The first is how to position the six-party talks; that is, the parties should make it clear whether the purpose of the talks is to postpone the time when they must show their hand, or to realize the denuclearization of the peninsula. From the time the talks began, there was a conflict between the two positions. If the first stance is considered the goal, the system will put top priority on merely holding talks. Thus, maintaining the system of the talks, rather than their efficiency and results, becomes the focus and priority. In short, as long as the talks continue, that amounts to a success. Actually, in this way the talks are turned into a time-consuming game with multiple players.

If the system is regarded as the method for achieving the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, then the concerned parties will treat the talks as a tool that serves that goal. If it works, keep it; if it does not work well, adjust it; and if it doesn't work at all, abandon it. In this way, more attention will be paid to the efficiency and outcome of the talks. The concerned parties will keep a timeframe in their minds and prepare a work schedule to avoid delay.

People must choose wisely between the two stances, or the six-party talks will be doomed. North Korea has conducted a nuclear test, which severely affected the denuclearization process of the peninsula. Therefore, the choice becomes more urgent and important. If the concerned parties are just content to keep the system going, actual achievements will be scarce.

The second issue is to make clear whether the form and topics of the six-party talks should be complex or simplified. For a long time, the nuclear issue has been mixed up with other issues involving North Korea. As a result, when realizing the complication of the North Korea issue, some concerned parties wished to solve all the related issues in one effort. Therefore, they started to set a series of plans on politics, economy, diplomacy, security, friendliness and cooperation. With all these issues combined together, the situation was made too complicated to handle, which led to the failure of negotiations between the United States and North Korea, and the negotiations among China, the United States, North Korea and South Korea.

In fact, the principle of the six-party talks is to settle the Korean nuclear issue, but not all North Korea-related issues. The nuclear issue belongs to the security category, and the solution to this should be limited to the security category only. Any presumption or arrangement exceeding the security framework will lead to complication. Since North Korea claimed that the reason it insisted on developing nuclear weapons was because it believed its security was threatened by the United States, the issue should be settled through a U.S.-North Korea bilateral security agreement or regional multilateral security system, which means "abandoning nuclear programs for security." This is a clear and simple problem that can easily be settled. But the North Korea-related issues are much more complicated, because they concerns differences among countries, such as historical issues, cultural traditions, ideologies, strategic interests, policies and stipulations and even long-time existing biases, which are beyond the capability of the six-party talks.