SIX-PARTY TALKS – TALKS ARE CHEAP

Kwon Ho-ung, the chief North Korean delegate in Seoul for Cabinet-level talks,
today echoed comments made by Kim Jong-il to South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, on 17 June, concerning North Korea’s willingness to return to talks, and ultimately to give up nuclear weapons. A South Korean spokesman quoted the Northern delegation as having stated:

“If the United States treats the North in a friendly manner, we will possess not one nuclear weapon.

Kim Jong-il reportedly said that if the U.S. “recognizes and respects” North Korea, that talks could begin as early as July, while Kwon spoke of the U.S. being “friendly” towards North Korea:

North Korea vowed Wednesday to keep its promise to make the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons, saying that it has no need to have nuclear bombs if the United States is friendly toward it… “We would not have nuclear weapons if the United States does not have a hostile policy toward us,” Kwon Ho-ung”¦ said during the opening session of the three-day talks. [emphasis added]

At the same time an Op-Ed column by Donald Gregg and Don Oberdorfer, also in today’s Washington Post, calls for the Bush administration not to miss the chance to potentially strike a new deal with North Korea:

“¦The Bush administration should seize the moment… For starters, we suggest that President Bush, after touching base with our Asian partners — South Korea, China, Japan and Russia — communicate directly with Kim Jong Il to follow up on his remarks. He might consider… a visit to Kim by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice…

In efforts to reassure North Korea, the United States has repeatedly declared that it recognizes North Korean sovereignty, has no hostile intent and is willing to arrange security guarantees and move toward normal relations with Pyongyang once the nuclear issue is resolved. Kim’s remarks present a golden opportunity to take the U.S. offers to the one and only person in North Korea who has the power of decision… [emphasis added]

As we well know, this is not the first time that Kim has sought engagement rather than hostility with President Bush… in November 2002 following a nuclear-related trip by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, we were given a written personal message from Kim to Bush declaring: “If the United States recognizes our sovereignty and assures non-aggression, it is our view that we should be able to find a way to resolve the nuclear issue in compliance with the demands of a new century.” Further, he declared, “If the United States makes a bold decision, we will respond accordingly.”

I am not so sure that North Korea would be all that excited about Condoleezza Rice in Pyongyang ““ after all, she is not as gullible as the last U.S. secretary of state to visit North Korea in 2000, and the North was not happy with her recent “outpost of tyranny“ statements. It should also be noted that the U.S. has been attempting to coordinate a cohesive strategy with our Asian partners, but different agendas have produced less than positive results.

What should the U.S. do? Talk to North Korea, of course. The problem is that North Korea cannot be trusted to keep any deals or agreements, which is reflected in the current U.S. policy goal of “complete, verifiable and irreversible“ nuclear disarmament. North Korea has already clearly rejected this approach, so far. But if the complete nuclear disarmament ““ which is a minimum requirement of any sane North Korea policy ““ cannot be verified, how can North Korea be trusted to keep the agreement?

Some articles and analysis mention the overarching goal of Kim Jong-il, the survival of his regime, and suggest that he wants to get past the nuclear issue in order to gain aid and engage. What they fail to mention (none that I have seen recently at any rate) is that there are limits to just how much engagement Kim can allow with the outside world due to the cult aspect of his regime. This major oversight will continue spur naive hope for some sort of breakthrough to come from Kim’s current offer, even if North Korea comes back to the table, even if the 1994 Agreed Framework is resurrected or a new deal is struck.

Giving up nuclear weapons, still, is not the same as perusing engagement. But Kim has no compelling reason to give up nukes at this time, assuming he even has them. The U.S. will not attack because North Korea could level a large part of Seoul with long-range artillery, aside from being engaged (overextended?) in Iraq. North Korea is already getting massive amounts of aid from South Korea, China, and yes, even the U.S. China has not put much pressure on the North, and continues to supply Pyongyang with its supply of oil. So why would North Korea, really, feel the need to bargain away its alleged nuclear weapons just yet?

James Kelly, former assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (2001-2005) – and the person to whom Kang Seok-ju made his October 2002 admission of a North Korean uranium program – makes a no-nonsense case concerning North Korea in this timely article:

This path has been one of uninterrupted hardship for most of North Korea’s people… But these tensions can be eased at any time. DPRK sovereignty is recognized and if it turns not just part way, but completely and transparently from its nuclear-weapons policy it can have solid security assurances. Indeed, many countries would hasten to provide aid and support to the DPRK’s participation in the global system. So far, the DPRK chooses not to ease these tensions. It will negotiate, but apparently only about negotiations, not about the central issue that would diminish tensions. Why does a country seem to seek tension? It has been made clear to the DPRK in and out of the six-party talks that US security assurances, guaranteed in a multilateral process, are available to it if it verifiably ends all segments of its nuclear-weapons programs. Since 2003, the DPRK has said little about desiring security assurances. Its leadership may believe that threats and tensions serve its needs better than guarantees of security and a peaceful atmosphere. The only way to look at the present situation is to look carefully at history… [emphasis added]

The rest of the articles here on the Asia Times website.