Gotta say I’m grateful that the U.S. and North Korea are moving toward multilateral talks on the nukes. Though the 1994 deal crumbled, I’m pretty much convinced that engaging the North Koreans is - as one sage said - the “least worst option.”
A few questions to pose to the Dopers, because I’m woefully ignorant on the North Korean issue and I’d like some other perspectives:
What’s the reason for the North Korean tilt towards multilateral talks?
(Sounds to me like the Chinese (and Russians) may be reading the riot act to Pyongyang if the North Koreans are actually agreeing to multilateral talks, considering how long Pyongyang held out for bilateral talks. Or, are they buckling to combined Sino/Russian diplomatic pressure AND American military pressure?)
What is gained (from a U.S. perspective) from holding multilateral talks as opposed to bilateral?
Can someone please explain to me why North Korea was so adamant about bilateral talks while the U.S. was so adamant for multilateral talks?
What (if any) diplomatic breakthrough can realistically be expected as a multilateral talks?
Chinese and Russian pressure certainly played a significant role. I don’t think that US military pressure played much of a role, largely because there hasn’t been much applied - the US is not significantly building up its forces in the theater, etc.
Not to downplay the role of the Chinese (especially) or the Russians, but IMO the single most significant factor was the fact that the US wasn’t budging on bilateral talks. The only way North Korea can gain anything in this situation is through talks, and if the choice is multilateral talks or no talks, the North Koreans were going to eventually have to accept multilateral talks.
The primary reason is simple - the US cannot engage/contain/confront N. Korea alone. North Korea has long been adept at playing off the US and its neighbors against each other, and only a unified front has a chance of forcing N. Korea to accept an enforceable deal. If you are involved in the negotiations, you are more likely to have a stake in enforcement, etc.
With a bilateral deal, the neighbors have the option of saying, “Hey, it’s not our deal. You [the US] enforce it.”
This, of course, is why N. Korea wanted bilateral talks (in addition to a desire for the prestige of getting the US to bend to their wishes). The US in negotiations with N. Korea alone is in a weaker position and less likely to get a good deal, or to be able to enforce it afterwards.
Dunno. The whole matter is going to come down to whether the North Koreans will accept a deal that is actually verifiable and enforceable. A truly verifiable deal is going to require a large number of very instrusive weapons inspections, and the North Koreans are not going to like that.