Six-Party Talks Open

The New York Times has it covered (via AP), although aside from South Korea’s now-characteristic and perfectly undiplomatic public demand for Japan not to discuss its abductees, nothing particularly interesting was reported. I’m always watching U.S. “security guarantee” language carefully. Christopher Hill is saying the U.S. has “no intention to invade or attack” North Korea.

This, from the Chosun Ilbo, was more interesting, in the context of those bilateral pre-talks non-talks we’re in the habit of having these days:

Hill on Monday only smiled when asked about reports that the U.S. has proposed setting up a U.S. liaison office in Pyongyang, which represents the lowest possible level of a diplomatic relationship. This was mooted during 1994 talks between the two countries but rejected by Pyongyang at the time.

The White House had been cool on exchanging liaison offices, but the wind changed in June, when President George W. Bush said the U.S. was prepared to form a more normal relationship, always provided North Korea dismantles its nuclear program. Normalization of the relationship has been one of Pyongyang’s core demands.

Am I necessarily opposed to all permanent diplomatic contact? Not if we ceaselessly keep the issues that really matter on the table, such as conventional disarmament, fair food aid distribution, and human rights. I also think it’s very early to be discussing this.