[Editorial] North’s strategy of failure at the 6-party talks

The six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue were held again for the first time in 13 months. This time, they lasted five days. It is disappointing that there weren’t any visible accomplishments. You can, of course, find meaning in this latest round of talks, in the fact that North Korea and the United States got together and engaged in serious discussion about the nuclear issue as well as the financial measures the U.S. has in place against Pyongyang. You don’t have to be pessimistic about the prospects, now that the long period of complications is over and the two sides are talking again.

The primary responsibility for the failure of these talks to produce results lies with North Korea, because it essentially avoided discussion about anything other than having the U.S. lift its financial sanctions. The U.S.’s approach was a considerably flexible one. It laid out a new "give and take" type of proposal about the nuclear issue, and, when it came to its financial sanctions, it accepted the North’s demand for bilateral talks. These acts represented a change that also happened to have been strongly demanded by the participating nations of South Korea and China. On the other hand, almost nothing was new about the North’s attitude. So much was the same, in fact, that you could even wonder what its motivation was for agreeing to a resumption of the talks in the first place.

The North’s behavior might have been the result of a negotiating strategy which holds that you win more at the table if you’re remain as firm as possible. That is errant thinking. The American proposal was coordinated with South Korea and Japan, and China, too, had agreed to part of it. Looking at the proposal, you can see the U.S. would be under greater pressure to remove the measures it has taken on Pyongyang’s finances once full-fledged negotiations take the nuclear issue to the first stages of implementing a resolution. If the North continues to insist, like it is doing now, that the U.S. unlock its finances first and before anything else happens, it will find itself even more isolated, which will actually make it harder for it to get the financial sanctions lifted. We hope to see the North make a wise decision as to which approach would be more effective.

Declarations by some in the U.S. and Japan that the six-party talks are useless are premature. The North knows quite well that the "Beijing joint statement" of September 19, 2005, which outlines how it would abolish its nuclear program and be compensated, would be much to its benefit. Diplomatic efforts need to be applied to getting the North to make a realistic choice. This will require proactive intervention by South Korea and China. The U.S. needs to apply more speed to negotiations with the North about its finances, so that the issue does not remain an obstacle to progress in the six-party process.

The six-party talks stand on a new horizon. The North needs to realize it would be beneficial for economic reform and regime stability for it to start the process of canning its nuclear program as soon as possible. The international community is not looking at the North favorably.

The situation will only get worse if the other nations party to this process give up or start taking a hard-line approach to the matter just because it is hard to persuade the North to cooperate. If the talks resume next year, they must produce substantive results.

Please direct questions or comments to [[e-mail]]