Seven days after the start of the fourth round of six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear issue, an agreement was reached regarding a statement of principles for North Korea's disarmament. A look at the content of the negotiations, however, reveals that the US ultimately is the big loser, and China and North Korea the big winners. It is not an exaggeration to say that China and North Korea ganged up on the US and dealt a great blow to its Asia-Pacific diplomacy.
Let's first take a look at the negotiations. This time around, the North Koreans said that they are willing to dismantle the nuclear arms and programs they already have, in exchange for international assistance. The problem is, however, that previous rounds of the six-nation talks have struggled to find a concrete solution to the crucial problem of how to dismantle North Korea's nuclear arms.
A solution thus does not depend on whether or not North Korea wants to dismantle its nuclear weapons, but rather on how it should go about doing so. Since the statement of principles completely ignores this issue, the question now is how there possibly can be talk of a "breakthrough."
Second, the fourth round of talks attempted to make a substantive move forward by not setting any deadlines for disarmament. In order to test the sincerity of the North Koreans' non-nuclear commitment, the US -- in addition to continuing the flexible approach announced in July last year when it said it would not insist on North Korean disarmament before it started offering assistance -- now added the recognition that North Korea is a sovereign nation, called Kim Jung-il "Mister" and agreed to bilateral talks between the US and North Korea within the framework of the six-nation talks.
The only thing gained by this was North Korea's "intent" to follow through on promises of nuclear disarmament and abide by the non-proliferation agreement -- but without any substantial measures offering the US any kind of control over the process.
That's not all. North Korea also obtained guarantees that it will be allowed to utilize nuclear power for peaceful purposes, as well as a statement from the US and Japan that they will officially recognize the pariah nation. This allows the North Koreans to connect the light-water-reactor project and the US and Japan's diplomatic recognition process -- both interrupted because North Korea violated earlier agreements -- to the talks on nuclear disarmament. North Korea does not even have to divulge whether or not it possesses weapons-grade enriched uranium.
Because the North Korean nuclear crisis is directly connected to its processing of weapons-grade enriched uranium, the fact that the US does not request that Pyongyang clarify the issue is tantamount to the US saying that it is not sure whether or not North Korea has such uranium. It thus seems meaningless to say that the North Korean nuclear crisis had been initiated by the North Koreans themselves.
The fact is that the US was not only the loser in the fourth round of talks, but it also missed the most opportune moment to deal with the issue conclusively. The statement of principles leaves the issue of North Korea's nuclear arms to be dealt with at a later date. Prolonging the process in this way will only serve to intensify the issue.
When the US signs such an unprincipled agreement and then boasts over how it has achieved a "real breakthrough," it only serves to tell Asian countries that the US does not intend to solve any issues in the Asia-Pacific region. It also tells Iran that as long as one really does have nuclear arms as well as China's support, it is no problem to join the nuclear arms club.
This outcome has dealt a debilitating blow to the US' credibility as a proponent of the non-proliferation of nuclear arms. This leads to concerns that the nuclear arms race will intensify in the future.
China, who has shown no intention of dealing with the issue, was the big winner in this last round of talks. Beijing was originally under the most pressure at the start of the talks, but by redirecting the focus to the signing of the statement of principles, it regained the initiative and also achieved its goal of perpetuating discussion of the issue without actually solving it -- since that would mean that China will not be challenged by the US to come clean in the UN.
It also means that China, as the host of the talks, continues to control the northeast-Asian security agenda. This allows it to use North Korea to restrict Japan and block an alliance between Japan and the US. The outcome of the talks shows that Beijing's strategy has been very successful.
In addition, North Korea has offered only empty promises and refused to even admit to having an uranium-enrichment program. Despite this, it managed quite well to gain from the talks, by obtaining promises of recognition from both the US and Japan, as well as international financial and material assistance.
The US Department of State's mistakes also landed Japan in trouble -- not only do the Japanese suspect that their country was deliberately left out of the statement of principles, but that it also forced the issue of Japan-North Korea diplomatic relations onto the agenda.
For Taiwan, the US' attitude during the talks means that it should take note of how the US deals with Asia-Pacific affairs. The fact that the old guard in the State Department has left and that the new guard still hasn't moved in spells danger. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did not participate in the ASEAN summit, leading ASEAN states to question how much importance the US really attaches to the Asia-Pacific region.
Rumors have circulated recently that the strategic dialogue between the US and Japan -- headed by Robert Zoellick, the US deputy secretary of state -- has been downgraded by the US. In addition, the US' apparent abandonment of the Asia-Pacific region in the last six-nation talks leaves the impression that it lacks the ability to implement a comprehensive Asia-Pacific strategy -- a strategy of which the US seems to have no clear grasp in the first place.
If this is the true state of affairs, it will be very interesting to see what the US' response will be once a crisis erupts, despite the fact that Taiwan-US relations seem to be good for the time being -- a time when the situation in the Taiwan Strait is stable.
Lai I-chung is director of foreign policy studies at the Taiwan Thinktank.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS