Why would "Bilateral" talks be better with NK

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Start with the general principle that decision by committee is painfully inefficient.

I would also add that attempting to negotiate with several different countries, all of whom have different goals and concerns, has got to be difficult at best. I'm not a diplomatic expert or anything, but I would think China wants a different situation in Korea than we do...China may be our trading partner, but I think it's a little bit of a stretch to say we can totally trust them in a situation like this. Bilateral talks would seem to have a better chance of resolving OUR problems without complicating things.

However, since I admit other nations have a vested interest here too...having JUST bilateral talks is inviting the same kind of response we got from our unilateral invasion of Iraq. I think we need to involve everyone...so I'm not sure I'd say bilateral talks are "better", but I can see what they bring to the table.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I think people are having trouble grasping the concept of bilateral talks. It's when two sides sit down and talk. Multilateral would be when multiple sides sit down and talk.

In this current case with NK, we have two ideas being furthered. Bilateral and multilateral. Why would would bilateral be better?

I don't care if kerry wants to claim he's for both bilateral and multilateral - the question is why bilateral would be better(which logic dictates would be "better" if someone supports doing it - it doesn't however exclude mutli with that logic). I think you people are trying to preemptively defend kerry's stances on this - don't. This is a simple question.

Why would bilateral talks be better with NK than multilateral? Would there something else discussed? I don't see what wouldn't be discussed in multi that would be in bilateral.

CsG

Well, I relent, and add one more last thing

The prinicipal parties here are the US and NK. Others are involved due to proximity, however it is the US which is determined to get nukes from NK. NK for reasons unclear wish to rattle the US.

If you recall there were "multilateral" and "bilateral" talks in the Cuban missle crisis. In this case the official channels were through the UN which is about as multilateral as it gets. Bobby Kennedy and others quietly conducted talks and reached agreements with the USSR to diffuse the situation. Here the larger group provided pressure in one form, while the meat and potatoes details were worked out by US/USSR talks. They were both effective in getting us out of a nuclear war.

What would the US and NK have to say privately? I have no idea, but I am glad we did not rule out the option in the early 60's

 

[Genx87]

I think bilateral talks could be better if you have two parties who are willing to negotiate. It is painfully obvious N Korea wants to have their cake and eat it to. So in this instance Bilateral imo would be a waste of time.

 

[Jeff7181]

Korea is right on China's doorstep. If Korea develops nuclear weapons, they're a big threat to China. North Korea isn't going to listen to us alone... but if nations like China step in also and pressure NK to abandon their nuclear projects NK will be more likely to comply because NK knows that China has no problem squashing them if they become a major threat. If we go in there alone and try to get NK to stop their nuclear projects, it's going to look like we're bullying them. We NEED China and other countries on our side for this. NK will not listen to just the USA, because if they don't comply, and we end up having to use force again to ensure our safety and the safety of other countries, we're the bad guy and other countries will step up against the US.

In addition, if we chose bilateral and don't include China... that's like thumbing our nose at China saying go fork yourself, we don't want your help. That's not the message we want to send.