IMO the strongest points Bush scored during the debate. I have no freakin’ idea what Kerry was thinking with the “Global Test” business, except for (half a second after the words came out of his mouth), “Aw, crap.”
Daniel
Can’t really argue with you there, Sam.
But I’m pessimistic that even China can influence NK for any length of time. They’re just not approaching their position rationally. For real change to occur that society is likely going to have to completely implode.
How does one take China out of the picture? Erasers? Nukes? Photoshop?
Cut the pages out of your encyclopedia and tape in the provided article on Chia Pets.
I like how Sam seems to think that Kerry’s plan is to cut China out of the picture w/r/t North Korea. Of course, that’s not true at all, as this statement from Kerry’s web site ought to make perfectly clear:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0601b.pdf (see page 3)
And don’t miss Kerry’s op-ed piece from last year, originally in the Washington Post:
Does anybody have a clear recollection of the timeline of the actions of North Korea, bilateral breakdowns in talks, progress of the group talks including China and Bush’s “axis of evil” reference in the state of the union?
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.
Granted, Bush distorted Kerry’s position is such a way that I can see how you would have been misled.
To those who think we should “engage in both:” Why do you think NK would prefer that discussions be unilateral with US?
I’m not sure why there’s this confusion over what Kerry’s position regarding the talks in North Korea. Jim Lehrer even stopped the debate to ask and Kerry responded that he wanted both, as in both unilateral talks and the current talks. After that it was Bush saying that China would leave, and Kerry saying there was no reason to think that.
I agree that China should be used to leverage North Korea. However, I can’t understand why people think China would up and leave (and Bush implied that the rest of the countries would as well, although obviously China is the really important one) if we talked to North Korea ourselves.