The six party talks are the only game in town: Part Two

I hate writing the same thing over and over again, but I love to quote myself (go figure), so the bulk of this post will be a few things I've said in the past that are even more relevant now.

From News flash for John Kerry; unilaterally dealing with the Norks makes the six-party talks moot:

Here's a news flash; once you start unilaterally dealing with the Norks on the nuclear issue, you might as well tell the Russians, Chinese, Japanese and South Koreans to pack their bags and go home.

Throughout its almost 60-year history, North Korea has sought to exploit differences between regional powers it get its way. It was generally successful in playing Russia and China off of each other during the Cold War and obtained aid from both nations which allowed it to keep its leftist thugocracy going despite its glaring inefficiencies.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and North Korea's economy, the Norks needed a new teat on which to suck. Enter Bill Clinton. After making plans to strike North Korea (without consulting Seoul) over Pyongyang's nuclear program, Clinton reversed course and made a deal with the Norks in which the North Koreans would give up their nuclear program in exchange for aid from the US, South Korea and Japan. Two interesting notes on the agreement:
1. Japan and South Korea were told that they would be paying to build North Korean nuclear reactors after the US and North Korea made the deal.
2. Neither side kept its end of the bargain. In fact the North Koreans started working on their uranium-based program soon after the deal was signed. The US didn't deliver on its end of the deal either as promised fuel-oil shipments were constantly behind schedule.

So, if Kerry is elected this fall, we can expect another round of negotiations in which the US unilaterally cuts a deal with the Norks, another set of violations, then another deal, another set of violations, ad nauseum.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the US can cut a separate deal with North Korea that will lead to the permanent abandonment of Pyongyang's nuclear program and regional stability. But given the failure of the Agreed Framework almost from its beginning, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Please note that I said that way back on June 1, about four months before Bush said it in the debate.

Now, just in case you think I'm bashing Kerry's idea of going it alone on North Korea, you should know that I can also praise ideas from Democrats that I think are right-on. Just check out John Edwards gets it: John Kerry doesn't get it (March 2):

(T)he Agreed Framework was a fool's paradise...

I'll say it again here in case any of my half-dozen regular readers is confused: The Agreed Framework is dead. It did not solve the Nork nuclear problem. It only let it fester for a few years. The Agreed Framework is less than useless as a basis for future negotiations.

Also, unilaterally dealing with the Norks like Kerry wants to do will not result in a solution to the problems with Nork nukes. All of the regional players need to get on board for any deal to last more than a couple of years.

I will throw Kerry a bone however: I agree in trying to make a BIG DEAL on a broad range of economic and security issues. But his foreign policy handlers obviously haven't thought things through or they would have realized that a BIG DEAL requires all the regional players to participate and few will meekly swallow whatever comes out of bilateral discussions between the USA and North Korea (like South Korea and Japan did back in '94)...

Edwards is much more rational than Kerry. The current American policy is to work with the other regional players towards finding a solution. Edwards would change that to having the USA lead the other nations in the six-party talks towards a solution.

That view has merit. After all, the USA is the global hegemon and perhaps should take the leadership role in regional talks. However, I think it might be difficult to keep the Chinese (who are crucial to any agreement) on board if the six-party talks become the USA, North Korea and the four midgets. These kinds of tactical issues deserve serious consideration.

So, as you can see, I'll agree with Democrats when I think their ideas are sound. BTW, in my view, the six party talks are needed for a BIG DEAL since I believe the US should only take the lead on security issues and let other nations (especially South Korea) lead negotiations on other issues with the Norks.

The problem with previous negotiations with the Norks was that we took too short an approach. We see that right now when politicians start hitting the panic button and calling for quickly coming to an agreement. That and our short attention spans play right into the Norks hands.

If we want to cut a deal with the Norks tomorrow, we can do that. All we have to do is bribe them (a non-aggression pact maybe?) to come to the table and give them whatever they want in exchange for a promise to destroy any nukes they might have to stop working on their nuclear and missile programs. But I can promise you this; you'll have to bribe the Norks to come to the table again in a few years after they cook up another 'crisis.' I talked about this in Negotiations with the Norks; yada yada way back in January:

One of the thing I like about the Bush administration is that it refuses to play these little games with the Norks. The Norks have a little pattern that they go through, as detailed in Chuck Downs book, Over the Line.

First they announce that they are ready to make a deal. Then they try to get concessions just for agreeing to show up at the negotiating table. Next, they reach a "breakthrough." However, they soon "find" problems in either the details of the agreement or in its implementation. With those problems in hand, they end the deal and blame the other side. After a while, they express willingness to negotiate again with the concessions the other side made the last time as a starting point.

The Nork actions during the latest "crisis" fit this description perfectly. They violate the last deal before the ink was even dry and are now trying to get an even better deal....

That is why the USA won't give the Norks concessions just for showing up.

That is also why the USA insists on a multinational framework for the negotiations (and everyone says that Bush is a unilateralist). When the Norks break the next deal, they will be stepping on everyone's toes, not just America's. That will make it a little more difficult for them to play regional powers off each other. They might even have to stick to the deal (horrors!).

As the regional security provider, the United States should limit our dealings with the Norks to issues of war and peace. So our agreement with them should be that we provide a guarantee not to attack them (maybe even a peace treaty, including South Korea) and they end their nuclear program. That's all. Once that is done, we should allow South Korea to take the lead on negotiating other deals (such as food aid and economic cooperation).

(Note to those overseas: There is no crisis. The Norks are just doing their best to create one in order to get more concessions. So nobody wet your pants if the Norks start talking crazy. Just stay calm and keep a steady hand. Trust me on this - I live within striking distance of the DMZ and I'm not worried about the Norks a bit.)

I'm still not worried. They know that if they do something crazy it will be the end of them. Let's not confuse evil with crazy.

So, a long-term (multi-year), multi-party negotiation with the Norks is the only way to lock them into a deal that they will feel compelled to follow. Going into bilateral negotiations with them undercuts the regional framework that has so painstakingly been put together over the last several years. The finally result would be that we would make a new deal with the Norks but it would only last a few years until they decided that they had gotten all they could out of it. Then we would be facing the same problems all over again.