North Korea is seeking talks with the South regarding the upcoming Winter Olympics in Seoul but still won’t discuss sanctions with the West.

It was in a New Year address from the North Korean capital where Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un warned the United States and other allies that he has a “nuclear button” on his desk that he is ready to use and vowed to continue the mass production of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles for deployment in 2018.

But the address from the hermet nation took a different tone in the lead up to the Winter Olympics in the South Korean town of Pyeongchang.

The Dialogue between the two Koreas

Kim Jong-Un has proposed that Seoul and Pyongyang open a dialogue so that North Korean athletes may attend the upcoming games. Two North Koreans managed to qualify for the upcoming games however the country failed to register them for the upcoming games in time for the October 30th deadline.

It is uncertain of when the talks would take place however the move has been encouraged by South Korean President Moon Jae-in who asked his cabinet to find a way to allow North Korean athletes to attend the upcoming games.

South Korean Unification Minister Cho Myoung-gyon said South Korea proposed the two nations meet next Tuesday at the border village of Panmunjom to discuss Olympic cooperation and how to improve overall ties.

A Dialogue must include the West

Even with fresh UN Sanctions, the South Korean President has stated that any future talks and potential improvements in North/South relations must go hand in hand with resolving the North’s nuclear ambitions. It is believed that if the South is to go into these negotiations they would seek to end the North’s nuclear programmes in line with what most western countries would want.

Analysts say Mr Kim may be trying to drive a wedge between Seoul and its ally Washington as a way to ease international isolation and sanctions against North Korea.

It’s unclear how the White House or Downing Street will respond to the olive branch from the North to the South but analysts also believe that it could be a first step towards improving relations.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Gianpaulo Coletti
Gianpaulo is based in Australia and is a student of Counterterrorism, Intelligence and Security. Interested in everything related to National Security. 24 News Enthusiast, political junkie and working on his first book 'Hitchhikers Guide to National Security'.
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The “dialogue” will likely include demands for more cash, with nothing in return….. just like every other “dialogue”.


Would be a good move. The athletes would likely go back to the North changed for the better by their experience, as missionaries of sorts.


‘Jaw jaw is better than war war!’ It’s too late now to do much about the North’s missile dominance, and that’s exactly why the North developed them. I fear Kim Jong-Un is too clever for Trump’s camp, and will continue to dominate Far Eastern foreign policy for many years to come.


@maurice10 “I fear Kim Jong-Un is too clever for Trump’s camp,”

Like hell he is. Kimmy Un is nothing.
Trump knows exactly what’s going on and he knows how to deal with NK.
It will get resolved soon.


In the Korean war US carpet bombing turned N Korea into a wasteland. The contrast with the way N Korea was treated after that war with the way Germany was treated after WW2 is stark. What goes around comes around. Karma is politically agnostic. If the South can establish a dialogue with the North then a smart move would be for them to provide aid and build trade with the North and for the US to subsidise the South to a degree.


The contempt shown towards the North Koreans during the American push north, was quickly equalized at the Chosin Resoviours, and subsequent battles that followed in that zone. The result? The Yanks would not return beyond the 38th Parallel. But does Trump understand that MacArthur believed he could crush the North and quickly get the boys back home! Mao made sure that such adventurism would challenge. The one question I ask, would China allow the US a free hand if the whole area becomes consumed once more in war? I doubt much has changed in regards to tolerating US troop on… Read more »


“workable solution”

North Korea dismantles the nuclear and ballistic missile programme it has spent decades developing.

lol…. no.

Their “solution” is submission.


The talks have to begin with the goal of attempting a ‘workable solution,’ without that as an objective they may as well not bother. I’m sure the North want the restoration of some if not all the presanction agreements, as this could assist in cementing better relations. The South will want a curtailment of the North’s nuclear expansion plans, but knows there is little point in demanding a complete halt. The North has demonstrated its ability to create and manufacture weapons of mass destruction, therefore, it can arrive at the table with a considerably reinforced bargaining hand. Conversely, this also… Read more »


@maurice10 “Workable solution” ?
It never will be resolved if only the two Koreas are involved. The situation in NK is more complex than anyone realizes and NK fears the US and no one else.


Never say never, and I don’t accept your view that’s it’s only the USA that the North is concerned about. Having achieved the status of a ‘nuclear power’ the North can now take something to the table, and that in its self, is encouraging. No, leave the Koreans alone to at least begin talks.

David Stephen

Germany was beaten and had surrendered, North Korea was not and still has not. It remains a communist dictatorship so can’t expect the same treatment. Treatment which essentially made Germany the democratic capitalist nation it is today. If the fat kid gives up power and opens the borders to the UN then NK can enjoy the same treatment.


No. Germany and Japan were treated well and rebuilt at massive American expense because they met the United States’s only demand – unconditional surrender. As for General MacArthur he did not believe the war would be quick unless he was given a free hand and a blank check. Truman and his biographers blamed MacArthur for their failures. MacArthur knew that war against just North Korea could be won quickly, however he warned Truman that China would likely intervene. MacArthur asked for more men to secure his lines and build up infrastructure before moving up to Chosin. Truman refused. MacArthur and… Read more »


I would guess, Truman was very concerned that a full frontal attack against the North would lead to full-scale war with China. America was war-weary and was keen to build up its economy and concentrate its defence forces towards the Soviets, who he probably felt posed a greater risk to American interests. MacArthur was a loose cannon and difficult to control, as was Patton, both of which were a pain in the sides of the White House occupants. It’s all very well blaming Truman, but he too had his advisors who most probably pleaded caution in regards to containing the… Read more »

David Stephen

Well thanks for the history lesson but not sure why you think it was required. Your second sentence states that Germany and Japan where treated differently because they surrendered, which is exactly what I said in my first sentence. If they had surrendered and negotiated the ceasefire then they would have got the same treatment as the defeated WW2 nations. So what is your point exactly?

David Stephen

Sorry, that should have read “not negotiated”.


Meant to respond to the comment above from maurice10 but pressed the wrong button. Happens when I forget my reading glasses and type. I was responding to his belief that General MacArthur both wanted war or believed it would be short. Many of the mistakes Truman and his advisers made they blamed on him because it was convenient. What they did not anticipate was his men and the American people loved him so it backfired and Eisenhower won election. Douglas MacArthur had flaws notably vanity but underestimating his opponents or advocating for foreign war are not among them. What brought… Read more »


The problem is China. I made this comment last Aug.
Our solution is to not be dependant on goods from China, oil from the middle east, or gas from Russia. Then by using sanctions on things they really need from us we can actually tell them what to do, like not flood the world with cheap government funded steel or invade the Crimea, etc.