|
A recent agreement to hold six-party talks in Beijing on the simmering nuclear crisis in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) brings new hope for a resolution.
The meeting is due to take place in early September or even sooner.
Under the present circumstances, this is a positive decision for every country involved.
The easing of the stands of both the United States and the DPRK in recent weeks, as well as China's active intercession, have been crucial factors in bringing about this progress.
Since the crisis began, US policy towards the DPRK has vacillated between demanding a regime change and pursuing a diplomatic solution, with an emphasis on the need to exert pressure. However, as the next US presidential election draws near, the Bush administration has sensed that its main efforts should be devoted to the Middle East and domestic issues. If the crisis in the DPRK were to get out of control before those issues are resolved, serious trouble would ensue.
For that reason, voices from within the administration advocating a peaceful solution have taken precedence for the time being.
They also have made some policy shifts, such as no longer calling for a regime change. As long as the DPRK abandons its nuclear weapons programme, the United States says it will consider agreeing to some form of security guarantee and establishing bilateral contacts within a multilateral framework.
The DPRK, for its part, took the risk of escalating the crisis by adopting a "marginalization policy" in order to resist US pressure. But as the situation develops, it is facing greater international pressure. If the DPRK takes one more step towards aggravating the situation, it will collide head-on with the United States, a scenario in direct conflict with its original intention to survive and grow. Fortunately, the United States has now eased its stand and the DPRK has also showed flexibility by proposing a bilateral dialogue followed by a multilateral one, an important step towards rationality.
China, meanwhile, has played a unique role in breaking the impasse in the US-DPRK dialogue. In March, a special envoy visited the DPRK, making the April Beijing talks possible. More constructive trips followed in July, to Russia, the DPRK, the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the United States.
China's diplomatic efforts, which have drawn international attention, are in its own national interests.
First of all, a deterioration of the crisis would lead to the existence of a nuclear-armed country on the Korean Peninsula and perhaps a war, either of which would bring about a strategic transformation in Northeast Asia and severely damage China's national interests.
Second, China enjoys diplomatic conduits with both the United States and the DPRK, and its role as mediator has earned support from all of the countries involved as well as the global community.
Third, China is perceptive enough to seize the opportunity presented by the upcoming US presidential election. Breaking away from its traditionally low-profile position on the world stage, it has stepped forward to actively engage in mediation.
In addition, the ROK, Russia and Japan have each presented a peaceful solution out of their own respective interests, pushing for an inclusive multilateral dialogue.
The concern shown by all these countries increases the chances that a multilateral dialogue will take place. A second trilateral dialogue in Beijing, to follow the one that was held in April, was considered, then hopes for a five-party discussion including the United States, the DPRK, China, the ROK and Japan were raised. Early August saw the decision to conduct a direct six-party dialogue in Beijing. Reportedly, this plan was first agreed to between the United States and the DPRK and received favourable responses from the other four countries.
All of the parties involved are working to make these talks happen. China's minister and vice-minister of foreign affairs recently visited the DPRK, Japan and the ROK to make preparations for such discussions, while the United States, Japan and the ROK will soon hold formal talks on the matter. The imminent meeting is expected to be of a higher level than the April dialogue in Beijing.
To make the discussions a success, three important conditions must be met.
First, during the dialogue, both the United States and the DPRK should refrain from any action that could heighten the crisis.
Second, the dialogue should be flexible in form, and special arrangements should be made for DPRK-US bilateral contact. After all, the US-DPRK relationship is the most crucial in this crisis. Without sincerity and a willingness to compromise on their parts, the six-party dialogue will be meaningless.
Third, the dialogue might lead to a one-package solution comprised of the following: The DPRK should give up its nuclear programme; the United States and other countries should grant the DPRK a security guarantee and recognize the legitimacy of its current government; the mechanism for armistice should be replaced with one for peace to promote unification on the Korean Peninsula and propel the DPRK into the international community. But most importantly, the DPRK-US and DPRK-Japan relationships should be normalized.
Other issues to be addressed include economic aid for the DPRK and support for its reform.
The six-party dialogue will no doubt be arduous and plodding, and it may take years to achieve a workable solution. Mutual distrust between the United States and the DPRK is the biggest impediment. Some Americans see multilateral dialogue as a tool of pressure, even a transition towards a hardline policy.
The DPRK, learning from Iraq's defeat, is unlikely to give up its nuclear agenda without first obtaining a security guarantee. Other countries may share common interests, but differences remain. And no one can accurately predict whether all the obstacles can be overcome.
Be that as it may, the promise of a six-party dialogue brings new hope and has gained the widest possible international support. Therefore, the countries involved should do all they can to launch these talks and strive for results.
In the long-term, a successful dialogue would serve not only to halt the nuclear crisis and make way for peace and prosperity on the peninsula, but also to establish a mechanism for security and co-operation in Northeast Asia and facilitate co-ordination among countries in this region.
The author is director of the Department of Research at the China Foundation for International and Strategic Studies.
(China Daily August 13, 2003)
|
