hankyoreh

Doubts and impatience were cropping up Thursday in Washington as six-party denuclearization talks were forced into a recess over a technical glitch in what normally would have been a routine banking transaction.

The prevalent view is that the denuclearization process would continue, that the problem is only temporary. But some see North Korea's actions as a reflection of a U.S. tactical error that may come back to haunt the administration.

China, host of the six-party talks, announced a recess to the denuclearization forum that also involves South and North Korea, the U.S., Russia and Japan after Pyongyang refused to participate.

North Korea insisted that it has to receive the funds from Macau's Banco Delta Asia (BDA) before it will come back to the negotiations.

Under an agreement announced by the U.S. side earlier in the week, BDA was to transfer the released funds to a North Korean account at the Bank of China. But due to problems described in part as a lack of proper filing and hesitation about accepting money linked to shady sources, the transfer was delayed.

"It's a setback for (the six-party) process," said Scott Snyder, senior associate at the Asia Foundation. He compared the present situation to the inter-Korean summit in the summer of 2000, when North Korea at the last minute asked then-South Korean President Kim Dae-jung to delay his Pyongyang trip by a day.

It was later revealed that the North demanded the delay to make sure it received monetary payment from Seoul first.

"It's counterproductive to the process to have to have a recess at this time," Snyder said.

But while Pyongyang's actions test the patience of others, the recess does not translate into the end of the process, he said.

U.S. officials chimed in, emphasizing that the problems are strictly technical and that the U.S. is not to be blamed.

"We in fact have completed the actions necessary to resolve the Banco Delta Asia issue," White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters. "In other words, we have done our part."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he expects to see the six-party talks resume in "the next week or two," indicating that the U.S. sees the current situation as only temporary.

At stake is the Feb. 13 six-party agreement, which commits Pyongyang to shut down its primary nuclear facility within 60 days in exchange for 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil. The second-phase implementation requires the North to disable all of its nuclear weapons and programs, to be rewarded by more energy aid as well as other political and economic incentives.

It was clear Washington wants the BDA case resolved fully and quickly. Daniel Glaser, deputy assistant treasury secretary, is expected to fly out to Beijing within days to talk to Chinese officials. He was in Beijing just earlier this week and announced the agreement with North Korea on releasing the BDA funds.

Michael Green, former Asia director at the National Security Council under the George W. Bush administration, argued Pyongyang was playing on such U.S. eagerness.

He said he believes the North will come through with the 60-day commitment to shut down its nuclear reactor.

"But tactically, I am concerned the U.S. appeared too eager to get an agreement, too willing to trade our leverage in exchange for diplomatic process," Green said.

"North Korea is now using that to seize the initiative, to make us pay even more simply to have them come into the process," he said.

"I think the North Koreans are trying to get as much of a relaxation of sanctions and pressure as possible before finishing this 60 days."

Christopher Hill, chief U.S. envoy to the six-party talks, emphasized the upbeat side, telling reporters in Beijing and McCormack that the atmosphere was "actually very good" and that Pyongyang continued to reaffirm its commitment to the Feb. 13 agreement.

He went further to say that the disablement stage could even be completed within this year.

Alan Romberg, senior associate at the Henry Stimson Center, said the tactical choice has to do with priorities.

"If the U.S. had not taken this step (releasing the BDA funds), North Korea would not have come back to the talks, and we would be going nowhere in six-party talks. The risks of that would be substantial," he said.

"Those who argue about leverage have to demonstrate what sort of leverage it really would have from this point on."
Washington, March 22 (Yonhap News)