In the United States, there are increasing calls for the Bush administration to engage North Korea in direct dialogue, at a time when there are signs that tensions over Pyongyang’s missile launch preparations are going to be part of the landscape for some time to come. And the calls are not just coming from people associated with the Democratic Party; groups of nonpartisan experts and Republican heavyweights are joining in the chorus, as well. We hope to see the Bush administration give ear to this advice and make the right decision before the situation gets any worse.
There are two main reasons North Korea seeks bilateral talks with the U.S. One is a deep-rooted "America first" mindset that thinks all of its problems--from the nuclear issue, the missile issue, and economic aid--can be resolved only by negotiating it out with the Americans. That kind of thinking has changed considerably in recent years, as there has been less progress in relations with the U.S. than Pyongyang would have liked. That fact that several rounds of six-party talks did actually produce some results and reach maturity as a format for dialogue contributed to that change of thinking. The other reason is doubt about whether the Bush administration really wants to improve relations to the point where it is willing to establish diplomatic relations without trying to force regime change. North Korea appears to have been trying to figure out what U.S. intentions are when, earlier this month, it invited U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the top U.S. representative at the six-party talks, to visit Pyongyang.
Whatever the case, the U.S. has no reason not to talk to North Korea. The Bush administration has long said that since Pyongyang cannot be trusted, the right way to go about discussion is a multi-party format. But the six-party talks cannot cover all the issues. So, if only for the sake of having the talks run smoothly, direct dialogue between the U.S. and North Korea is essential. Last fall, the issue of counterfeit U.S. currency and financial sanctions against Pyongyang became part of the overall equation, but that issue is more of a bilateral concern, one between Washington and Pyongyang, for which the six-party talks are not appropriate. The missile issue would also be hard to deal with at a single round of six-party talks. The need for direct dialogue is even greater because of the fact that these problems are further exacerbated by the mutual distrust that exists between the two nations.
For years now, the Bush administration has moved simultaneously between the six-party process and putting pressure on Pyongyang. That two-pronged approach has, in turn, been met by a similar response from North Korea, the result being the repeated interruption and resumption of the six-party dialogue. The primary responsibility for putting an end to that cycle lies with the U.S., as it is the U.S. which holds the leadership advantage here. This latest missile episode needs to be the last obstacle to a smooth continuance of the six-party process. It is time for the Bush administration to make its attitude clear, and the way to begin to do that would be to allow Assistant Secretary Hill to go to Pyongyang or to appoint him as a special envoy to North Korea.
[Editorial] No reason not to have direct U.S.-N.K. dialogue |
