ABSTRACT
Since the first nuclear crisis of 1993-94 the North had insisted that its nuclear program was a matter for bilateral negotiations with the US. The Agreed Framework was a result of bilateral negotiations which had defused the crisis and provided a precedent for subsequent efforts to deal with the North. The Clinton Administration was willing to negotiate bilaterally with the North, not only over the nuclear program but over the ballistic missile program as well. Why then was there a need for multilateralism? The search for an appropriate form of multilateralism to engage the North was a result of dissatisfaction with bilateralism for two reasons. One was that the Republicans in the US saw the Agreed Framework as a sell out and after the HEU revelations of September 2002 rejected bilateralism with the North which they regarded with distaste. Secondly, US bilateralism with the North had excluded other players who sought to be involved to secure their interests and whose cooperation was required to ensure that the negotiations would succeed. The question was which parties should be involved and what issues would be on the agenda? Four Party Talks, which involved the two Koreas, the US and China, had been conducted during the 1990s to support inter-Korean negotiations, but they made no progress. In 2003 Three Party Talks were attempted which included China as the facilitator with the US and the North but these were unsatisfactory for the Americans. The US wanted a broader format to avoid being maneuvered into bilateral negotiations with the North and to share responsibility for the outcome. The result was the Six Party format which would include all external parties that had interests on the Peninsula.
