As the most viable mechanism to date, the six-party talks should not be abandoned in the quest for a peaceful solution to the North Korean nuclear issue
Compared with the hotly contested nuclear issue in Iran, the North Korean nuclear saga has been rather muted recently. However, it is far from silenced. The Korean Peninsula is still in turmoil in the wake of Pyongyang’s recent test firing of a Taepodong-2 long-range missile and former South Korean President Kim Dae Jung’s sudden cancellation of his scheduled second trip to the north on June 27.
The North Korean nuclear issue is still locked in a deadlock, with the six-party talks involving North Korea, Russia, South Korea, China, Japan and the United States aimed at resolving the question through peaceful dialogue indefinitely shelved. Given the current impasse, some analysts have suggested replacing the talks with other forms of consultations such as trilateral talks between North Korea, the United States and South Korea, or four-party talks between North Korea, the United States, China and South Korea. To put it frankly, these proposals are neither desirable nor possible.
Talks crucial
The six-party talks were arrived at only after the failure of many other forms of talks. Since the 1990s when the North Korean nuclear threat first escalated, various forms of consultations had been adopted in the hope of reaching a resolution through peaceful negotiations, but all have ended in vain.
The earliest form of consultations was bilateral negotiations between Pyongyang and Washington. Negotiations began in 1993 and produced the Framework Agreement in October 1994. However, given the heightened distrust between the two countries, any agreement they inked could easily be reduced to a mere scrap of paper that neither party would deem to be legally binding. Consequently, the second North Korean nuclear crisis broke out as Washington and Pyongyang accused each other of breaching the agreement. After the agreement was declared null and void in December 2002, no substantive bilateral negotiations were held.
China, North Korea, the United States and South Korea initiated four-party negations in November 1997, a bumpy process that lasted two years with no progress made. A meeting was held in April 2003 involving China, North Korea and the United States after the outbreak of the second North Korean nuclear crisis. Also unfruitful, the trilateral mechanism has never been revisited since. After all these failures, relevant parties resorted to the six-party talks, a decision made after a series of unsuccessful trials and based on historical lessons. The development of the North Korean nuclear issue has made it clear that repeating history is not worthwhile.
Seeking to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue through six-party talks indicates the international community’s serious regard for this dilemma. When it first surfaced, the North Korean nuclear issue was regarded as a domestic issue. Some analysts pointed out that developing weapons to promote national defense is a sovereign right of North Korea that no other country should interfere in. The North Korean nuclear issue was not a problem at all and therefore should not be discussed in an international context, they argued. Later, observers labeled it a bilateral issue between the United States and North Korea. They believed that Pyongyang was forced to develop nuclear weapons because Washington’s hostility made it feel insecure. The solution, they suggested, lay in bilateral negotiations between the two countries.
As the situation developed and the collapse of the ensuing bilateral, trilateral and four-party talks, people came to realize that this is essentially a nuclear proliferation problem that bears on regional peace and stability, the authority of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the well-being of humankind. As it threatens the common interests of all human beings, every responsible country is expected to deal with it seriously. Given these revelations, multilateral negotiations have been widely acknowledged as a critical solution to the problem. All countries that have direct security interests in East Asia are expected to take part in the discussion before regional peace and stability can be materialized.
The hard-won achievements made in the six-party talks over the past three years indicate that we must persist with this mechanism. Ever since they were jumpstarted in August 2003, the six-party talks have been an on-off affair amid mounting difficulties. It did not come up with any substantial results until a joint statement was issued in the fourth round last September. In the statement, North Korea committed to “abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs,” while the United States affirmed that “it has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, North Korea’s official name] with nuclear or conventional weapons.” The six parties agreed to take coordinated steps to implement the consensus reached “in a phased manner.”
The document is the most tangible achievement ever made regarding the North Korean nuclear issue, as well as the agreement that is most likely to be implemented. It shows that the six-party talks have moved into the fast lane. Having achieved this remarkable success, the parties are expected to redouble their efforts to put the agreement into practice and advance the goal of building a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula in rejection of any disturbance. They have no reason whatsoever to abandon their achievements and dump the six-party talks, a move that will again relegate the consultations to unsubstantial talks.
Over the three years, a set of work procedures have been established in the six-party talks, enabling the talks to move from peripheral issues onto core subjects. If a new form of talks is introduced, it will have to start from absolute scratch. It might take another three years for it to advance from unsubstantial discussions to substantial ones, which is set to be a costly process. In addition, judging from the positions of the parties in the multilateral talks, a balancing mechanism featuring different parties restraining and complimenting each other has virtually taken form. This mechanism enables every party to express its interests and prevents any party from imposing its positions upon others, thus giving rise to a sound climate for consultations. However, other forms of talks are unlikely to establish this balance.
Institutional innovation
The NPT, which serves as an international law, stands against the proliferation of nuclear weapons but supports countries without nuclear weapons to use nuclear energy peacefully. However, experience has shown that no countries except the one concerned know whether its nuclear technology is used for peaceful purpose or not. In order to prevent some countries from developing nuclear weapons under the pretext of peacefully using nuclear energy and avoid the dangers of nuclear proliferation, it is necessary to create a new international agency.
A transnational agency should be established under a UN Security Council resolution to take charge of the production and management of nuclear energy and nuclear technology. The agency should be responsible for: producing materials and equipment for the peaceful use of nuclear energy; selling nuclear materials and equipment to countries that have an intention to use nuclear energy peacefully; tracking and monitoring the nuclear materials and equipment it sells; providing technical training and operation management for non-nuclear countries to peacefully use nuclear energy; and calling back and dealing with nuclear waste, materials and equipment in a uniform manner.
The Security Council is expected to adopt a resolution to designate the agency as the only legal trading market for nuclear technology and materials in the world. While reaffirming the authority of the NPT in its resolutions, the council should rule that secret research and development of nuclear weapons in violation of the treaty should be deemed a war crime or a crime against humanity. Once such plots are uncovered, it should take resolute action to investigate the case and stop them through sanctions or even by force.
Under the supervision of the Security Council, nuclear-capable countries should sign international documents undertaking the responsibility not to be the first to use nuclear weapons and not to use them against non-nuclear countries.
Such an authoritative nuclear technology management agency may be an effective solution to the current nuclear impasse.
Cooperation essential
Given North Korea’s economic difficulties and its desire to accelerate reform in recent years, China has intensified its aid to the country, leading to strengthened economic and trade relations between the two countries. However, South Korean scholars at the Korea Institute of International Economic Policy expressed their worries in a recent book, saying China’s move will exert influence on North Korea’s perception of the importance of reform and opening-up, deepen its dependence on China and affect the economic integration on the Korean Peninsula.
At present, stumbling blocks have yet to be overcome in developing relations between the north and the south, as which country will finally unify the Korean Peninsula remains their top concern. Pyongyang is suspicious of Seoul’s assistance and its initiatives to enhance bilateral economic cooperation, people-to-people linkage and efforts to improve bilateral relations. Trade and personnel relations between the south and the north are therefore subject to strict control. As a result, they are unilateral, susceptible to political changes and limited in scale, and far from “irreversible” as some analysts tend to believe.
As part of the East Asian cooperation, economic cooperation between China and North Korea, as well as that between North Korea and South Korea, is a good thing. Enabling these countries to exchange needed goods for common development, economic cooperation helps stabilize the situation, enhance mutual trust and maintain peace in East Asia.
While aiding North Korea, China and South Korea are expected to cooperate with each other. Collaborative actions can lessen Pyongyang’s suspicion over Seoul, lighten the economic burden of the two contributors and make the most of the aid through effective coordination.
More importantly, the cooperation is poised to enhance mutual trust between the three countries, gradually leading to the establishment of a cooperation mechanism between them. This mechanism may in turn give rise to a collective security mechanism or a Northeast Asian community.
Scholars of the three countries are expected to carry out studies on this program before the governments get involved to give it their blessing. With the realization of this vision, relations between China, North Korea and South Korea, as well as the international relations in East Asia, could start a new chapter.
The author is a professor with the Institute of International Strategic Studies, Central Party School of the Communist Party of China