Six-Nation Negotiations: US & North Korea: Talks grind into 4th day with no sign of break-thru

As the fourth day of talks in Beijing have proceeded from "cautious optimism" to a complex grind, North Korea and the USA have yet to be assured of the meaning of "basic terms" each uses. The process requires unpacking the hidden meanings the other party suspects in the adversary's language of requirements and reassurances. South Korea, Japan, Russia, and of course China are the other four parties to the talks. Each country has its own interests. But the US-NKorea bargaining provides the axis on which everything else seems to turn in the Fourth Round, now in its fourth day.. Perhaps the twosome

Citizens' Alliance for Human Rights for North Koreans - English section Go to Media Focus section and click on link for "07/22/05 NK Human Rights ‘Not on Table’ for 6-Party Talks," by Park Wong-su, Korea Times, July 22, 2005. (There's also a large Korean-language section of the site.)

will come up with something the whole world will rejoice in. Perhaps. On the other hand, could a NKorea-US agreement be vetoed at the last moment by China? In any case, the two main adversaries are working diligently to come to some possible common statement before the conclusion of this Fourth Round of the Six-Countries Talks on North Korea and its future in the world, "the world community of nations," as it's sometimes idealized.

"We hope that [the North] will see the logic, that doing away with nuclear weapons and rejoining the NPT [nonproliferation treaty] will contribute to its economic and political well-being," a senior US official said Wednesday. He added, "These are important negotiations for us. But they are vital for North Korea, as they will determine the future of the country."

Widely divergent definitions of a nuclear-free Korea - as well as who should blink first in getting there - have proved stumbling blocks. The US is holding to the proposal it made in the last talks in June 2004, that the North must dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security guarantees. North Korea rejected that proposal, saying it carried too many demands before delivering incentives. The North is calling for the "denuclearization" of the Korean Peninsula and removal of the US "nuclear umbrella." The US has repeatedly said it has no nuclear weapons in South Korea and will not negotiate over what it has elsewhere.

Further:

Chief US negotiator Christopher Hill said that he was hopeful that the delegation could start drafting a statement quickly. But, he noted, "this is not an easy process. It takes time."

US, North Korea struggle to agree on basic terms, by Amelia Newcomb and Donald Kirk, CSM, July 29, 2005.

------------------

The BBC tells us almost in passing what the heart of the matter is:

US envoy Christopher Hill and North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan are trying to agree on a plan to end the North's nuclear programme.

Both nations have put fresh demands on the table, although they are still a long way off reaching a deal.

The US delegation's decision to engage the North Koreans directly is a significant departure from its previous approach, according to BBC correspondent Charles Scanlon.

Further US-N Korea private talks, BBC News, July 29, 2005

The BBC article continues:

Pyongyang wants diplomatic relations with the US and a peace agreement, in addition to security guarantees and economic help.

For its part, Washington has called for concessions on North Korea's development of ballistic missiles and its human rights record.

These demands are in addition to Washington's most significant requirement - that Pyongyang agree to the verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear weapons programmes.

North Korea objects to US demands that it make the first move by scrapping its nuclear weapons facilities. Instead it wants a step-by-step process in which it receives progressive rewards and incentives.

The North has also continued to reject American allegations that it is running a secret enriched uranium programme in addition to its well-known plutonium plant at Yongbyon.

That dispute provoked the current crisis, which began nearly three years ago and has blocked diplomatic progress since.

Next, we turn to The Washington Times:

Hard-liners lose clout in North Korea talks, by Nicholas Kralev, WaTi, July 29, 2005

The new US approach to negotiating with North Korea is remarkably different from the hardline espoused by John R. Bolton as Deputy Undersecretary for under Secretary of State, Colin Powell, during President Bush's first term. While the new Secretary, Condoleeza Rice, has responded aggressively to change circumstances, setting Christoopher Hill on his preent course in the unprecedented face-to-face one-on-one bargaining behind closed doors with North Korea and while she is still using Bolton's former staff in the new approach, at the same time Rice is fully backing Bolton's appointment as Ambassador to the United Nations. I haven't seen it remarked anywhere, but Bolton's expected recess appointment is an extra weapon, however unspoken by Hill and Rice, that, should North Korea not reach some clear determination about its own denuclearization with strict international inspections of nuclear facilities, then the US will go to the UN Security Council and ask for sanctions, making a full and powerful case that well may be backed up - altho China and Russia both hold a veto
on the Security Council, perhaps a resolution of the General Assembly could actually receive passage.

Still, the move would isolate North Korea in a near-total way, and a naval seige could well be put in place. Or a diversion of ships and even air traffic could be organized to prevent anything from getting into or outside North Korea - except from South Korea and China, by land. The problem with sanctions is that there's no mercy in it for the North Korean population who are brutalized beyond imagination. On the other hand, it's difficult to see how their difficulties could get worse, as they don't benefit from what comes into the North in the way of trade and aid.

    Many [State Department officials] said the administration has been able to change its approach because of a different attitude in Pyongyang.
    "They understood that we are very serious about their nuclear programs," one official said. "Plus, they might have been hoping for a different administration in Washington after last year's election, and that obviously didn't happen."

Atmosphere improves at nuclear talks, Burt Herman, AP via Yahoo!News, July 29, 2005.

Ambassador Hill said:

There is a growing consensus that where we end up is the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula — that is no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons programs ... no nuclear programs that could conceivably be nuclear weapons programs," he said.

However, he said there was dissension on "how that's going to be sequenced" — a reference to the North Korean demand for aid and concessions first before giving up its nuclear trump card. Washington wants to see the weapons programs eliminated before it rewards the North.

The delegates hope to start drafting a joint document Saturday on what they've agreed to so far, a Japanese official said on condition of anonymity due to the delicate nature of the ongoing talks.

The latest nuclear standoff with North Korea was sparked after U.S. officials say the North admitted in late 2002 to running a uranium enrichment program — which could provide fuel for atomic bombs — in violation of an earlier 1994 deal with Washington.

North Korea has subsequently denied having such a program, and Hill said Friday that its status was one of the sticking points in a resolution.

Also, Hill said the North has insisted it should have the right to use peaceful nuclear technology for power generation if it rejoins the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The United States maintains the North shouldn't be allowed to do so because of proliferation concerns.

Meanwhile, the foreign ministers of the two Koreas adopted a joint statement Friday at an Asian regional summit in Laos calling for a peaceful resolution of the nuclear standoff and better relations between the two countries, the North's official Korean Central News Agency reported.

The South's Ban Ki-moon and his North Korean counterpart, Paek Nam Sun, called for "substantial and constructive progress" at the nuclear talks, KCNA said.

In Frontpage Magazine, Lt Col Gordon Cucullu
raises the human rights issue in regard to North Korea.

First, he informs of the American legal situation regarding North Korea and negotiating with it, a legal situation which apparently is playing no role in negotiations with North Korea:

Late last year both houses of Congress unanimously passed the North Korean Human Rights Act. It was immediately signed into law by President Bush. The law demands that in all dealings with the North Koreans that human rights for the long-suffering people of North Korea be placed on the table for discussion along with any other issues, nuclear, chemical, or missile. This is not mere policy or guidance – either of which would demand obedience from a loyal staff - but is the law of the land, duly filed and recorded.

Then, Cucullu summarizes the barbarity of the present regirm in North Korea:

...[T]hose of us who read reports that North Korean people have had their meager government food ration cut to 200 g daily (520 g is the world standard for survival), while well-fed diplomats preen around conference tables and pose for grip-and-grin photo ops, grind our teeth in frustration. As long as the Six Party talks continue on a flawed policy of separation of strategic arms discussion from human rights issues – which are catastrophic in North Korea – then the outcome of the talks is predestined to failure. Such luminaries as Natan Sharansky, who has through his own experience seen what happens in such a case, call for a gathering of nations to produce a policy similar to the Helsinki Accords that linked human rights to strategic issues and in so doing finally brought about freedom for Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Such an accord would be incredibly more productive that the current failed Six Party talks and would recognize our moral responsibility to free the people of North Korea.

I conclude with the screeching understatement that the situation is truly difficult, and the way forward obscure. - Politicarp