United Nations. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Rex Wayne TillersonGary Cohn: 'I haven't made up my mind' on vote for president in November Kushner says 'Alice in Wonderland' describes Trump presidency: Woodward book Conspicuous by their absence from the Republican Convention MORE’s speech at the U.N. Security Council on Friday reversed his earlier statement by saying “North Korea must earn its way back to the table.”

At the U.N., Tillerson said, "sustained cessation of North Korea's threatening behavior must occur before talks can begin," leaving reporters wondering what happened to the language used earlier in the week of negotiations “with no preconditions.” Tillerson appeared to have self-censored his remarks to the Council by not including the offer related to preconditions, which was in a widely-circulated early draft of his address and a clear illustration of differences between the White House and the State Department.

ADVERTISEMENT

China is helping. Russia is not helping,

” Trump said, avoiding the issue of talks and focusing on sanctions.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley Nimrata (Nikki) Haley'The soul' versus 'law and order' Author Ryan Girdusky: RNC worked best when highlighting 'regular people' as opposed to 'standard Republicans' GOP lobbyists pleasantly surprised by Republican convention MORE, who was not at the Council with Tillerson, had penned an earlier unsuccessful resolution, blocked by China, that included a full oil embargo of North Korea.

No doubt, in U.S. policy, as with the Council, there are two tracks: One of pressure and another of negotiations.

But the question remains, if there is a track to begin talks, they are negotiations to what end? A Security Council diplomat said, in a background briefing last week, that the choice appears now to be binary. “Either we go to war, or we enter into negotiations to allow North Korea to keep its nuclear weapons.”

Trump official rips Tillerson: He's "irrelevant" and "not really speaking for the administration" https://t.co/YSZjk3qfrC pic.twitter.com/ebwmCYkI5c — The Hill (@thehill) December 15, 2017

And, there is little doubt that North Korea has become more of a threat in the Kim Jong Un years, launching 40 ballistic missiles, the third and longest intercontinental ballistic missile in November, and conducting three nuclear tests since 2015.

At the U.N., most of the speeches of the diplomats of the 15-member Council as well as the Republic of Korea, said that the international community will not accept a nuclear North Korea.

But the hope for a diplomatic solution continues. This week, after Tillerson’s initial comments, South Korea and China signaled new emphasis on dialogue as South Korea’s president visited Beijing.

And, after his top diplomat visited Pyongyang last week for the “most lengthy” talks in eight years, the Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, made clear that the U.N. can play a role in talks with North Korea: “Diplomatic engagement is the only pathway to sustainable peace and denuclearization.”

Guterres also cautioned on the risks, saying he is deeply concerned by the risk of military confrontation, including as a result of possible unintended escalation or miscalculation.

The U.N. Security Council’s meeting on North Korea on Friday achieved no tangible results, but most diplomats underscored the need to increase pressure on North Korea through the enforcement of sanctions, and to explore talks with the government of Kim Jong Un.

North Korea’s U.N. Ambassador Ja Song Nam in unsurprising commentary, told the Council that Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons is “self-defensive,” he said that, in fact, it is the U.S.- South Korea joint military exercises threaten the peace and security of the Korean peninsula.

Tillerson breaks from earlier comments, says North Korea must stop "threatening behavior" before talks https://t.co/KH8vEewj8X pic.twitter.com/U9MvEymOAF — The Hill (@thehill) December 15, 2017

Tillerson made clear that the China-Russia-North Korea proposal of freeze for freeze will not work, and the U.S. will not accept it as a precondition for talks.

But, there are those who are getting the gears in motion if a diplomatic solution is put in place. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano told me in a CBS interview, that North Korea is a global threat, more today than ever.

Amano said, "Our inspectors were requested to leave in April 2009 ... after that we don't have inspectors on the ground, but we continue to monitor the nuclear programs of North Korea by using satellite imagery and collecting open source information, and we have observed the progress in the nuclear program in North Korea in particular in the city of Yongbyon.”

And he added, "North Korea is not a member of the IAEA now, we need the authorization from a policymaking organ, but when we get the 'go' sign, we can move rather quickly.”

Amano, since last summer, has organized a team at the agency, ready to be on the ground "on short notice" if there is a diplomatic resolution.

Other analysts see positive reasons to engage.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal this week, Peter Harrell, adjunct senior fellow of the Center for a New American Security suggested, “Tillerson may be on to something. With time running out for a peaceful solution, the U.S. should pursue a high-level, bad-faith diplomatic initiative with Pyongyang. The purpose would not be to reach an agreement but to buy time.”

So, why does diplomacy with North Korea worry world leaders so much?

The threat of war with North Korea or a miscalculation is the greatest threat. “The worst possible thing that could happen is for us all to sleepwalk into a war that might have very dramatic circumstances,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said.

That said, in corridors of power around the world, many diplomats speak about an agreement that would allow North Korea to retain some of its technology, for nuclear power, for example, with inspections and no testing. But that kind of a solution also involves risks.

Simply put, an arms race, some believe, is implicit in a diplomatic solution.

If North Korea gets to keep its nuclear weapons program in any way under a negotiated solution — even under international supervision — Japan and South Korea would, reasonably, feel threatened and several nations would want their nuclear weapons as well.

Keeping the nuclear genie in the bottle has been an uphill battle, this author wrote in Foreign Affairs earlier this year. To be sure, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been limited, but the spread of nuclear technology has not. Hans Blix, said during a conversation when he visited the United Nations, “There is a risk of dirty bombs,” if the post–World War II nuclear nonproliferation commitments crumble. Nations large and small, some with stable governments, some with shaky or autocratic regimes, want to join the nuclear club.

The U.N. is trying to help broker some architecture for talks, but clearly, the major powers should agree to what end.

Why do talks with North Korea worry countries? The implications for global security are enormous.

Pamela Falk, former staff director of a House of Representatives Subcommittee, is CBS News TV & Radio Foreign Affairs Analyst and U.N. Resident Correspondent and holds a J.D. from Columbia School of Law. Follow her on Twitter at @PamelaFalk.