Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

U.S. willing to hold direct talks with North Korea

World Aug. 10, 2009 - 02:49AM JST ( 19 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

19 Comments

0

SuperLibAug. 10, 2009 - 07:53AM JST

Eh, this won't change much. Just hold bilateral talks and be done with it.
0

OssanAmericaAug. 10, 2009 - 08:02AM JST

It would be foolish to hold bilateral talks with NKorea without it being within the framework of the 6-party talks. If it were strictly NKorea and the United States, the NKoreans would pull their usual games and we would lose face in front of the entire world and react to it in the typical American way and bomb them to oblivion to straighten out their attitude. For this reason the other members prefer that it all be conducted within the parameters of the 6-party talks.
0

SushiSake3Aug. 10, 2009 - 08:35AM JST

Let's face it - the 6-way talks failed to produce anything constructive except more missile tests and beligerence from NK.

Japan was only included in the talks out of politeness and America's unwillingness to upset a major trading partner.

A new way is necessary and mayby bilateral talks is an option.
0

SuperLibAug. 10, 2009 - 08:42AM JST

It's an option because even if it fails it takes one more option for North Korea off of the table. And nothing else has worked, so why not give it a try. I agree that the 6-party talks are better since a solution involves all 6 parties plus NK, but I just don't think NK is going to do it. They've painted themselves into that corner and there's no way out now.
0

FarmboyAug. 10, 2009 - 10:04AM JST

I think it's a slap in the face to the other parties in the talks, and that it was a direct result of a deal for the journalists.

That said, it's not like things are going well as they are, so trying something different isn't so terrible.
0

biglittlemanAug. 10, 2009 - 10:40AM JST

Why do they only want to talk the US? Because they give them things to shut up and be quiet. They don't get anything from the other nations. They only want to talk to their sugar daddy (US) but the US is trying to break up with them and they don't get the message. That is why the 6 way talks are so important because the US wants to cut them loose. The paying NK off hasn't worked and they don't want to change their ways. Let someone else take care babysit NK.

I hope the US does the same to Israel as well. Cut them off.
0

OssanAmericaAug. 10, 2009 - 11:11AM JST

Japan was only included in the talks out of politeness and America's >unwillingness to upset a major trading partner.

Yes the politeness of the United States, China, Russia, and SKorea, ALL of whom have extensive economic relations with Japan, and without whose financial help no unification of the Korean penninsula could ever be achieved should it ever come to that.
0

bobbafettAug. 10, 2009 - 11:34AM JST

direct talks is much better. The arrogant U.S has had its "we are too good to deal with you directly" time and its done no good. the U.S should humble itself before North Korea and repent for its atrocious and arrogant snobbery.
0

smithinjapanAug. 10, 2009 - 01:39PM JST

Ossan: " If it were strictly NKorea and the United States, the NKoreans would pull their usual games and we would lose face in front of the entire world and react to it in the typical American way and bomb them to oblivion to straighten out their attitude"

Wow, NOW who's the one talking (or panicking, if we use your words) about war. Oh, heh, not to worry though, "China won't allow it". And lest we forget, the US is more or less dependent on China now for a whole lot (economically), so what China says, goes, I'm afraid.

I do agree that they should return to the six-party talks (NK), but it has to be on condition that the talks will be limited SOLELY to nuclear disarmament; ie. no Japan insisting that it be about the abduction issue.

In the meantime there is nothing wrong with direct talks. The six-nation talks have clearly failed, and perhaps this will help things. This could even be the segue-way back into the six-nation talks (or five, if Japan is excluded), as I'm sure once things started progressing with the US at the very least SK and China would be invited back to the table. Japan can be included later, when the real work is done and simply money is needed. And who knows, at that point they may be willing to work on the bilateral issue of abduction.

Anyway, glad to hear NK is opening up a little after Clinton's hard work. I agree not much MIGHT come of it, but better than the alternative bombast and weapons testing, etc.
0

KwaabishAug. 10, 2009 - 03:16PM JST

Like NK can be trusted to follow through on anything no matter who or how many are in discussions??
0

tunginchekeAug. 10, 2009 - 03:28PM JST

The two governments should make some major break throughs, they have a lot in common these days.
0

tclhAug. 10, 2009 - 03:38PM JST

NK is probably confident now that it can make a good use of US alone instead of talking to other 4 useless nations. But who know ? Obama may have somehing to surprise Kim in the end. Quite interesting time ahead.
0

smithinjapanAug. 10, 2009 - 04:09PM JST

tclh: China and SK are not useless in the talks.
0

tclhAug. 10, 2009 - 04:45PM JST

useless: by talking to NK one on one ( which Kim always wanted), NK makes other 4 nations look useless.
0

smithinjapanAug. 10, 2009 - 05:38PM JST

tclh: I understand what you are driving at. My point is just that two of the four are not actually useless. One is remotely useful, and Japan, sadly, is not. Well, not useful until the REAL problems are solved and everyone needs money, that is.
0

apecNetworksAug. 10, 2009 - 05:49PM JST

It is the six parties talk that can insure a lasting nuclear disarmament. DPRK would have an opening to economic development besides arms sales. The Talks broke down due to the method of verifying disarmament, so it is possible to strike a compromise. Japan can still hold abduction discussions on the sidelines w/ the DPRK. The 6parties talk can change the stability of the region for an extended period IF the conditions benefits all parties. A bilateral agreement between the US and the DPRK could be struck as an interim compromise, the 6parties talks would last longer and can handle any problems which may arise after the accord.
0

hworta269Aug. 10, 2009 - 07:14PM JST

Clinton allready tried bilateral talks the result was a NK atomic bomb. People seem to forget that.
0

ca1ic0catAug. 10, 2009 - 08:49PM JST

Giving in to the dictator's demands while abandoning allies to do so? This is why Japan needs it's own nuclear deterrant. Japan can not count on the US any more. The Chinese own the US and the US is going to roll over for the dear little pipsqueak. Peace in our time indeed.
0

SuperLibAug. 11, 2009 - 08:40AM JST

Kwaabish: Like NK can be trusted to follow through on anything no matter who or how many are in discussions??

That is the crux of the problem, isn't it?

apecNetworks: A bilateral agreement between the US and the DPRK could be struck as an interim compromise, the 6parties talks would last longer and can handle any problems which may arise after the accord.

While I support the bilateral talks, I can also see it as being used to either ignore the concerns the other countries have or NK threatening to abandon their agreements with the US if the other countries don't agree to NK's terms. Establishing an agreement with the US could be used as leverage over other countries.

smithinjapan: US is more or less dependent on China now

And China is more of less dependent on the US consumer now. At some point in the future you're going to have to sit down and read something about the relationship instead of saying things that you like hearing.