Commentary

China Watch

Forum Digests

Columnists

Letters

Talks only option to get out of Korean impasse

By Ming Jing (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-12-23 07:45

The road ahead for diplomatic initiatives to break the stalemate over the simmering nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula will by no means be smooth.

The latest round of Six-Party Talks ended in an impasse on Dec 11.

Following four days of intense and grueling negotiations, the six parties failed to reach a deal on a protocol outlining how to verify the declaration of Democratic People's Republic of Korea's (DPRK) nuclear programs.

The sticking point concerning the verification method is whether to spell out in writing that Pyongyang should agree to the extraction of samples from its main nuclear complex at Yongbyon - where plutonium can be produced.

"Collecting such samples is indispensable to analyzing the amount of plutonium extracted by the DPRK - a central method for gauging the scale of Pyongyang's atomic capability and for probing whether the country was truthful in its accounting of its nuclear programs," said Zhang Liangui, an expert on the Korean Peninsula issues at the Central School of Central Committee of Communist Party of China.

US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack reiterated after the talks that without an agreement on verification, the six-party process could not move forward.

McCormack did not rule out putting Pyongyang back on a list of states accused of sponsoring terrorism.

Two months ago, the Bush administration said it was removing the DPRK from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, based on Pyongyang's oral commitment to a verification plan.

But experts saw little scope for Washington to impose such punishment.

"Even if they had effective sticks, there really is not any time to use them," Zhang said. "I do not think US President George W. Bush wants to hand over yet another crisis for President-elect Barack Obama."

The multilateral negotiations have been going on for more than five years, but this round is of special significance.

The latest meeting was probably the last opportunity for the Bush administration to make any headway with the DPRK, which claimed it tested a nuclear bomb in 2006.

An agreement on verification would be a welcome diplomatic trophy for outgoing Bush before he gives way to Obama in January.

The White House thus did not rule out cutting the Gordian knot before Bush leaves office.

"There is the opportunity for the DPRK to sign onto this verification protocol," said McCormack, "The ball is in their court."

Analysts believe Pyongyang will maintain a holding pattern and see what is coming in Washington until the Obama administration takes over next month.

The DPRK's nuclear envoy Kim Kye-gwan was quoted by Kyodo news agency as telling reporters in Beijing that Pyongyang would "probably adjust the pace of disablement at nuclear facilities" after Washington warned of rethinking the action-for-action process and said energy aid to the state had been suspended due to failed talks on verifying the DPRK's operations.

Under a disarmament-for-aid deal reached in February 2007, up to 1 million tons of heavy fuel aid was promised to Pyongyang as a reward for progress on denuclearization.

But analysts do not think the DPRK, starved of energy and money, plans to quit the talks, at least for now, because it craves the aid coming to it through the nuclear deal.

"For the time being, there is still room for bargaining and compromise," said Fu Mengzi, assistant president of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations. "The standoff would continue at least until Obama settles into the White House."

The root of the nuclear issue derives from the remaining shadow of the Cold War over the Korean Peninsula.

Schisms on Pyongyang's nuclear development occurred between the DPRK and the United States more than 10 years ago. The two sides reached a nuclear framework agreement in 1994 after 18 months of arduous negotiations to freeze Pyongyang's plutonium-based nuclear program in exchange for food and technical aid from the United States.

The pressing policy adopted by Washington toward the DPRK since Bush assumed the US presidency in 2001 has resulted in an exchange of adverse gestures from both sides and set the bar for talks impossibly high.

The nuclear crisis erupted in October 2002 when Washington exposed Pyongyang's admission of its clandestine highly enriched uranium nuclear program in breach of the 1994 Agreed Framework. Pyongyang revived its nuclear program frozen under the 1994 accord and announced in January 2003 to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in retaliation for Washington's termination of heavy fuel oil supply contracts.

The trading of criticism and conflicting stances between the two sides pushed the situation nearer to a precarious impasse and the world to the brink of an abyss of uncertainty.

Hence, the Six-Party Talks, bringing together the DPRK and the Republic of Korea, China, the United States, Japan and Russia in 2003, has itself given out a positive signal. It evinced the willingness of all the parties to settle disputes through peaceful means and a spirit of reconciliation and cooperation.

The issue took on extra urgency after Pyongyang held its first nuclear test explosion in October 2006.

Following the agreed actions in the initial phase, such as shutting down Pyongyang's principal facilities for the development of plutonium-based nuclear weapons, work is now under way to disable these facilities.

The follow-on phased actions, which included providing economic and energy aid to the DPRK in exchange for the disablement of the facilities, should have been completed by the end of October but were not.

It is unrealistic to expect several sets of meetings to unravel all problems since mutual distrust serves as the biggest impediment.

The recent talks have put this gradual approach to a stern test of patience and confidence, sincerity and flexibility.

Experts stress the multilateral consultation framework of the Six-Party Talks and the mutual security interests of those involved are key to settling standoff on the peninsula.

It seems that while playing the game of brinkmanship, Washington and Pyongyang are showing each other what they also want is dialogue if it can work, according to Zhang Liangui.

How to bridge the gap in the basic positions of different parties, specifically between the United States and the DPRK, is the focus of the negotiations. They should simultaneously show their determination to eliminate each other's concerns.

The talks have moved on from the point-blank refusal of the DPRK and the US for meeting face to face to direct contact between the two sides under artful design of the Six-Party Talks. They have moved on from the first round when merely being able to talk was regarded as a success to the latter when the sides frankly put forward proposals, with each step accomplished with extreme difficulty.

It is clear now that a new agreement must be forged to complete the follow-on phased actions.

As the six-party framework represents the merely realistic and effective approach to the unraveling of the issue, experts believe the incoming Obama administration will try to maintain this process.

And there are also other thorny issues that have yet to be settled. Specifically, they concern inspections of undeclared nuclear facilities, clarifying suspicions of uranium enrichment and nuclear technology proliferation, and most importantly, getting Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons.

Experts believe these will be tough challenges for Obama and his team.

What needs to be done now could be clearer: The nations concerned must act in such a way that the negotiations will continue to the next round.

The talks are about winning for everyone, not getting one nation over another.

A nuclear-free Korean Peninsula is crucial not only to the security and the stability of Northeast Asia but the whole world. It is in the interests of all parties concerned to promote the peace talks as early as possible.

As the host of the Six-Party Talks, China has acted as a facilitator by propelling relevant parties to solve the issue through dialogue, and forming part of the international community's effort to make the peninsula nuclear-free.

If a solution is to be found, there must be give and take. The onus is on the parties involved to produce something tangible. Eventually, they should secure a comprehensive security consultation mechanism on the peninsula and throughout the region, no matter how arduous and plodding the process might be.

(China Daily 12/23/2008 page9)