Nowhere Faster
Absolutely nothing new to report, as far as progress toward agreement between the U.S. and North Korea, according to the BBC. In fact, things are starting to get downright acrimonious:
Negotiators are reported to have had heated exchanges on the sixth day of six-party talks in Beijing on North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme. One delegate said fierce clashes occurred as the negotiating teams tried to hammer out an agreement on a statement of basic principles.
The parties failed to agree on a final statement during three previous rounds of talks in Beijing. The two Koreas, the US, China, Russia and Japan are represented at the talks.
The BBC’s Charles Scanlon says there is a new sense of urgency at these latest talks following North Korea’s declaration earlier this year that it had a nuclear arsenal. [emphasis mine]
Aside from what could be initial signs of a breakdown, the interesting dynamic is that the bilateral talks on the side appear to be marginalizing the other nations in attendance, to the extent that they lack influence over the U.S. and North Korea. South Korea is clearly the nation that loses the most under this arrangment.
The Chosun Ilbo is still riding the same old nag by which it’s the “new” U.S. demands about human rights that are the problem:
U.S. chief negotiator Christopher Hill said participants were discussing a short but vital document that would take some time of tough negotiations to hammer into shape. A U.S. official said this would be impossible to achieve by Monday, hinting that a gulf between Washington and Pyongyang remains deep.
Japan was more blunt, with an official saying it was “impossible to evaluate the Chinese draft positively” and calling it “insufficient. The Japanese press reported last-minute U.S. demands to include North Korea’s human rights and conventional missiles were kept out of the draft.
The Chosun Ilbo evidently didn’t take note of Pyongyang’s latest demand: a resumption of work on the KEDO reactors, something that even the most moderate diplomats in the administration consider a dead issue (via the Joongang Ilbo).
Let’s just hope we’ve told Pyongyang and Beijing what the consequences of a breakdown will be. That brings us to a good place to revisit Nicholas Eberstadt’s recent advice:
Define “success” and “failure” for North Korea negotiations. . . . The administration must not be shy about declaring the process a failure if in fact it is. Rewarding Pyongyang for merely showing up at the talks should not count as a good result.
________________Work around the pro-appeasement crowd in the South Korean government. . . . The core of this new [Roh/Uri] government has proven implacably anti-American and reflexively in favor of appeasing Pyongyang.
We can’t afford another three years of this charade while Pyongyang continues selling nuclear materials, missiles, and technology to the highest bidder. If Pyongyang is still bringing demands to the table that seem calculated to bog or break the negotiations down, it means that Pyongyang has analyzed the likely consequences and isn’t deterred by them.