Not All Talks Are Created Equal

The NY Times reports that North Korea has agreed to re-start the Six Party talks, and leaves us wondering why anyoe should bother:

North Korea Will Resume Nuclear Talks

 

By JOSEPH KAHN  and HELENE COOPER

 

BEIJING, Oct. 31 — North Korea agreed Tuesday to resume nuclear disarmament talks, a first sign of easing tensions since the country’s nuclear test this month. But the talks have dragged on inconclusively for three years, and the chances for rolling back the country’s now-proven nuclear capability remained uncertain.

China announced that six-nation talks would reconvene shortly after a hiatus of more than a year, and an American envoy in Beijing said they could take place in November or December.

The agreement was a procedural victory for Beijing, which scrambled to reopen a diplomatic channel even as it joined the United States and other international powers in supporting United Nations sanctions on North Korea after the Oct. 9 test.

But Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader, has participated in multiple rounds of talks over the past several years while he accelerated his pursuit of nuclear weapons, and some analysts suspect that he agreed to restart talks now to forestall tough enforcement of sanctions and to persuade China and South Korea to ease his government’s growing economic woes.

While North Korea’s decision to restart the talks is being heralded as a diplomatic breakthrough, American envoys will be returning to the negotiating table to face an adversary that now has a demonstrated nuclear capability — a fact that America will try to minimize even as North Korea tries to exploit it, Bush administration officials and analysts said.

Yup, this North Korea problem has a long, bad history and appears intractable.  So let's flash back to a happier day in TimesWorld, when other talks restarted and the sun shone as birds sang sweetly:

July 12, 2000
Arab-Israeli Talks Open at Camp David

By DEBORAH SONTAG

In the verdant hills of Maryland, far from the arid land that is the object of their bitter dispute, the Israeli and Palestinian leaders began a summit meeting at Camp David today with the far-reaching -- most think improbable -- goal of ending their 52-year-old conflict.

On the first day of an open-ended, tightly secluded meeting, President Clinton ushered the leaders into the presidential retreat, which is about six miles from here. He hopes that the chemistry of the place and the moment can induce a spirit of ''principled compromise'' that yields a substantive peace agreement.

President Clinton, the only one of the three leaders who spoke publicly today, talked in idealistic tones of securing a ''just and enduring end'' to the conflict and of the ''gift of peace'' that the leaders could give their children.

But officials on all sides acknowledge that a good, partial agreement would represent a significant accomplishment and may be the only realistic end to this fluidly scheduled, seat-of-the-pants-style meeting.

''Of course, there is no guarantee of success,'' President Clinton said at the White House before flying to Camp David. ''But not to try is to guarantee failure.''

Arriving for their opening three-way meeting this afternoon, Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, did a smiley little dance at the entrance to the Laurel Cabin at Camp David. It was a stubborn jig as each sidestepped to try to make the other enter first into the crucible of decision making.

In the end, with Mr. Barak's hand on his elbow, Mr. Arafat crossed the threshold one beat ahead of the Israeli prime minister, who constantly says that ''it takes to two to tango'' for peacemaking to work.

The lighthearted but highly principled moment offered a glimpse at the steely determination with which each Middle East leader is approaching the negotiating table, a rectangular one, apparently, at which 21 American, Israeli and Palestinian delegates sat today to open their talks. (Another 13 sat behind them.) But it was the only glimpse offered into what the Americans, imposing a news blackout, are trying to make an airtight environment safe from the pressures of public scrutiny.

 

   

I guess it is easy to understand the Times' good cheer - after all, no one had ever known Arab-Israeli talks to fail. 

Comments

[clarice]

Heh! Here's the key to understanding the Times' distinction:Is it a good thing for us and our allies? If it is, it's a development not worth cheering.

(Check your TAC secret decoder ring for instructions.)

[dick]

Love that it is a win for Beijing in NY Times speak. The fact that Bush refused to restart the talks unless it was a 6 nation talk seems to have disappeared from their view.

I am glad someone is reading the NYT so I don't have to - and I live in NYC.

[Neo]

The real problem here is that this whole NoKo mess is a regional problem. Worse, the chattering class seems to think that the US has come real stake in this mess, which it does, but the US is really 3rd man out, as China and Japan are clearly in the breech ahead of us.

The much touted bi-lateral talks would do nothing but perpetuate this mess, but foreign service officers like that kind of stuff.

[The Unbeliever]

American envoys will be returning to the negotiating table to face an adversary that now has a demonstrated nuclear capability

I'm not a trained diplomat (nor do I play one on TV), so I may have missed something here. Assuming the point of these talks is to shut down NK's nuke program--implying a futher assumption that no one wants North Korea to have nukes except the North Koreans--doesn't that mean those diplomats actually go to the conference with a bloody obvious stick to bash over the heads of the other participants?

In other words--doesn't this mean the US can now scream "I TOLD YOU SO" at any holdouts who wanted to play nice with NK?

[Veeshir]

Whenever people talk about "negotiating" with North Korea, I am reminded of the movie, "Pork Chop Hill".

It's a great movie about the Korean war. There are scenes of "peace" talks. Watch that movie and realize that those scenes are absolutely accurate. Absolutely.

These talks are just like the ones between Iran and the EU(nuch)-3 where the EUnuchs would come out saying, "We have a deal! Peace in our time!!!" and the mad mullahs would walk out and say, "We made no deal."

Look forward to futile and meaningless talks that will nonetheless be hailed as "Groundbreaking!!!"

It will be depressing.