Despite much diplomatic activity, six-party talks designed to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis have yet to resume after an approximately eight-month hiatus.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Il told a visiting senior Chinese official Feb. 21 that Pyongyang would return to the “negotiating table anytime if there are mature conditions.” Kim’s announcement apparently overturned an official statement made only days earlier that indicated that Pyongyang would not soon participate in the talks.
Wang Jiarui, a senior Chinese Communist Party official, delivered a pointed message from President Hu Jintao expressing support for resuming the talks “at an early date,” the official Xinhua News Agency reported.
Wang’s visit followed the North Korean Foreign Ministry’s Feb. 10 announcement that Pyongyang would “suspend participation in the talks for an indefinite period.” The statement also contained Pyongyang’s most authoritative pronouncement to date that it possesses nuclear weapons.
The United States responded to the Feb. 21 North Korean statement by reiterating its readiness to resume talks in the six-party format. ‘’All of the other five parties—the United States, China, the Republic of Korea, Japan, and Russia—are, in fact, ready to return to the table at an early date and without preconditions,’’ Department of State spokesperson Richard Boucher said Feb. 22.
Still, the next round of six-party talks has yet to be scheduled.
Election-Related Delays
In September 2004, North Korea opted out of what would have been the fourth round of the talks in 18 months. At that time, there were indications that Pyongyang wanted to see how the U.S. presidential elections would turn out before gauging how to approach the talks. Since President George W. Bush’s November re-election, North Korean officials repeatedly stated that they were assessing his second-term policies before making a decision regarding the talks.
Prior to Wang’s meeting with Kim, U.S., Japanese, and South Korean officials had called for Beijing to use its diplomatic leverage to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table. Beijing is widely believed to have the most influence on Pyongyang because it provides essential supplies of food and fuel to North Korea. (See ACT, May 2004.) The participants in the talks held a series of bilateral meetings earlier this month.
A congressional source familiar with the issue told Arms Control Today Feb. 24 that Pyongyang had told Washington through multiple diplomatic channels that it wanted Bush to make a positive statement about the North Korean regime during his Feb. 2 State of the Union Address.
Bush labeled North Korea part of an “axis of evil” in his 2002 State of the Union address.
This time, Bush confined himself to describing U.S. diplomatic efforts “to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions.” But this apparently did not satisfy Pyongyang. Its Foreign Ministry, citing statements from Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asserted Feb. 10 that Washington had not changed what Pyongyang insists is a “hostile policy” to bring down the North Korean regime.
North Korea has repeatedly said that further six-party talks are pointless unless Washington changes this policy. (See ACT, December 2004.)
During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rice labeled North Korea an “outpost of tyranny” two days before Bush argued forcefully for combating “tyranny” in his Jan. 20 inaugural address.
Whither the Talks?
The talks’ future remains uncertain. Although Kim’s statement was more conciliatory in tone and omitted Pyongyang’s frequent anti-American rhetoric, it nonetheless echoed the Foreign Ministry’s statement that Pyongyang was waiting for “ample conditions and atmosphere” before returning to the talks.
Kim did not specify the conditions under which Pyongyang would resume talks. But a high-ranking North Korean diplomat told a former State Department official Feb. 11 that North Korea wants Bush to state publicly that Washington will accept “peaceful coexistence” with Pyongyang, the official told Arms Control Today.
The Bush administration, however, has indicated that it will not provide further incentives for North Korea to return to the talks. The United States wants North Korea to respond formally to a U.S. proposal presented at the last round of six-party talks, which were held in June. Part of the proposal would provide incentives for North Korea to freeze and then dismantle its nuclear facilities. (See ACT, July/August 2004.)
Boucher indicated Feb. 10 that the U.S. proposal is negotiable, but only in the six-party talks.
Meanwhile, tactical differences persist between Washington and the other parties. The United States has favored a more hard-line approach, while the other participants have supported increased engagement with North Korea.
For example, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Kong Quan told reporters Feb. 22 that both Washington and Pyongyang should be “flexible” and “make greater efforts on the issue.”
Tokyo, however, may be taking a tougher line. Japan’s Foreign Ministry stated Jan. 26 that it will take “more stringent” measures against North Korea if the latter does not do more to account for Japanese citizens Pyongyang abducted some years ago. (See ACT, October 2002.)
Tokyo has also adopted new regulations, which take effect March 1, requiring ships entering Japanese ports to carry insurance. It is widely believed that these regulations could adversely impact North Korean ships, most of which are uninsured.
<!--#include virtual="/linked/foot.inc"-->