Former US officials describe path back to dialogue with North Korea

Posted on : 2013-10-29 15:23 KST Modified on : 2019-10-19 20:29 KST
Stephen Bosworth and Robert Gallucci emphasize an easing of preconditions by the US
 former US State Department special representative on North Korea policy
former US State Department special representative on North Korea policy

By Park Hyun, Washington correspondent

A former US special representative on North Korean policy quoted senior diplomats from North Korea on Oct. 27 as saying that “everything is on the table” in possible negotiations.

Speaking in an interview with the Hankyoreh, former US State Department special representative on North Korea policy Stephen Bosworth responded to a question on whether North Korea’s suspected uranium enrichment facilities outside the Yongbyon nuclear complex might be put on the negotiating table by saying “I assume so.” In July, Bosworth was named chairman of the US-Korea Institute at SAIS.

In late September and early October, Bosworth met with North Korean authorities in Berlin and London, including the North’s senior representative to the six-party talks on the nuclear issue, vice foreign minister Ri Yong-ho.

The Barack Obama administration in Washington has responded very keenly to the possibility of additional uranium enrichment facilities in North Korea, saying such a discovery, even after a resumption of dialogue and talks on the nuclear issue, could be viewed as a serious failure. North Korea’s disclosure of information about its uranium enrichment and bringing it to the negotiating table might also help to get the six-party talks started again.

Bosworth said, “I do believe NK is very likely prepared to come back to negotiating table. They have said that the denuclearization is not off the table. They want to resume dialogue based on the September 2005 joint statement.”

A piece co-written by Bosworth and Robert Gallucci, a onetime State Department adviser and a major figure in the 1994 Agreed Framework reached by the US and North Korea in Geneva, was published on Oct. 28 in the New York Times. In it, they said the current deadlock “only buys time for North Korea to develop its nuclear program.”

“It’s time for the Obama administration to reopen dialogue with Pyongyang,” the authors asserted.

They also said it was “in the interests of both Pyongyang and Washington to show the flexibility needed to jump-start discussions.”

“The United States should relax its requirement that North Korea meet its demands before any dialogue begins,” they recommended. “Pyongyang should be ready to take steps [to build trust] not only at the very beginning of talks but also beforehand.”

More specifically, they recommended other measures such as steps to arrange the release of Korean American Kenneth Bae, currently under detention in North Korea, as well as a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, suspension of activity at nuclear facilities, and testing by international inspectors.

They went on to say that North Korea should stop testing missiles, including “space launch vehicles,” and reaffirm the commitment to denuclearization it expressed in the Sept. 19 Joint Statement signed in 2005.

Bosworth and Gallucci also said any dialogue that takes place should follow two guiding principles: the US should make sure any new agreement is based on “simultaneous, verified steps” rather than unilateral concessions, and the two sides should move quickly to discuss a peace treaty that would formally end the Korean War.

Pyongyang’s statement during unofficial dialogue with participants from both government and the private sector - the so-called “1.5-track” approach - that it plans to put “everything on the table” suggests a greater likelihood that dialogue with Washington and the six-party talks could be resumed. It can be taken as showing a strong commitment to talk, while stoking hopes that the sensitive issues that concern Seoul and Washington might be included in the negotiations.

Bosworth, who had in-depth discussions with North Korean senior officials at both the Berlin and London meetings, said he believed Pyongyang was very much prepared to return to the table. In particular, he said they had expressed their plans to return not only to the framework of the Sept. 19 2005 Joint Statement, but also to the agreement made with the US on Feb. 29 of last year. This may be taken as a sign that North Korea is willing to denuclearize through comprehensive discussions in the two frameworks, and that it plans to work on building trust for a resumption of dialogue.

But the North Korean representatives were also reported as saying the “trust-building” steps might be taken during the initial stages of dialogue rather than beforehand.

However forward-thinking Pyongyang’s position may seem, it also obviously hinges on what it can get in return from talks. Its key demands are a peace treaty to replace the current armistice agreement, and the lifting of economic sanctions. When asked whether he believed North Korea was truly committed to denuclearization, Bosworth said, “it depends upon what they might get in return”.

But resuming the negotiations will require a clean start. There currently is a lack of trust between North Korea and the US. At the moment, Washington is demanding that Pyongyang take concrete steps to show its sincere commitment to denuclearization before any dialogue happens. Pyongyang, for its part, is asking for dialogue without any strings.

Under the circumstances, the guidelines proposed by Bosworth and Gallucci in their New York Times piece are drawing some attention. Their suggestion is that each side make some concessions: the US should ease its preconditions, while North Korea should take at least some steps to build trust before dialogue begins.

One of the key steps was the inclusion of a halt to all missile (and “space launch vehicle”) launches as a trust-building step by North Korea. The question now is how Pyongyang will respond to the idea, since its satellite launch is what nullified the Feb. 29 2012 agreement. At the same time, Bosworth and Gallucci also seemed to suggest that the US, which is calling for a return to the 2012 agreement “plus alpha” as a preliminary step, should drop the “alpha” part, which is thought to have to do with uranium enrichment facilities.

The suggestions of the two former officials are unlikely to reflect the Obama administration‘s own thoughts on the issue. But as veterans of North Korean issues who most likely traded thoughts with the administration after their recent meetings with North Korean officials, Bosworth and Gallucci may also have witnessed the mood in the administration before stating their own positions. They might serve as a bridge to narrow differences in the upcoming process as Washington works with Beijing to draw a road map for resuming the six-party talks and holds back-channel discussions with Pyongyang.

  

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

button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)

Related stories

Most viewed articles