korean unification studies

the DMZ will not last forever… or will it?

korean unification studies random header image

The Six Party Talks game – play if you can…

September 24th, 2007 · 2 Comments

atomkim.jpgAfter discussions with several North Korea specialists, I have come to agree with their conclusion that the current Six Party Talks are merely a diplomatic game from which North Korea will exact every possible concession, before closing up shop and heading home.

Quite simply, the final goal of the Six Party Talks process, namely complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement (CVID) of North Korean nuclear programs, are not in North Korea’s interests. Arguably, nor are the final rewards of normalised economic relations with the United States and access to international financial assistance, which could weaken the regime’s hold on power. Indeed, the only parts of the deal that are in North Korea’s interests are those rewards that are forward loaded, including fuel and economic aid. Given this fact, there should be an exact point in time before the final goal of CVID at which North Korea will unceremoniously quit the talks… Its all a game…

 If you were North Korea, and you knew you would never give up your nuclear capability or allow your people greater access to foreign information, where would you stop?

  1. After receiving your USD 25 million illicit funds from a frozen bank account in Macao.
  2. After receiving fuel aid from each of the Six Party Talks participants.
  3. After receiving financial aid.
  4. After settling the Korean War peace treaty question, normalizing relations with the US, and being removed from the US State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
  5. After normalizing relations with Japan and receiving a financial package of more than USD 12 billion.

Finally, given that you know the Six Party Talks must end before you give up your nuclear weapons, how would you stage the walk out to make it look like the whole fiasco was because of the US?

  1. Denounce hostile US policy and its insincerity
  2. Wait until a new administration is in Washington, maximise any gains you can get off them, and then denounce hostile US policy and its insincerity.
  3. Start a firefight along the DMZ or in the West Sea
  4. Perform an asymmetric breakout (that is get caught proliferating, having a new nuclear program or any other various nefarious activities)
  5. Any combination of the above
Share This
Sphere: Related Content

Tags: Nuclear Issues

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Baltimoron // Sep 24, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    And, reading K-Bloggers all these years, I’ve concluded that:

    1. Expecting one’s own outcomes to occur is just sheer petulance.

    2. As Kaplan would argue, America is indispensable, not domineering. The price of hegemony is mind-numbing diplomacy. Where America is very much not wanted and has trouble making its purpose known, inviting oneself and keeping oneself at the table is required.

    3. What other country actually cares about human rights? Not Japan, not South Korea, and not most of the world infringing human rights. If the US doesn’t make a big deal, no one else will. And, America has to be at the table to be heard.

    4. America might not have all the votes in its pocket anymore, but it’s a damn fine spoiler.

    5. What else are we going to spend State’s budget on? Healthcare? The CIA? More satellites? Please!

  • 2 Kimmi // Sep 24, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    What is this things? Diplomacy is the only answer.Being a cynic is not going to solve problems but communication is the first step. Get real Hans!

Leave a Comment