Slim chance of US-DPRK dialogue
0 Comments
By Liu Ming
In a letter sent to the UN Security Council on September 3, North Korea said "experimental uranium enrichment has successfully been conducted to enter into completion phase; the reprocessing of spent fuel rods is at its final phase and extracted plutonium is being weaponized."
The letter said North Korea is "prepared for both dialogue and sanctions". It also warned that "if some permanent members of the UNSC wish to put sanctions first before dialogue, we would respond with bolstering our nuclear deterrence first before we meet them in a dialogue."
North Korea is using plutonium weaponization and uranium enrichment to try to push the United States into direct talks. If the U.S. refuses, North Korea may increase the pace of nuclear weapons development.
Since carrying out a second nuclear test on May 25, North Korea's overseas relations have been in deep freeze. The UN Security Council imposed sanctions on July 16; India detained a DPRK cargo ship in its waters; the United Arab Emirates seized a cargo of DPRK weapons destined for Iran, and Italy blocked the sale of two luxury yachts to Kim Jong Il. North Korea's overseas economic ties have also suffered crushing blows and the situation can only get worse if no action is taken to turn the situation around.
North Korea has recently made a series of conciliatory gestures to the U.S., such as inviting Bill Clinton to visit the country; and arranging a meeting between its representative to the United Nations and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Both actions conveyed the message that the North wants to talk to the United States on the nuclear issue.
But why does North Korea want exclusive, bilateral talks with the United States?
First, the North is determined to become a nuclear-weapons state. Returning to the Six-Party Talks would mean the acceptance of third-phase denuclearization as proposed by the U.S.
Second, it is difficult for North Korea to reach a favorable deal with the U.S. in the framework of the Six-Party Talks. Within the Six-Party framework, all the pressure is on North Korea.
Third, North Korea is angry with Japan for its refusal to honor aid agreements reached at the Six-Party Talks.
Fourth, North Korea believes the U.S. may tolerate it having nuclear weapons if it agrees to strategic cooperation with the U.S. and promises to give up further nuclear development and export of nuclear technology.
But Clinton's visit gave the US sight of the cards in North Korea's hand. It knows Pyongyang is not prepared to give up nukes. The U.S. has concluded that opening direct talks now would be to fall into a trap set by Kim Jong Il, and would result in the U.S. being led by the nose as it was following the North's first nuclear test in 2006. Moreover, the U.S. assessment is that the North's uranium enrichment has not substantially altered the regional security balance. Satellite photos show the Yongbyon nuclear test site in a state of disrepair, with no signs of reconstruction work in progress. American nuclear scientists believe North Korea will be unable to implement uranium enrichment in the short term and that its threats are little more than rhetoric.
Present US policy is to beef up sanctions on North Korea while keeping the door open for the other four countries to pressure the North to return to the Six-Party Talks.
But the North's determination to maintain its nuclear deterrent during the coming leadership transition rules out an early return to the Six-Party Talks. Pyongyang will continue to develop nuclear weapons in an attempt to blackmail the U.S. But if its neighbors continue to implement the UNSC sanctions, North Korea will not be able to sustain nuclear weapons development in the long term. It will eventually be forced to return to the negotiating table. To save face, North Korea may ask for a resumption of both the Six-Party Talks and bilateral talks with the U.S. That would mean US-DPRK talks, but only within the context of the Six-Party Talks.
Professor Liu Ming is deputy director of the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences.
(China.org.cn translated by Li Shen, September 11, 2009)
Comments