hankyoreh

The agreement the countries participating in the six party talks arrived on February 13 in Beijing is very significant in that it is the first agreement that signifies the actual implementation of the joint statement of September 19, 2005. The long march to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue and building peace on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia has begun. Each nation needs to carry out what has been agreed to swiftly and in good faith, and lead the way in establishing a new framework for peace.

The beginning of a long march to peace in Northeast Asia
North Korea has demonstrated its intention to carry out the joint statement of September 19, 2005 by closing its nuclear facility at Yongbyon and, then, agreeing to report on all its nuclear programs and disable all its nuclear facilities. There is no reason to look down upon this agreement for the lack of mention of existing nuclear weapons. The joint statement talked about "abandoning all of North Korea's nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs," and this latest agreement covers part of that. The joint statement would render impossible North Korea restarting its reactor or pursuing its nuclear plans. Whether or not Pyongyang will gain the trust of the international community depends on how faithfully it carries out its pledge to close the Yongbyon facility within the stipulated 60 days.

One expects the five working groups that are going to be working under the six-party structure will make the discussions regular and more effective. This, for the first time, makes the six-party talks an everyday format for discussion, an organization with the ability to execute decisions. The groups will cover (1) the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, (2) the Normalization of DPRK-U.S. relations, (3) the Normalization of DPRK-Japan relations, (4) Economic and Energy Cooperation, and (5) a Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism, but in addition the parties will have a "separate forum" for "negotiating a permanent peace regime on the Korean peninsula," and that would cover everything in the joint statement of September 19, 2005. Each country needs to send capable delegations to these working level meetings.

Under the current situation, the most important working group will be the one on relations between Pyongyang and Washington. Just as it was the recent talks between North Korea and the United States held in Berlin last month that got things rolling, progress in U.S.-North Korean relations are the key to the pace of resolution, and what happens at the six-party talks as a whole. These two nations need to quickly do away with their hostile policies toward each other and evolve to have a normal relationship. The U.S. should be true to its standing as a superpower and take the initiative in lessening the security anxieties of North Korea, a weak nation. It was meaningful to have the U.S. be the first to bring up the subject of removing Pyongyang from its list of terror-sponsoring states and lifting its application of the Trading with Enemy States Act to the North.

It was right that the parties linked economic and energy aid to progress in Pyongyang’s denuclearization in the sense that it is consistent with the principle of "action for action." North Korea may be experiencing serious economic difficulties, but the international community has no choice other than to decide on what and how much aid to give based on the progress it makes on denuclearization. Pyongyang needs to realize that instead of always making negotiations difficult by demanding large amounts of aid, it would be able to receive far more aid by denuclearizing in good faith. Excessive demands only make the other countries doubt Pyongyang’s intentions.

It is regrettable that the nations party to the talks experienced difficulties figuring out how much aid to give the North and how to share the burden of providing it. Japan, in particular, is deserving of criticism for wanting to link the issue of kidnapped Japanese citizens to aid when that is a bilateral issue between Tokyo and Pyongyang. You cannot gain the understanding of other nations if you put your country’s interests above the peace of Northeast Asia as a whole. It was also disappointing that the U.S. took a step away from an earlier commitment, for the 1994 Agreed Framework said that it would provide 70 percent of the energy aid, and this new agreement has it providing only 20 percent. That was a bilateral agreement between Pyongyang and Washington and the six-party talks are a multilateral format that is therefore different, but the U.S., as a core participant in the six-party process, needs to assume more of the burden, all the more so when South Korea continues to have its offer of energy aid on the table.

South Korea played a leading role during this latest round of talks. It was a proactive intermediary in facilitating smoother communication between the U.S. and North Korea, and it significantly contributed to the lessening of differences between the parties on how much aid Pyonyang will receive, the timing, and how the burden of providing it is to be shared. South Korea will have to play an even bigger role now that discussion at the working groups will be going on simultaneously. And it goes without saying that South Korea needs to work with the Americans to closely coordinate their positions so that hard-liners in the U.S. do not rise in opposition to these agreements and impede progress at the talks.

The South needs to reconsider its relationship with the North in a positive way, in light of progress at the six-party talks. There need to be talks between authorities in North and South and the South needs to consider resuming humanitarian aid that would be appropriate for the North’s economic difficulties. Discussion about business enterprises with the North needs to begin looking ahead to a future when Pyongyang abandons its programs and come up with an updated approach. The South needs a strategic North Korea policy that allows it to steadily move forward with unswerving plans.

Government-wide preparedness needed
The six-party talks have overcome a difficult hurdle. There will be no small number of difficulties ahead, but if the parties to the talks stay determined, there is no issue they will not be able to resolve. The whole security and economic climate for the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia as a whole will be fundamentally changed a few years from now, as long as the talks move ahead smoothly. The main six-party format, the working groups, and the "separate forum" for "negotiating a permanent peace regime on the Korean peninsula" will each have a major influence on our conditions for existence. It is for this reason that the whole South Korean government needs to be ready to respond to future developments. This latest agreement is the biggest accomplishment since the joint statement of September 19, 2007, but it is only the beginning.


Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]