Can diplomacy end the North Korea crisis?

Can diplomacy end the North Korea crisis?
North Korea's nuclear plans will be examined in high level talks between America, China and North Korea next week.
These are the first discussions between the hostile countries since the crisis started when the US accused North Korea of building up nuclear weapons.

As a long-term ally of North Korea, China's participation is seen as a breakthrough.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that America's military action against Iraq had caused North Korea to change its position and co-operate in diplomacy.

Do you think the talks can bring the crisis to an end?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:

Talks are useless: the communist dictator in Pyongyang has agreed to them only in view of what has happened to another dictator down south who upset United States a little too much. Unless we bomb North Korean nuclear fuel enrichment plants before the proliferation starts in earnest the world will be in serious trouble.
Lawanna Simms, USA


" Russia and China might just have to force the US to disarm to curb its excessive use of violence "
Sarah, USA



Lawanna Simms, USA: America's national security is not the one and only national security. Just bombing the North Korean nuclear facility would impose a serious threat to the national security of NK's neighbours (ie. Russia, China, S Korea and Japan), and it may be possible that Russia and China might just have to force the US to disarm to curb its excessive use of violence whenever it cannot get its way.
Sarah, USA

The talks are very welcome, but there are several disturbing questions attached to this issue. First and foremost, is the projection of U.S. as the negotiating player instead of the U.N. Linked to this is the statement by Colin Powell that North Korea has come to the negotiating table because of the military action against Iraq. The U.S.A wants to clearly demonstrate to the world, that it is the only centre of power in the world at the expense of the U.N.
Sarat Menon, Aalst/Belgium

The US can afford to play a waiting game with North Korea - China is changing fast - its need for a communist buffer state against the capitalist south is disappearing - So the US and China can work things between them and impose a settlement.
Andy, UK

As long as the Korean peninsula is divided, there will always be crises of some form. This nuclear crisis is only one that can be followed by many others. And why are we so careful dealing with North Korea? Because we still vividly remember the war and the Japanese colonization.
Anon, UK

50 years of diplomacy with North Korea have not changed anything for the better. Time for more drastic methods unless we want Kim Jong-Il to sell his nukes to assorted dictators and thugs around the world.
Winona Price, USA


Winona Price from USA, you are a true American. 50 years of diplomacy with N. Korea has prevented a war, if that isn't something good so what is?
Kustaa Punkari, Finland


" The United States can only make problems worse "
Leonel, Panama City



The United States can only make problems worse. Only when they learn to put self interest aside, they will become helpful to the international community. The US should play its cards really carefully with North Korea or a major disaster will come faster than they think
Leonel, Panama City, Republic of Panama

There is no crisis as the media is making out. In case of Iraq there was oil but no WMD, in the case of N. Korea it has WMD but no oil. The US wants to dominate world politics by trying to be the only country along with its cronies to possess WMD. If the US dares attack Korea the Korean peninsula, Japan will go up in flames along with the U.S. interests in the region. The US knows too well that they can bluff this much and no more.
Cmdr. R. Deans I.N.(Retd.), India

Perhaps the Americans should take a long hard look at why there are all these "crises" are occurring. Could there be a remote chance that it's America's continued interference in other nations' internal affairs? America's over-inflated sense of righteousness is just as bad, if not worse than any terrorist supporting, fundamentalist state. So before Americans continue to whine about their national security, perhaps they should examine exactly why so many other nations hate them so much.
Eddie Cheong, Canada

To Eddie Chong: It seems that the US has asked repeatedly for regional approach to the North Korean issue. It seems that the UN has done absolutely nothing. Will the world now hypocritically ask for unilateral action on the part of the US?
David Krall, New Zealand


" This is just Kim's way of grovelling for food and money so he can stay in power "
Tae Kim, Korea



Crisis! What crisis? This is just Kim's way of grovelling for food and money so he can stay in power and keep living the playboy life. Its no surprise, he has been doing this since we were in grade school. No Korean seriously believes this is a crisis. Has anyone ever asked a S. Korean recently? Seems we are being left out again just as we were during the armistice.
Tae Kim, Korea

Can't quite fathom why U.S. went for Iraq instead of North Korea. North Korea's unscrupulous sales of weapons & missiles are a far greater & immediate threat to world peace; its country folks are starving yet the military establishment's families are well fed, courtesy of world aid. Blackmail's worked for North Korea for ages and making Iraq an example will only make North Korea speed up its quest for nuclear blackmail.
John Inton, Australia

There is a chance that diplomacy can resolve the Korean crisis, because China has revealed itself as the major player and has come to the table to negotiate. It is unlikely, however, that China, being a nuclear power, is going to be willing to allow its steadfast alliance with North Korea to be stripped of weapons of mass destruction. What we are now seeing are the new political truths as to reality in the Far East. What is happening is the evolution of alliances that hope to be a super power one day capable of effectively challenging the USA and perhaps the entire western world.
Robert Morpheal, Canada

I believe North Korea can be handled peacefully. If a political solution is put to the North Korean leadership which will save them "face" a peaceful resolution should be possible. If not, then North Korea is in for a big shake up, if Iraq proved anything it is just how big American military muscle is and that they are prepared to flex it.
Doug, UK

North Korea has received every demand they have made since the close of hostilities in the 1950s, by making threats. Why should we be surprised that they continue with a policy that has always worked for them. Only a fool would want war, however only a fool feeds his enemies.
Dan, USA

The coalition against Iraq cited the brutal oppression of Saddam's regime against the Iraqi people and the continued abuse of their basic human rights as one of the primary motivating factors in going to war. Given that the same human rights abuses take place in North Korea, wouldn't it be reasonable to ask the coalition, if they choose not to remove Kim Jong Il's regime, why have they forsaken the people of North Korea rather than liberating them as they did the Iraqis?
Scott, Scotland

I would love nothing better than the USA to pull out of South Korea. When North Korea then invades South Korea, it will be fun to listen to the world/South Korea/UN begging for USA to do something about it.
Dave, USA


" Small, weakened, oil-rich countries are one thing, taking on a country that could effectively fight back is quite another "
Jon E, France



I suspect diplomacy will work here, despite the ham-fisted approach of the Bush administration. America wouldn't dare risk a confrontation with North Korea. Small, weakened, oil-rich countries are one thing, taking on a country that could effectively fight back is quite another.
Jon E, France

What crisis? The aggressively warlike nuclear trio of Israel, Pakistan and India are a much greater danger to world peace than North Korea. Yet America maintains full diplomatic and economic relations with them, not to mention arming them to the teeth with ever more destructive weapons. The crisis is not North Korea's nuclear ambition, it is American hypocrisy.
Rich, USA

The reason why US want dialogue with North Korea is because the Korea, unlike Iraq, has nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that can bloody the nose of US military in an outcome of any war, plus N Korea is backed by China who would come to their aid in any possible conflict with America.
Sam, UK

The bottom line is Bush's political buddies have too great a financial interest in that part of the world to permit Bush to stir up any military conflict in Korea.
MK, US

I'm sure there will be a diplomatic solution to this crisis, whether it takes more than 20 years to do so. After all, North Korea is neither a threat to Israel, nor is it an oil producing country.
Faez, U.K.

It seems to me that the whole crisis in North Korea was largely created by America's fit of diplomatic genius when they named a series of countries evil. As I see it, the crisis is largely rooted in North Korea wanting an assurance that they are not to be next. Like an oyster North Korea was just starting to open up slightly due to South Korean and American (pre-Bush) diplomatic efforts, however since we're dealing with an extremely paranoid country here, it's hardly surprising, and probably justified, that they fear that if they just sit and wait the situation from their point of view will only become worse.

The question is of course, what ultimately our goal is regarding North Korea. Do we want containment? In which case a guarantee that we won't attack shouldn't be that big a deal to give them. They are highly unlikely to pose a serious threat if we can get UN inspectors back in. Or do we want regime change, in which cause confrontation is inevitable, and might be carried with greater success sooner rather than later.
Leonard Kramer, UK

China's participation is essential, and they have been avoiding these talks because they want the Korean problem to be focused on the US. However, now China's image is being dragged through the dirt by their secretive manoeuvres with Sars, they must do some damage control and try to turn attention away from their dismal failure of duty to deal openly with the disease.

The only outcome the US will accept is a complete dismantling of North Korea's capability to produce (more) nuclear weapons. Why? Because North Korea has shown that it will sell its technology to anyone with the cash. This is why the US must ensure that North Korea receives all the food, medicine, and energy supplies it needs.
Chris, US


" Parts of the world have had enough of North Korean rhetoric "
Craig H, UK/South Africa



Like Iraq, North Korea is also under rule of a fragile regime that relies on a defunct and cruel means of governance. Parts of the world have had enough of North Korean rhetoric and threats and would eagerly support the downfall of another state of this kind. Apart from talking, they have to start acting in a responsible manner too.
Craig H, UK/South Africa

Regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq, it definitely had something to do with North Korea's change of heart. If Japan, South Korea and Russia are so worried about North Korea, why haven't they stepped up and done something about this? Why does the world want the US to deal with some and not with others? The US is not the only country on the planet.
Kevin Hiler, Atlanta, US

I find it disturbing that the players in the region are so reluctant to participate in solving this crisis. Situations like this make it clear the US has no choice but to be "the world's policeman". I believe this can be solved diplomatically, but it should have been handled by China, Japan and South Korea from the start. It will be very helpful to have China on board.
Shawn, Washington, DC, USA


" The best way is for the US to make Iraq an example "
David, UK



The best way of resolving the problem with North Korea is for the US to make Iraq an example of prosperity, freedom and democracy as a signal to the people of other authoritarian states that there is an alternative to oppression and poverty. It will make the task of selling the Western model much easier.
David, UK

Astonishing how a country like North Korea, who actually has nuclear weapons, is asked repeatedly to attend talks, while a country like Syria, who MIGHT be attempting to start developing WMD, is directly threatened with economic and political sanctions. Can anyone say "double standard"?
Alexandra, Lebanon

Alexandra The difference between North Korea and Syria is that a war with North Korea would cost millions of lives. Japan would be targeted by those WMD. Kim Jong Il Would not use them on South Korea, I'm sure he wouldn't mind getting a little revenge for the Japanese occupation. Also send his 100,000 special forces in to Japan to exterminate the population. Also North Korea has nuclear weapons and Syria does not. Another main point is that North Korea has nothing of value meaning no oil or anything of value other than the fact that China is next door. The war would cost too much money, and with Tokyo and other major Japanese cities under a nuclear cloud the American economy would crumble. So pretty much it's all about money
John Doe, Canada

To Alexandra : its not astonishing at all. Remember that Bush cannot gain financially from attacking North Korea, and more importantly they are not a Muslim country who could stop Israel's treatment of thousands of Palestinians. This one could take many years and repeated ignoring of UN sanctions and the American administration will never get impatient. Yes, double standards for all to see.
Ahmed, U.K.

The issue was almost dealt with under Clinton but bomber Bush seems to have aggravated the situation.
James Clarke, UK


Regarding James Clarke (UK), I'm sorry, but essentially the Clinton deal involved paying bribes/ tribute to the North Korean regime so that they wouldn't build nukes. Well, the North Koreans started up their secret program while Clinton was still in office. As an American, I don't feel it is my duty to provide, free of charge, nuclear power plants, oil, food, etc., to the North Koreans. Paying tribute as a U.S. policy went out with the Barbary Pirates. Why don't the French and Germans pay this tribute to the North Koreans? Oh, that's right, the French and Germans expect to be paid.
Dave, USA