Steady Diplomacy Pays Off
North Korea 'to give up nuclear aims' (BBC News)
North Korea has agreed to give up all nuclear activities and rejoin the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, in a move diplomats called a breakthrough.
In return, the US said it had no intention of attacking the North, which was also promised aid and electricity.
The agreement came during a fourth round of six-nation talks in Beijing, aimed at ending a three-year standoff over North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
[snip]
Correspondents say the US was on the verge of walking out of the talks and heading home - a fact that may have been the clincher which forced North Korea to back down.
In Monday's statement, the North "promised to drop all nuclear weapons and current nuclear programmes, and to get back to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as soon as possible".
This latter detail is crucial, as it will allow United Nations inspectors to return to the North's nuclear sites.
Guerrilla Negotiating: The North Korea talks are in trouble—and this time we can't blame George Bush (Frek Kaplan, Slate, 16 September 2005).
The North Korean nuclear talks may be headed toward a collapse, and this time anyway, it isn't George W. Bush's fault.
What's the problem? And can anything be done to solve it?
After a promising resumption two months ago (which followed a yearlong hiatus), the "six-party talks" seem to be breaking down over the North Koreans' sudden declaration that they won't give up their nuclear-weapons program unless the other five powers—the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea—give Pyongyang the money to build a light-water nuclear reactor.
[snip]
The big question is whether the North Koreans really mean it when they say they won't budge on their nuclear materials unless they get a free nuclear reactor—or whether this is just a negotiating position. And if it's a negotiating position, do they intend at some point to cave in—or are they just stringing us all along while covertly proceeding with their plan to build bombs?
Jack Pritchard thinks it's a negotiating position. Pritchard was the chief U.S. negotiator on North Korean affairs until he resigned two years ago (in protest of Bush's refusal at the time to negotiate). As such, he's one of the few Americans to have seen Pyongyang's bargaining style up close, and he says this is, alas, par for the course. "They've got nothing else to bargain with," Pritchard said in a phone conversation Friday. "So, unfortunately, they're going to hold on to this position for as long as they can."
Fred Kaplan seems to have impeccable timing in getting things wrong.
However, he inadvertently got something right in the last two paragraphs. He absolutely nails the North Korean approach to negotiations. That's why so many liberal critics of the Bush Administration were absolutely wrong when they lambasted the President for insisting on the multiparty negotiations, rather than taking their advice and giving in to North Korean demands for direct bilateral negotiations. Caving that way would have simply indicated to North Korea that the United States would cave on more important issues. Instead, it paid off to insist that those regional actors with the most at stake remain active participants in these negotiations.
There will be starts and stops along the way, but this is definite progress, and a definite "win" for American foreign policy. Insisting upon a tough verification regime will be the next test for (American) negotiators.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/19/05 19:58 | International | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
Comments
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.