The much-awaited second round of six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue is finally scheduled to take place on Wednesday. There is much hope that the meeting could result in the beginning of a solution to the 16-month impasse. However, there are also worries that no agreement will be reached, leaving Pyongyang and Washington with few options left.
There are signs that some give-and-take may take place at the upcoming meeting. Since the first round of six-party talks, which ended in little progress -- the North Korean delegation even questioned the very utility of such meetings in future -- various parties have made painstaking efforts to keep the process alive, with Beijing actively serving as an intermediary and Seoul, Tokyo and Washington striving to come up with potential proposals they can all agree to. Apparently, these efforts are now bearing fruit and have paved the way for a second round of talks.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
There have been major developments over the last few months that in a way influence the process -- if not the substance -- of the six-party talks. Iran has finally signed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) additional protocol for verification in an effort to clear itself of suspicion by the international community, the US in particular, of its covert nuclear weapons program. That Washington played no small part in making sure that such a step was taken by Tehran demonstrates the Bush administration's resolve to counter proliferation.
Another major development was Libya's announcement that it would forsake its ongoing WMD programs under international supervision. Should Tripoli fulfill its pledges, it could be welcomed back to the international community, with the UN and major western powers lifting economic sanctions. This would demonstrate that compliance with international norms and rules can have major payoffs. While the Bush administration has never given up its demands that Pyongyang must completely, verifiably and irreversibly dismantle its nuclear weapons program, it has shown signs of flexibility, including consideration of some form of written security assurance.
Despite its rhetoric, which is part of Pyongyang's diplomatic repertoire these days, North Korea also has incentives to reach a deal. Its economic plight could not be redressed without outside assistance, including that from international financial institutions, which is currently blocked by the US. Meanwhile, aid from South Korea and Japan will remain focused on addressing humanitarian needs in the North rather than granting the hermit communist country huge sums of money in the form of investment and financial assistance.
China, a major ally of North Korea that provides large amounts of food and energy supplies, is increasingly showing its frustration with Pyongyang's inflexible intransigence. The frequent visits by high-ranking Chinese officials, including the second-ranking Wu Bangguo (吳邦國) last October, highlighted Beijing's interest in defusing and eventually resolving the nuclear crisis. Clearly, Pyongyang can ill afford alienating its major ally and ignoring its serious concerns.
These developments have prompted North Korea to take a number of steps. Official statements suggested that it is willing to discuss its nuclear and missile programs if it could secure a non-aggression pledge from Washington. Early in January it invited a five-member US group to visit its Yongbyon nuclear facility to demonstrate its ability to reprocess spent fuel but at the same time to signal its readiness to negotiate. Indeed, over the last several months it has repeated the proposed package deal, phased solution that trade US concessions to its refraining from continuing nuclear weapons and missile development.
International responses to the announced meeting on Wednesday and Thursday are cautious optimism. What can be expected from the talks? (Some, with obvious reservations, even raise the question as to whether the meeting can actually take place as announced.) Clearly, resolving the nuclear issue will be a long, drawn-out process as the positions between Pyongyang and Washington remain wide apart. Modest yet substantive progress is still possible but the stakes are also high.
A positive outcome from the meeting would sustain the process. This may include North Korea's formal pledges, with verifiable mechanisms, to freeze its current nuclear weapons program. This could involve the return of IAEA inspectors, or the set up of monitoring groups composed of third-country inspectors. The US could resume the supplies of heavy fuel oil to enable provision of heating and electricity. At the same time, some form of security assurance, either as a unilateral written pledge, or as a multi-national arrangement, could be offered as gesture of good will. As compliance with the nuclear freeze and dismantling is verified and proceeds irreversibly toward complete disarmament, Washington needs to lift economic sanctions against the North, remove the country from the terrorist list and moves forward with diplomatic recognition and establishment of normal economic ties.
Whether and how these could transpire may depend in no small measure on the sequencing and the perception of who makes the first and most concessions. There are two crucial factors that can strongly influence the outcome. One is Pyongyang's threat perception. If the key motivation for states to go nuclear is security, then the North's giving up of its nuclear weapons program -- its only card as the weaker party -- would be affected by its confidence or lack of, in the security it will get from the arrangement.
From the US side, the key issue is whether to trust Pyongyang to carry out any deal. Past experiences raise strong suspicions. Putting into place intrusive verification mechanisms are the goals American negotiators would be expected to pursue. Clearly, mutual distrust is strong and overcoming such distrust is by no means easy. Against the high hopes are potential pitfalls should either side over play its cards or get stuck in a rigid position. But these are not insurmountable obstacles, especially when one thinks about the high stakes involved in outright failure. Such failure would reinforce mutual distrust and suspicions and strengthen the hard-line positions in both capitals. That could spell the end of the six-party process. This is a development that all sides must strive to avert.
Yuan Jing-dong (
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
A retired elementary-school teacher surnamed Lai (賴) said that, after retiring at the age of 50, he earned a monthly pension of over NT$60,000. Since retirement, he has earned over NT$10 million (US$306,457). If the government does not allocate more funding, the pension funds would soon go bankrupt. There is an urgent need for reform. If his monthly pension were lowered to NT$50,000, it would still be enough to cover basic life expenses, he said. In response, Taipei School Education Union president Lee Hui-lan (李惠蘭) said to Lai: “What do you mean by using your own pension as an example?”
RSS