Advertisement

N. Korea nuclear talks end with no resolution

Share
Times Staff Writer

Disarmament talks with North Korea recessed Friday in another round of frustration for the United States and its allies, with analysts saying there appeared to be little hope in the foreseeable future that Pyongyang would agree to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

“Of course we’re disappointed,” said the chief U.S. negotiator, Christopher Hill, after a week of six-nation talks came to an end without a glimmer of an agreement.

He said it became apparent as the week progressed that the North Korean delegates had no authorization from their leaders to compromise, so that “interesting” informal discussions had no chance of turning into formal agreements.

Advertisement

“When you come to a negotiation, you ought to be prepared to negotiate,” said Hill, who nevertheless insisted that the talks had not been a waste and would probably resume sometime early next year.

Hill’s North Korean counterpart, Kim Kye Gwan, left the talks with what appeared to be a threat to continue developing a nuclear arsenal.

“The U.S. is taking a tactic of both dialogue and pressure, and carrots and sticks,” Kim told reporters.

“We are responding with dialogue and a shield, and by a shield we are saying we will further improve our deterrent.”

Chinese delegate Wu Dawei issued a statement saying the six nations had reaffirmed a September 2005 agreement, in which North Korea agreed in principle to disarm in exchange for security guarantees and aid. Besides China, the United States and North Korea, the talks included Japan, Russia and South Korea.

The Japanese delegate, Kenichiro Sasae, was quoted as saying the failure of the talks would inevitably raise questions about their credibility.

Advertisement

North Korea came to the talks after a 13-month boycott of the six-party process -- and just two months after successfully detonating a nuclear device. Given that history, and North Korea’s insistence that the United States agree to suspend financial sanctions against the Communist nation before the nuclear issue could be resolved, expectations had been generally low for any significant breakthrough -- and those expectations were largely met.

“The fact is that North Korea ... is not interested in negotiating with the United States about their nuclear weapons program,” said Jin Linbo, Asia-Pacific director with the China Institute of International Studies in Beijing.

The North Koreans know that, realistically, the United States has “no options for stronger measures” besides diplomacy, Jin said. “So why should North Korea give concessions in this situation?”

Hill expressed frustration throughout the week that the North Koreans insisted on resolving the issue of financial sanctions before tackling an agreement on nuclear weapons. The United States froze at least $24 million in North Korean assets at a Macao bank in 2005 after accusing Pyongyang of a host of illegal financial schemes, including counterfeiting American currency.

There have been signs that the United States might be willing to unlock some of that money, and the Treasury Department sent a separate team of negotiators to Beijing to meet with their North Korean counterparts for two days this week. Those talks also recessed without an agreement, but are expected to resume in New York next month.

Speaking to reporters Friday night, Hill complained that the North Korean delegates to the nuclear talks “spent a great deal of time being concerned about what is, relatively speaking, a small affair” -- the financial sanctions. “In our view,” he said, “that’s pretty small compared to the task of ridding the Korean peninsula of these nuclear weapons programs.”

Advertisement

For the cash-strapped and economically isolated North Koreans, however, the sanctions are clearly not a small matter.

Hill said he had gone into the talks with some hope, based on “indications” that both he and the Chinese negotiators had received from North Korea. “I’m sorry to be coy, but I don’t want to talk about what precisely those are,” he said. He added that there “continue to be encouraging signs,” but that they never rose above the level of informal discussions at the six-party talks.

Asked repeatedly if the six-party process had been discredited by the lack of progress, Hill finally said: “You know, diplomacy is not an easy track. It takes more time than a lot of us would like. But like a lot of things in life ... you have to look at the alternatives.

“And we still believe that diplomacy is the best way to solve this, and we believe in particular that the six-party process is the best way to solve this.”

Calling the negotiations “six-party” talks is a bit of a misnomer, since much of the week was spent in one-on-one discussions, particularly between the United States and North Korea, and both of those countries and China.

In a series of daily news briefings, Hill never missed an opportunity to praise the Chinese, calling their diplomats “A-class” and “an inspiration,” among other expressions of esteem.

Advertisement

Gary Samore, an advisor to former President Clinton on nonproliferation issues who is now director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the United States had been trying to bring China to its side on the North Korean issue, so far without much result. This seeming failure became apparent, he said, when China reacted relatively mildly to the North Korean nuclear test in October.

Still, Shi Yinhong, professor of international relations at People’s University in Beijing, said he thought the combination of U.S. overtures and North Korea’s nuclear test had caused a shift in relations. “Generally, you can feel that China and the United States have moved closer than before,” he said.

That said, both Shi and Samore agreed that North Korea was unlikely ever to agree to disarming.

Shi said it became even less likely after the successful nuclear test, which gave the North Korean military more of a vested interest in keeping its weapons.

Samore said it was a good sign that Hill expected the talks to resume in a matter of weeks, not months, which could mean the two sides are close to finding a compromise on the financial dispute. That, in turn, could keep the North Koreans at the negotiating table.

But that is probably the best the United States can expect, Samore said. “A complete agreement,” he said, “is not in the cards.”

Advertisement

mitchell.landsberg@ latimes.com

Advertisement