KRC

I don't think that it would change their apparent stance, but it would change the dynamic of the negotiations. Their apparent stance does not change, regardless of what happens. Their actual stance does change, albeit with subtle changes. It would move things towards an "oh sh--" in their mind, but it would not actually reach the "oh sh--" stage. What it does do is knock the DPRK down a peg (more of a "those mother fvckers" and not really an "oh sh--"). As I mentioned, they want to be on the same level as the U.S. Holding a meeting between the five parties shows that they are not in control of the process. They will try to regain control of the process using brinkmanship and crisis-oriented tactics (missile tests anyone? How about playing with their fuel rods?). These tactics worked very well in the 90's and they still think that it will have a chance of working now. Just look at some of the reactions to the missile tests here in the U.S. There is still part of the country that is unwilling to see things through and wants a quick solution to the problem. It doesn't work. It hasn't worked in the past, why the hell would it work now or in the future? If five-party talks were to happen, you can expect the DPRK to immediately blast the "U.S. aggressive maneuvers against the DPRK" and then submit and return to the talks. You just need to get China on board. All that takes is patience. They will come around. They have come around on everything else (intelligence reports, sanctions, willingness on the part of the U.S. to negotiate, etc), so I see no reason why they would not come around on this, as well. It is all moving in a positive direction, regardless of what the fear-mongers want you to believe.

As a group, they don't. That is something Bush is pushing for right now. They want to have five-party talks if the DPRK refuses to come back to the table. This gives them the opportunity to talk not only about the DPRK issues, but also other regional issues. Right now, China is against it. I do see, however, that they would be willing to warm up to it if the DPRK continues to refuse to attend the talks. As individual countries, they meet on a regular basis. Christopher Hill regularly visits the countries (namely the ROK and China) to discuss things. There are also regular meetings here in the U.S. and there are regional meetings like ASEAN going on right now. Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush all remain on top of things and have regular meetings with officials of all of the countries involved, along with discussing things with the EU and UN.

Actually, things are moving in the right direction under the current scheme, so I strongly disagree with your first statement. Coli likes to point out that missiles were fired and the DPRK has nukes, therefore the policy is a failure. As a result, we need to go back to the policy whereby the DPRK fired missiles and had nukes. In fact, under Coli's scheme, the DPRK made more advancements in their nuclear and ballistic missile technology than anytime under Bush. Before talking about specific ways to negotiate with the DPRK, an understanding of their negotiating tactics needs to be discussed. Negotiations with the DPRK are extremely difficult, but there is a specific scheme that they use in their negotiating tactics. Most of all, it takes patience in dealing with the DPRK. You need to look at not only the positions and tactics of the DPRK negotiators in the talks, but you also need to pay close attention to public statements, specific types of media comments and attempts to employ “brinkmanship” and crisis-oriented tactics designed to create an atmosphere to weaken the opponent’s position and extract concessions. Inflexibility in the initial stages of a negotiation is often used as a tactic to induce concessions and to demonstrate to superiors in Pyongyang that negotiators are strongly pursuing the DPRK’s interests; however, it may also signal an unwillingness to negotiate or a determination that the atmosphere is not favorable to the DPRK. Following an initial hard stance, indications of flexibility signal that DPRK negotiators are looking for a deal. This flexibility has been seen in public and media statements over the past several years. They talk tough, but then show flexibility. The negotiating partners need to be conscious of this and formulate their policy in such a way as to allow the DPRK to save face. Before engaging in an actual negotiation, DPRK negotiators analyze their opponent’s positions and determine if there is any flexibility. This can take place in either formal or informal discussions. During informal talks, DPRK negotiators float trial proposals to test their opponent’s reactions. These trial proposals may find their way into formal talks or they may be retracted, depending on the response. The main purpose of this is to “feel-out” their opponents and to determine if there are any inconsistencies in their opponents negotiating stance. When negotiations begin, protocols are established. The DPRK quickly ignores those protocols and moves to create their own agenda and to put them on the same level as the United States. While the U.S. is making their opening statement, the DPRK attentively listens to the U.S. to see if there are any inconsistencies with previous statements either in the media or at previous rounds of negotiations. The real progress is made during the informal discussions. Transcripts of the formal sessions are sent to Pyongyang for analysis. Informal sessions are “off the record.” This is where specific wording of any agreement is done. Obviously, the wording is extremely important to all sides. As I mentioned previously, the informal sessions are also where the DPRK tests new proposals. The DPRK negotiators are more relaxed and more willing to discuss their true position, why they hold that specific position and where concessions can be made. When you get to the agreement stage, the DPRK usually does not negotiate specific points. They accept or reject proposals as a whole instead of compromising. Appearances of flexibility disappear as you get closer to an agreement. This is designed to wear down their opponents in order to gain additional concessions, along with signaling Pyongyang that they are approaching the end of what they can get out of their opponents. I have mentioned this previously, but Western approaches to negotiations are linear. This philosophy dictates that there is a clear beginning, middle and end to the negotiations and progress can be measured. Negotiations with the DPRK are cyclical. Issues are constantly revisited and re-hashed. This gives the appearance that the negotiations are failing, but it is how things are done. There is no clear beginning, middle and end in order to measure progress. This section of the negotiations are very long and drawn out as each issue is revisited and revisited again. The DPRK will again try for additional concessions during this phase. Even after all sides have come to an agreement, the DPRK will still try for additional concessions. As any agreement gets to its final stages, the terms of the agreement are tested. During this testing, the DPRK will harden its stance, along with raising new questions. This is, again, another opportunity to find inconsistencies in their opponent’s position and exploit those inconsistencies to gain additional concessions. Throughout the process, you will see attempts at brinkmanship and crisis-oriented tactics. Creating a “crisis” is used to move the agenda away from current discussions and onto an agenda of the DPRK’s choosing. The recent missile tests are an example of this. They were reaching the end of what they could get regarding the nuclear issue, so they change up the issue to missiles. In the past, they used unloading of fuel rods, threats to walk away from talks, manufacturing deadlines and (shockingly) missile tests for this same purpose. All of their tactics are based in the philosophy of being on the same level as the United States (which means that they have weakened the United States to the point of them being equal - an important psychological point). Using multi-lateral discussions mutes this and puts the DPRK on the level where they belong. Multi-lateral discussions also show the DPRK that the entire region is speaking, not just the U.S. While they can live without the U.S., they cannot live without the ROK, China and Russia (which is a direct contradiction to the Juche philosophy, but that is for another time). All three provide valuable aid. The only way you are going to make progress is to have the entire region collectively working towards a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. This means that you need more people at the negotiating table than just the DPRK and U.S. The proof is in the results and there is a definite shift not only in the DPRK, but China, Russia, Japan and the ROK. You are seeing all of them move more toward a unified front with the United States. It takes years to do this, but it is necessary. You cannot get that from bilateral discussions. Now, you talked about using multiple tactics to get the job done. This is exactly the approach that is being used now. Multi-lateral talks with bilateral sidebars in the informal sessions. Couple this with PSI, pressure from the other negotiating partners and allies and economic sanctions. You also have the war games in the area, which is a tactic typically used to elicit a response. The problem is that people want a quick solution. Quick solutions give us the 1994 Agreed Framework, which we all know was worth less than the paper it was printed on. Long-term solutions require time. Unfortunately, that does not fit conveniently into U.S. election cycles.

They have always demanded bilateral talks. This has not stopped them from attending multilateral talks, as evidenced by the multiple talks they have already had in the multi-lateral format. Therefore, your point really carries no weight. The multi-lateral call for talks is what got them to back down and attend the talks under the multi-lateral format. Have I mentioned "multi" enough? More after lunch...

Bilateral talks is what Clinton did, which we have already determined to be an abject failure. You are advocating a policy which has proven to be a bad one? Yeah, OK.

Ironically, I was thinking about the SS mess this morning. I am bored, so I thought I would have a little fun with Congresscritters. I am going to send them my proposal (W-2 checkbox thingy to allow both private accounts and the current SS system) and see what type of reaction I get from them. I am going to target the Committee responsible for reforming the system. Even though I do not live in their district, since they are responsible for creating a plan to rescue the money that I paid into the system and which I should receive when I retire, they do represent me. It will be interesting to see their responses. Here are the members of the committee: House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Jim McCrery (LA) - Chair E. CLay Shaw, Jr. (FL) Sam Johnson (TX) J.D. Hayworth (AZ) Kenny C. Hulshof (MO) Ron Lewis (KY) Kevin Brady (TX) Paul Ryan (WI) Sander M. Levin (MI) Earl Pomeroy (ND) Xavier Becerra (CA) Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH) Richard E. Neal (MA)

You have been asked repeatedly what you would do differently. You do not like the Bush policy. The Clinton policy has been proven a failure. The DPRK had nukes before Bush took office and they also launched missiles before Bush took office, which are the two reasons you use to say that the Bush policy is not working. This would make it impossible to say that the Clinton policy (or Kerry policy since it was nothing more than a rehash of the Clinton policy) was/would have been successful in any way. What would you do?

There you go again.

There is no question that this is a major factor.

If she was there for 5 hours, that is more than a photo-op and more than "nothing." You still did not answer my question, so I will repeat it: How long does she need to be there before it is an acceptable amount of time? If all she needed to do (in your mind) is call for a cease-fire, then why even spend 5 hours there. You can get that done in a matter of minutes. Take a couple of pictures and you can be out of there in 30 minutes max. I guess that only you are allowed to have an opinion and I just need to keep mine to myself. I will keep that in mind. (Note to self: Coli can say anything he wants, but it is verboten to question him on it.) What, no overtime? Slacker.

People are losing tolerance. There is no question. Could some of this be a result of allowing this type of thing in the work environment? A 10 minute thing can be tolerated. Having this go on all day is something beyond what people should have to tolerate while at work.

Ease up, Sparkey. He has a right to do his job without this type of distraction. If he took the job knowing that children would be running around distracting the employees, then he has no right to B word. That was not the case here and he has a right to an environment where he can work without this type of interruption.

Point taken.

...but yet, when Bush takes the time for diplomacy (i.e. DPRK), you B word and moan that nothing is being done. It is obvious that you are just going to B word for the sake of bitching. So tell me, how long does Rice need to be in Lebanon before it is an acceptable amount of time?

A restaurantnt is different from a place of employment.

You don't know who the Reps are going to nominate. You might not be so lucky.

Let me guess. You cannot defend your position, so you are (yet again) going to run away and pout because you could not turn the thread into a Bush Bad thread. Right? Just because the media forgot that they had already reported about the trip a mere week ago, does not make it a "suprise."

Word up, yo!!

You expect people to remember something that happened a week ago? Get real.

That is the scary part. He is still one of the leading names for the Dems and he says something this stupid. Why not just hand the White House to the GOP for another 4 years? The Democrats really need to shut him up. He is hurting the party.

I don't know...hmmm...what is going on in Lebanon right now that would require a diplomatic presence...hmmm...Sorry. I can't come up with anything. See previous post referencing that "security" thingy.

A little thing called "security." You do not announce the details of the trip ahead of time, allowing the bad people time to plan something. Things have been done this way since before history was recorded (January 21, 2001).

Baby steps.

How does that make Kerry's quote any less ridiculous? "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened." Yeah, right. OK, Kerry.

Israel wants their two prisoners released. Hizb'Allah can release the two Israeli prisoners and Israel can release two Hizb'Allah prisoners.