Six-party talks could be extended another day

Posted on : 2008-12-11 14:03 KST Modified on : 2019-10-19 20:29 KST
Negotiators working to fine-tune details related to verification methods, agents, items and goals
 North Korea’s chief nuclear negotiator
North Korea’s chief nuclear negotiator

On Wednesday, the third day of the six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear program, the six parties made a major effort to reach a compromise on four major points: how the North’s nuclear declaration will be verified, who will lead the verification process, which items should be verified and the verification goals. The chief negotiators of the six participating nations, which include South and North Korea, the United States, Japan, China and Russia, gathered at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing on Wednesday morning, and they tried to narrow their differences through a series of bilateral meetings following a planned plenary session.

Ahead of the day’s talks, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, Washington’s chief negotiator to the talks, told reporters that he would make several proposals to host nation China after having received feedback from his government overnight. A person related to the talks said Wednesday afternoon, “The talks were originally scheduled to finish on December 10th, but could be extended.”

There are four major sticking points that need to be fine-tuned by the six parties. On the issue of the verification method, negotiators were able to narrow their differences over use of the word “sampling.” The contentious word was not used in favor of alternative expressions such as “scientific verification procedures,” verification in accordance with “international standards” and the “role of the International Atomic Energy Agency.” Some observers say that the Chinese expression “geomsik,” which is equivalent to language about “forensic discernment” that appeared in the October North Korea-U.S. Pyongyang agreement, could be used in a final verification agreement.

With regard to which nation will lead the verification process, two proposals were discussed, a high-ranking official from one of the six nations said. One is to establish a new verification system under the six-party framework, as agreed on during the previous round of six-party talks in July, and the other, as suggested by Russia, is to have the IAEA lead the verification process, according to the high-ranking official.

South Korea, the United States, Japan and Russia want to more actively and clearly define the role of the IAEA, which agreed to provide support and advice during the verification process at the previous round of six-party talks in July and at he North Korea-U.S. meeting in October. The unknown factor is to what extent North Korea will accept the proposal, given the fact that it has a bad perception about the IAEA due to friction over special inspections it wanted to conduct at the the time of the first nuclear crisis. The issue is closely related to the matter of how the North’s declaration will be verified.

With regard to the issue of items for verification, there was a tug-of-war over the conditions for, and scope of, the “right to access undeclared facilities.” South Korea, the United States and Japan were believed to want to strengthen the language used in October’s Pyongyang agreement, which gives inspectors access to undeclared facilities under the principle of “mutual consent.” However, the North’s reaction was believed to be skeptical. Ultimately, the predominant view is that six parties might make a compromise within a scope of the agreement reached at the North Korea-U.S. meeting in October.

Another contentious issue is the United States’ additional request that the statement “North Korea pledges to return to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA safeguards as soon as possible,” language from the September 19 Joint Statement, be included in the verification agreement. It was believed that host nation China tried to work out a compromise by including the term in the verification agreement while also including language about the North’s “unique situation” as a “country that declared itself a nuclear state by conducting a nuclear test outside of the NPT.”

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

Most viewed articles