 |
U.S. and North Korea at Impasse Over Talks
More than four months after China hosted the first round of six-party
talks aimed at resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis, discussions
remain stalled as Washington and Pyongyang struggle to reach mutually
acceptable terms for resuming them. North Korea has implied that
it will not attend the next round unless the talks address Pyongyang’s
offer to freeze its nuclear program in return for U.S. concessions.
Washington repeatedly insists it has no set “preconditions”
for its participation but rejects North Korea’s position and
wants future talks to focus solely on dismantling North Korea’s
nuclear facilities.
The Dispute
The current standoff is the latest manifestation of a months-long
stalemate between the United States and North Korea that has persisted
since the August talks. Pyongyang continues to express dissatisfaction
with what it claims are vague U.S. responses to its past proposals
for resolving the nuclear crisis.
In particular, North Korea has called on the United States to issue
a security assurance, normalize bilateral diplomatic relations,
refrain from hindering North Korea’s “economic cooperation”
with other countries, and increase food aid. Additionally, Pyongyang
has demanded that Washington complete the suspended nuclear reactor
project and resume fuel oil shipments that were part of the 1994
Agreed Framework. That agreement froze the North Korean nuclear
program in exchange for the construction of two proliferation-resistant
light-water nuclear reactors, the provision of heavy-fuel oil, and
the normalization of diplomatic relations. (See
ACT, October 2003.)
The United States has not publicly responded with a comparable counterproposal.
Department of State spokesman Adam Ereli reiterated the U.S. position
Dec. 19, stating that the United States is “willing” to
offer a written, multilateral security agreement “in the context
of North Korea’s complete and verifiable and irreversible dismantlement
of its nuclear program.” Washington had previously insisted
that North Korea dismantle all of its nuclear facilities before
the United States would act but has since signaled flexibility regarding
the timing of a security agreement. (See
ACT, December 2003.)
The Bush administration has not said what North Korea must do before
Washington implements such an agreement. White House Press Secretary
Scott McClellan said Dec. 18 that the administration “expect[s]”
the North Koreans to “achieve benchmarks toward ending their
nuclear program” but did not elaborate.
As for North Korea’s other demands, Bush administration officials
continue to insist that the United States will not “reward”
North Korea for dismantling its nuclear program but that it may
address other North Korean concerns if Pyongyang does so.
North Korea has said it is willing to consider the U.S. security
proposal, which falls short of Pyongyang’s previous demand
for a formal “nonaggression pact,” but Pyongyang has repeatedly
expressed reluctance to dismantle its nuclear facilities and weapons
before the United States acts, arguing that Washington will simply
pocket any concessions in an attempt to “disarm” North
Korea.
The dispute over the next round of talks reflects the sensitivity
of the timing issue. According to a Dec. 9 statement from the state-run
Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), a North Korean Foreign Ministry
spokesman stated that, in addition to a written security assurance,
Pyongyang wants the United States to take “practical actions”
in return for dismantling its nuclear facilities.
To that end, the spokesman stated that resuming the talks depends
on the other parties’ willingness to agree to a “first
phase” of North Korea’s larger proposal. He stated that
North Korea will “freeze [its] nuclear activities” if
the United States removes North Korea from its list of states sponsoring
terrorism; lifts “political, economic, and military sanctions;”
and provides heavy-fuel oil and other energy assistance.
Still, North Korean Foreign Ministry officials have suggested that
these preconditions are negotiable. The spokesman described North
Korea’s demands Dec. 9 as a “proposed first-phase step.”
Additionally, North Korea’s Vice Foreign Minister Kim Yong
Il said the same day in Malaysia that Pyongyang would attend a new
round of talks if it “will be a process toward the realization
of a package solution based on simultaneous actions we have proposed,”
Kyodo News reported.
Although President George W. Bush dismissed Pyongyang’s proposal
by stating that the U.S. “goal” is for North Korea to
“dismantle,” not freeze, its nuclear program, North Korea
has repeatedly offered to dismantle its nuclear program as part
of a final settlement. KCNA reported Dec. 28 that a Foreign Ministry
spokesman described these steps as a “starting point”
for solving the nuclear crisis.
The Way Forward
Although consultations among the parties continue, the evident lack
of common ground casts doubt on whether another round of talks will
yield progress, especially if there is little advance agreement
on the meeting’s objectives.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher stated Dec. 8 that United
States, South Korea, and Japan reached agreement on language designed
to form the basis for a joint statement resulting from a next round
of talks. China, however, which has taken the lead in arranging
the talks, was unsuccessful in obtaining North Korea’s agreement.
U.S. differences with other participants over the appropriate approach
also remain evident. On Dec. 23, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman
admonished “all sides” to be “flexible and more pragmatic”
in their approaches, and South Korea’s Unification Minister
Jeong Se-hyun said Dec. 4 that Washington should “ease its
stance for the momentum of dialogue,” Agence France Presse
reported.
|
