Nuclear bomb has protected North Korea and this sends a message to other non nuclear counties. The only real protection from USA is a nuclear bomb and that is a fact. Iraq was invaded because it did not have a nuclear bomb. Iran is being threatend because it does not have a nuclear bomb.
Can we blame independant countries under threat from USA trying to get this bomb.

Suresh Kumar, London,

Personally, I think the reason that the talks reached some form of ‘success’ was that the US, discreetly, entered into bilateral talks with North Korea under cover of the six-party talks. I’m sure this action, long proclaimed as ‘not on the cards’ by the US, was prompted by the Bush government’s need for some sort of foreign policy success to off set the long string of disasters. Of course, further down the road Kim Jong Il will almost certainly again try to field the issue of nuclear weapons to get more aid, and at that point things will start to get very difficult indeed.

Space Station 1, in orbit over the uk,

Typical 'Blame America First' drivel. North Korea was well into the process of breaking agreements made under the Clinton administration long before president Bush showed up on the scene. And as if president Bush 'let' the North Koreans develop nuclear weapons by refusing to bow to NK's disingenuous agreements and extortions. Ridiculous.

Matt Morga, Dallas, USA

More anti-Bush rubbish. Kim ceremoniously shut down one nuclear program to hoodwink Clinton and his emmisary Carter but covertly operated a second, which yielded nuclear devices. A key element in the current Stalinist backdown is the growing success of our anti-missile program and China's concern their over-extended pawns will become too problematic. Their failed missile was either a dud or they aborted it for fear we would sufficiently track it for a potential shoot-down. Worrying the enemy into inaction is one purpose of a deterrent.
From a former Democrat voting Republican since 1994.

William Sonzski, Boston, USA

So where is Europe on North Korea? Nowhere in Mr. Parry's article does he say what should have been done. Had the US dropped a bomb on their reactor then the US would have been crucified in the press. Perhaps Gary from London could explain how all the hard work and diplomacy done by the Clinton Administration could have effectively led to a different conclusion. Just once I would like to hear plausable alternatives and not just criticism.

Greg, Manchester,

Im afraid I disagree with Richard's argument, which is in effect, that Kim Jong-Il got the Bomb because of George Bush. Kim &his father learnt a long time ago that the only way for his regime to survive was to blackmail the rest of the world: give me aid, money, fuel, or I build a nuclear weapon. (&lets not forget that N.Korea first expressed interest in nuclear weapons as far back as the 1970s - long before Bush Junior). Pre-emptive attacks are not the reserve of George W. either - as you say yourself, Clinton almost ordered a preemtive attack on Yongbyon. So what changed? Quite simply, N.Korea acquiring the bomb was an inevitablilty. There is only so far blackmail will get you before you have to play your trump card. And the $330m package now offered? Once it has all been used up, N.Korea will simply threaten to re-open its reactor once again... unless it is given more money and fuel. The world once again, will have no choice but to give in. Bush, in this instance, is not to blame.

Denny, London, UK

It is a straw in the wind of Western decadence that we have gone soft on totalitarianism. Ambassador Boulton is right. And that goes for Castro and China and Chávez. Wrong signals. Wrong message. Chasing butterflies in Iraq while the real enemy grows strong. We shall reap storms out of the winds W is sowing,

Eugene Cappuccio, Heidelberg, germany

North Korea has leveraged the neclear issue to gain much needed aid for itself and possibly secured the long term tenure of its dictator. Once again , the US and especially George W have shown to be shortsighted, inept at diplomacy and full of hot air. History will probably show that the US won the day and Mr Blair has already begu the spin on their behalf. The real losers are the North Korean people who will continue to suffer.

Hamad Lone, Thornton Heath, England

Thank you, your comment articulates precisely how I feel. Its back to square one for this US administration. I could see it back then that this would be the likely outcome but GW Bush just had to learn it the hard way. All that hard work and diplomacy done by the Clinton administration was just thrown away by an new and hawkish foreign policy team. There is lots of spin to try and disguise this as a new development for this troubled region. But for those of us who have witnessed it from the beginning , it is a story of failure and incompetence.

Gary, London,

Having now obtained nuclear weapons and secured hisdictatorship from external threats, KJI must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Well done Dubya.

Gavin, Canberra , Australia

Revisionist twaddle. Clinton had no more of an idea on North Korea than George W. And the recent sanctions and crackdowns on counterfeiting, drug running and arms trading have clearly had a positive effect. I suspect that Kim further pushed his country towards collapse with the dash to build a bomb, and hence the willingness now to appear conciliatory in return for aid. In a few years, if things get a bit easier for him and his odious regime as the rest of the world looks elsewhere, he will go back to his bomb making. And this time he might come up something that really goes bang, rather than fizzles as his first test did. If he makes it portable (small enough to fit on one of his many long range missiles) and / or sells it to the highest bidder, the appeasement praised here will be seen as a dirty compromise that was a terrible mistake.

G, London,

I'm astonished at how biased this article is (and in The Times?). The cause of change in diplomacy from the US was due to North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons, not the other way around (as suggested here). Furthermore, it was Clinton's lack of action that caused the crisis to form, not the actions of the Bush administration (as is suggested here). Your opinions appear heavily scewed by an obvious anti-Bush agenda. It seems possible to some that the Bush administration tried to do something about a mounting crisis (i.e., the North getting nuclear weapons), which the rest of the world (as is happening all too often now) refused to act upon because it was led by the americans. Now, voila (and I use the French term here purposfully), we have a nuclear armed North Korea.

m, Newcastle,

Its a joke that Clinton took anything serious. Was his near decision to bomb N. Korea one of his choices between bombing there or Sudan to distract from his impeachement proceeding that day? If you think N.Korea's road to the bomb started and ended during the Bush administration you're not qualified to be writing here. Sleep tight...we've got your back!

Murph, madisonville, KY

Not only is the analysis of the North Korea/American relationship in the article accurate, but it also confirms Bush’s “act first (usually rashly and impetuously), think and rationalise later” approach to governance.

The prime example of this approach is, of course, the Iraqi invasion, which unfortunately, cannot be reversed in the manner that Bush is now reversing some of his key decisions – eg relaxation of some of demands of the Sarbanes-Oxley, when it was discovered that it was impacting adversely on the American economy. Another example is his reversal of aspects of steel tariffs that he put in place some years ago. Now comes this climbdown over North Korea.

Ayo Odelusi, Wallington, UK

It is incorrect (but telling of the subtle anti-Bush bias of this article) to suggest that the Axis of Evil Speech caused KJI to restart the nuclear programme - the programme had never been stopped nor was it in mothballs since the time of the Carter brokered bribe deal of the early 1990s. No doubt the sabre rattling of Bush caused KJL to order a show detonation of a pretty mediocre weapon, but KJL never had any intention of stopping the programme as it was in fact rewarded by carter's nonsensical deal.

Both Clinton and Bush have not been tough enough on KJL. Whatever the US dies, it is China that holds the key. Keeping KJL on a leash is in China's interests - the grip can be lessened any time China wants to toy with the US.

Toby, Sydney,