Dan wrote- >Well, what option would you have had him choose? I agree with Gautam that >the options with N. Korea are bad and worse. >(snip) >Anyways, which choice would you have suggested for Clinton? Do you see a >fourth choice? >From my limited understanding of N. Korea, I don't think any president can make "winning decisions" alone. When I heard things were getting "ugly" again in Korea I contacted people that have been there on several occasions and the response was almost cavalier... "it is winter, the N. Koreans need food and they will play whatever card they need to for food, then change their mind on their commitment later when it is warmer so they can threaten again next year". Behaviorally it is a model that has worked for years. I think the current model of multilateral talks is about the best we are could hope for- the countries that have been unavoidably caught up in this cycle can help prevent one group getting played off the other. I was pretty impressed with Bush and Co (and whatever may have gone on behind the scenes with China, etc)- N. Korea jumped up and down and had their tantrum and all the other countries seemed to hold together better than previously. Do I think we can put the nuclear cat back in the bag... no, but I think there "has to be progress" in the area and this winter was a start in making N. Korea stay at the multilateral table. Most of the neighboring countries have had as much incentive "not to reunite" N. and S. Korea.... but the stakes keep going up. China likes having a buffer to keep info contained, S. Korea is afraid of too many people flooding the economy if there is reunification, etc. I would be interested in George's opinion on this. Dee _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
