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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS