Monday, October 04, 2004

A Note of Dissent

I was surprised by how many people on this blog think that bilateral talks are the answer to everything. Personally, I can't comprehend how acquiescing to Kim Jong Il's demands will accomplish anything other than giving Kim the impression that he has the upper-hand. And the assertion that bilateral talks would aid multi-party talks seems (to me at least) utterly ridiculous. Once you engage on Kim one-on-one, he will not hear of multilateral discussions. He will have us right where he wants us. There is no reason why Kim shouldn't submit to our reasonable offer (along with China, Japan, Russia, etc.) of multi-party talks.

On this issue I definitely agree with Mr. Bush's position. That is not to say that I agree with Bush or Sen. Kerry all of the time. (I don't particularly like either of them.)

1 comment:

Mike Borrelli said...

I don't understand this at all: "Once you engage on Kim one-on-one, he will not hear of multilateral discussions. He will have us right where he wants us."

This makes it seem as though once we say that we'll talk directly to the DPRK that we can never, from then on out, say, "We need to get the others involved now," and just leave if his regiem insists upon only bilateral talks. We're the bigger nation here and, let's be honest, if there is any intimidation to be done, it's by the US, not him, no matter how big and bold he thinks he is.

If we say that we don't want to talk, we don't have to. If he says he doesn't want to talk, we quietly meet with China and they might discover some more "technical issues" with the oil pipelines to the DPRK.