German papers are roiling with news of North Korea and its pledge to boycott United States-sponsored talks designed at ending reclusive dictator Kim Jong Il's nuclear program. For many, it is yet another chance at finger wagging about the Iraq war and the mistake of focusing too much attention on the wrong dictator. But for others, it represents a real opportunity for change.

"It is remarkable," writes the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Let's remember (US President) George W. Bush four years ago, who began his administration with the promise to save the world from tyrants and make everyone safer. He wanted to rap on the fingers of rogue states playing with weapons of mass destruction. He picked out three evil delinquents and named them the "Axis of Evil." Then he went to war with Iraq, Evil No. 1, where no such weapons were found." Then, says the paper, he began harping on Iran, evil nation No. 2, according to Bush." No. 3, North Korea, however, is a name that seldom crosses (Bush's) lips....Why is this so remarkable? Because it is in actuality the most dangerous and the one that requires the most attention of the American president." Why, then, has it been brushed aside? The paper has a cynical answer: "Bush so obviously ignored North Korea because overthrowing its tyrant was not as simple as overthrowing the one in Baghdad ... North Korea is not Iraq. A war on the Korean peninsula would mean quadruple the number of dead. According to a 1990 Pentagon study, there would be close to a million dead. And that was when the talk was of a war with conventional weapons."

Both leading German conservative dailies, Die Welt and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung question if the impoverished nation's claims can be believed. "Does North Korea really have nuclear weapons? Or is it just a bluff to defend itself against the threat of a US preventative strike?" Die Welt asks. And why does this confession come now and in such absolute terms? "Because Pyongyang feels threatened by the sharpened tone of US rhetoric ... This is all about improving its negotiating position. ... The mullahs in Iran will follow the outcome with relish. Pyongyang is raising the bar for Washington and if it jumps, then Tehran will know how far it can go with its game of nuclear poker." Likewise, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which calls Kim Jong Il "the last of the Stalinist dictators," casts doubt on the authenticity of the claims, but insists "this is of secondary importance." What matters, it argues is that "Kim Jong Il has already achieved his most important goal: He won't share the same fate as Saddam Hussein. Even in Bush's January State of the Union address, the US president didn't offer any stern warnings against North Korea." As such, Bush may have given North Korea the impression he is concentrating on other matters," says the paper. "Precisely here lies the chance for new negotiations."

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung, too, isn't convinced North Korea is telling the truth, but says: "This uncertainty over how dangerous North Korea really is is Kim Jong Il's strongest weapon. "In war, the winner is the one who surprises the enemy and comes from behind. In the most divided land in the world, over which the constant threat of war hovers, this tactic is finding new life."

The Financial Times Deutschland takes a wholly different approach, saying the announcement could backfire on North Korea in that it could push China to move closer to the US. China was to be an important player in the anti-nuclear talks. "If China would vote to impose sanctions on North Korea in the United Nations Security Council, then the future of the regime would be at stake," it writes. When it comes to the question of time for it to ready its nuclear arsenal, time is on the side of the North Koreans. But, unlike Iraq, North Korea has a time constraint of another kind: Without energy shipments and economic aid from outside, it cannot long sustain itself."

In addition to discussing North Korea, German commentators gleefully gossip about the future of the English monarchy and surprise announcement that Prince Charles will marry his long-time mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles, as the culmination of a 35-year love affair. For the editorialists at Der Tagesspiegel Camilla will never take the place of Diana and Charles might as well face up to it and step aside. "When the registrar accepts the marriage vows and the Archbishop of Canterbury gives his blessing on April 8, everyone's thoughts will be on that grand day in July 1981 in St. Paul's Cathedral when Diana became the Princess of Wales and the Queen of the Britons' hearts. Neither title will ever be granted to Camilla." Charles, says the paper, is entering dicey constitutional territory by marrying this divorcee and by insisting that Camilla will never bear the title Queen. Are the Brits really prepared to one day be queen-less, the paper wonders, doubtfully. "Monarchists who have their reservations know what the solution could be: King William. That would mean Charles giving up the throne. He's got Camilla now."

The tabloid Bild goes to town with its coverage, splashing the royal faces all through the paper and putting large photos of a glamorous Diana next to a stodgy Camilla and asking, "What does she have that Diana lacked?" The paper even plays off rumors of a long-lost illegitimate star child the two may have had together -- and even went so far as to produce a simulated photo of what the now 23-year-old might look like. In the "Letter from Wagner," the paper's screwball, gap-toothed commentator Franz Josef Wagner, delivers swift uppercuts to the royal pair. "You, Camilla, cheated on your husband Parker Bowles with Charles throughout your whole married life. You, Charles, cheated on Diana with Camilla. In truth, you held each other close with lies. ...We have before us, a love match who carried on a secret and sinful life and now in the end are finding happiness. God bless this love."