A day after the joint statement was adopted at the talks North Korea's foreign ministry spokesman said the North would return to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and sign an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) only after the US provides it with an LWR. That goes head on into the US position that providing the North with an LWR could be discussed at the point in time when the North's dismantlement of its nuclear programs is complete. However, we think there is no need to exaggerate that difference of position or interpret it in a way that seriously shakes at the framework of the arrangement. What is happening was somewhat expected when the joint statement was adopted. The statement says only that the parties "agreed to discuss, at an appropriate time, the subject of the provision of light water reactor to the DPRK" without specifying when would be appropriate. Therefore the current situation can be seen as a war of nerves between North Korea and the United States as they try to seize a more advantageous upper hand.
Ultimately the problem will have to be resolved in the long process of negotiation about concrete implementation of the joint statement. Realistically, it is highly probable that the time for discussion will be coordinated with the situation regarding advances in the North's renunciation of its nuclear programs. Just as the joint statement states the principle of "word for word," there needs to be measures that observe the principle of "action for action" for the statement to be able to be implemented. The premise for implementation is the building of trust between the North and the US. When you can't trust you negotiation partner, any agreement can become scraps of paper in a single moment. The Korean government needs to continue to exert creative effort to assure that the North and the US soften their mistrust and implement the statement with concrete agreement.
The Hankyoreh, 21 September 2005.
[Translations by Seoul Selection (PMS)]
