| Submit your comments on this article |
| Korea |
| U.S., N. Korea Hold Direct Nuke Talks |
| 2003-08-28 |
| BEIJING (AP) - Trading the cold shoulder for careful conversation, the United States and North Korea made their first direct contact in four months on Wednesday, huddling on the sidelines of a multinational summit to work through a Doesn’t the AP reporter know the difference between venom and spittle? China, South Korea, Japan and Russia joined them in formal discussions, eager to apply Kim: "But first, can we have something to eat? We’re really hungry!" State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said the U.S.-North Korea meeting lasted about 35 to 40 minutes, but he gave no other details. ``There will not be any separate formal bilateral meetings with the North Koreans,’’ said a U.S. Embassy spokesman, speaking on customary condition of anonymity. Hours earlier, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan characterized the talks as routine. ``What we always indicated is that these will be multilateral discussions. But nothing precludes a conversation across the table between two parties,’’ Buchan said. James: "So, how’s your golf game?" Kim: "Not bad, got 18 holes in before I left home, but the course is in terrible shape. All the grass was eaten! Greens were impossibly fast." James: "Perhaps we can get a round in tomorrow?" Kim: "That depends on how long the Russians talk!" The extraordinary three-day, six-country summit, reconvened Thursday, but there was no immediate word on developments. The talks, the result of months of political maneuvering, are taking place on the grounds of China’s state guest house. The host country is balancing its longtime support of the communist North with its robust economic ties to the United States. Both sides would benefit if a sturdy channel of communication were re-established - even if it didn’t lead to an immediate resolution of the nuclear dispute. Mere agreement this week to keep talking regularly would constitute some degree of success. If recent history is any indication, though, that road will be bumpy. Earlier this month, North Korea called John Bolton, a senior American diplomat, ``human scum’’ for harshly criticizing Kim Jong Il, the leader of its isolated regime, and said it would not participate in the six-way talks if he attended. Bolton did not attend. Unless the grand strategy is the "engaged apathy" that Steve DenBeste (hey! Another Steve! Wotta great name!) has discussed, this was a mistake. Bolton should have been the chief negotiator. The six-party talks are a continuation of discussions from April, when U.S., Chinese and North Korean officials met in Beijing. The North’s government had long demanded one-on-one talks with the United States, but dropped its objections to the multilateral arrangement after Beijing agreed to host it. A congenial air prevailed as the six countries’ chief envoys posed for cameras, shaking hands firmly and smiling broadly before adjourning to an chandelier-lit chamber and snapping to work around a specially assembled hexagon negotiating table. "Hey, Kim, you old back-stabbing Commie whore, what’s shaking?" "Jimmy! My favorite running-dog imperalist! Not much, how’s tricks with you?" Alexander Losyukov, the Russian deputy foreign minister and head of his country’s delegation, told the ITAR-Tass news agency that he wouldn’t necessarily predict immediate progress as a result of the meeting. ``The sides have advanced a number of preliminary conditions which block the development of the talks,’’ Losyukov said without elaborating. He said North Korea declared it wishes to be nuclear-free but expressed concern about ``menaces from the U.S.’’ If they want to be nuclear-free, they can dump the weapons in the Sea of Japan. We won’t complain. Later, at a dinner hosted by Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, Kelly and Kim sat side by side and talked for an hour accompanied by translators, Shin said. "Look James, I don’t care how many times you say it: Peking Duck is not really from Peking!" The U.S.-North Korean meeting came hours after Pyongyang repeated its demand for a nonaggression pact, saying it would not give up its ``nuclear deterrent force’’ for anything less than that. The United States should ``clarify its will to make a switchover in its hostile policy toward (North Korea) and conclude a nonaggression treaty with it,’’ Rodong Sinmun, the North’s official newspaper, said in a commentary carried by KCNA, the North’s official news agency. Someone explain to me why a ’non-aggression treaty’ is so important to these goofs. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 Someone explain to me why a ’non-aggression treaty’ is so important to these goofs. Simple enough - they want us to pay for that treaty, like we always have. Peaceful talks dont start with rants about a sea of fire - blackmail talks do. |
| Posted by: flash91 2003-8-28 10:17:00 AM |
| #6 Someone explain to me why a ’non-aggression treaty’ is so important to these goofs. They want one between them and the US that doesn't include an exception in case they attack South Korea. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-8-28 8:24:38 AM |
| #5 ...provides them with the peace of mind... |
| Posted by: Raphael 2003-8-28 5:06:23 AM |
| #4 CNN puts it a little differently: U.S. rules out one-on-one talks; U.S., North Korean delegates have 'informal exchange' "Someone explain to me why a ’non-aggression treaty’ is so important to these goofs." Simple. Can anyone guarantee that a war with NKorea is out of the question in the future? No. Can anyone guarantee that Kimmi or his family won't pursue WMD as well? Double no. A non-agression treaty would allow NKorea to place blame squarely on Washington, in the event a conflict is initiated by the United States. They might come out losing, but they could always claim the US violated the treaty. And along with that goes world opinion, UN vetos, etc etc. It's like an insurance policy that provides with the peace of mind to pursue whatever weapons program they want (secretly of course). |
| Posted by: Raphael 2003-8-28 5:04:46 AM |
| #3 You just gave me a mental image of 13-14 yr old virgins on Pyongyang street corners holding up signs that say, "Will Deflower For Food"... I don't wanna go where that leads... 8^{ |
| Posted by: .com 2003-8-28 4:40:12 AM |
| #2 It's important because Kimmie does not want to be separated from his 72 virgins. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-8-28 3:09:51 AM |
| #1 "Someone explain to me why a ’non-aggression treaty’ is so important to these goofs." Perhaps it's edible? Or maybe it's a translation problem: what's being translated as "non-aggression" is actually meant to be "not so much salt" and the sections promising a 20 year cessation of their nuke development program is really about serving dinner for 10 million for the next 20 years. Y'know, language can be tricky - and doubly so when it's formally diplomatic or prosaic with religious significance. We've seen this sort of thing before, if you recall... 72 Roentgens = 72 Radishes = 72 Virgins = 72 Raisins. Yep. Language translation can be tricky stuff. And there's another Stephen over at VodkaPundit, but he spells his name phunny. ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2003-8-28 12:49:02 AM |