Kim all smiles as he offers US a nuclear olive branch
North Korean leader uses visit from Chinese PM to suggest talks on weapons programme could resume
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
EPA
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, left, greeting Wen Jiabao during the Chinese premier's three-day state visit
enlarge
Six months after declaring the six-party talks on the future of its nuclear weapons programme "dead", North Korea relented somewhat yesterday, suggesting they could be revived on condition that progress was made first on relations with the United States.
Although it was met with some scepticism by specialists in the West, any softening of Pyongyang's stance could help revive the negotiations which fell apart this spring when it conducted a large underground nuclear explosion and test-fired missiles over the ocean.
The offer came during a long-awaited visit to Pyongyang by China's Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao. It had been widely expected that China would use the mission to persuade the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il, to reach out after months of escalating tensions in the region.
The state news agency in North Korea, formally known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, quoted Kim as telling his Chinese guest of his "readiness to hold multilateral talks, depending on the outcome of the DPRK-US talks. The hostile relations between North Korea and the United States should be converted into peaceful ties through the bilateral talks without fail".
The move was publicly welcomed last night by both China and Russia. For its part, the United States has repeatedly said that while it is open to renewed bilateral dialogue with Pyongyang it will not allow such talks to replace the wider forum of the six-nation talks, which also involve South Korea, Japan, China and Russia. Seoul in particular has insisted that it must not be sidelined in the course of any deal-making with Pyongyang. "We, of course, encourage any kind of dialogue that would help us lead to... the complete and verifiable denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula," said State Department spokesman Ian Kelly. Washington will, however, be wary of North Korea trying to over-emphasise the bilateral discussions and extract concessions from the US before rejoining the wider negotiations. "This is a test for the Obama administration's policy on North Korea," noted Ryoo Kihl-jae, a professor of North Korean studies in Seoul.
Stephen Bosworth, President Barack Obama's special envoy to North Korea, said last month that the US was "willing to engage with North Korea on a bilateral basis," but added: "We do not consider in any way that bilateral engagement is a substitute for multilateral engagement, and this is not a substitute for us for the re-ignition of the six-party talks." At the heart of the six-party process is a package whereby North Korea would dismantle its entire nuclear weapons programme, mostly based at its large Yongbyon complex which lies 62 miles northwest of Pyongyang, in return for an end to its diplomatic isolation, a peace treaty formally ending the conflict on the Korean peninsula, security guarantees and an extensive programme of economic assistance.
The deal has been hard to finalise, however, partly because of disputes over which elements would be implemented first. In New York last month, the President of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak, startled the other negotiating partners by proposing a so-called 'grand bargain' under which there would be no series of steps to enact its provisions. Instead, they would all be implemented at once.
There is so far no telling whether Pyongyang is putting on a new smile because of Chinese pressure or if it is serious about renewing the negotiation process. "The real stumbling block is whether North Korea will show willingness to give up its nuclear weapons," commented Kim Tae-woo, an expert at the Korea Institute for Defence Analyses in Seoul. "If not, this does not mean any real progress."
"I am sceptical," commented Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. "I do not think that North Korea wants to give up its nuclear weapons. The North might even want the US to accept it as a nuclear state."
The test explosion and missile launches this spring prompted the UN Security Council to tighten trade and financial restrictions on the regime. It included a call for all nations to stop and search ships suspected of carrying goods that could help North Korea build or proliferate weapons.
The Obama administration finds itself tackling two potential nuclear crises at once. North Korea is putting its head over the parapet just as Washington and other world powers are reaching a crucial stage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Iran is likely to face stringent new sanctions too if it fails convincingly to support its claim that it is seeking to develop civil nuclear capabilities only.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Kim Jong-Il's actions over the past year have been little more than the sabre-rattling of an ageing dictator, anxious to preserve his dynasty's unjust position, most particularly within his own corrupt, backward country. Actual military conflict is the last thing those in power in North Korea desire, for several reasons.
To begin with, I would would be willing to bet my lifetime's earnings that the South Korean and US military intelligence services know the exact locations of the mansions where the Kim dynasty choose to indulge in sipping their favourite vintage brandies. Any nuclear strike - if it got to that stage, which it never would, of which more in a minute - would, I believe, result in swift and deadly retribution.
More importantly, this nuclear strike would never happen (whether Kim Jong-Il, or one of his descendants is in power) because I have faith that North Korean generals are savvy enough not to let it. There would be a military coup. By 'savvy enough' I mean that they know the military industrial complex(es) pitted against them would help reunite the peninsula in a rapid, if extremely bloody, way. Basic self-preservation would be higher on their agenda, I believe.
Yes, NK has a large standing army but it also has no real allies, since China sees them more as an embarrassing neighbour, whereas the South has an enormous American military presence parked at the DMZ. Say what you like about the US military (and I'm not very keen on them at all), but they are one of the best-trained and best-equipped in the world. And, like South Korean troops, they have been recently battle-hardened in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Compare this to the under-equipped, inexperienced, underpaid and quite probably malnourished North Korean troops. Surrender and/or mutiny seem more likely than a passionate defence of a regime who have continually screwed them for fifty-or-so years.
Kim's actions seek to perpetuate a myth he feeds his own people (one of the few things he does feed them) that he has the wherewithal, and importance to be a global political player. He seems almost as oblivious as his own people to the fact that the the frosty geopolitical climate of the peninsula is out of season, as the cold war has thawed almost everywhere else.
Foreign politicians who claim to be brokering talks are doing so more in search of kudos from their own electorates (or subjects, in the case of China), rather than the good of the people living on the Korean peninsula.
Coward West uses talks all the time with North Korea while using threats and invasions on Muslim countries.
http://sunyalbany.commentators.sgizmo.c
I cannot do this without you, so please consider taking part in this research.
Thanks so much,
Na'ama Nagar
University at Albany, NY, USA.