No Sign of New N. Korea Talks

Once hailed as the only way to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program, the six-nation talks are now stalling because of disagreements over how much pressure to apply to Pyongyang and logistical difficulties in getting countries with differing agendas to the table.

Almost four months have elapsed since the first round of negotiations. The promised second round that was supposed to happen before year-end has not materialized. All the while, the North Koreans are believed to be reprocessing plutonium rods from their nuclear reactor into the deadly heart of a bomb.

This month, China rejected as too tough a framework for the talks that the United States, Japan and South Korea had hoped to present to North Korea. Even if the talks can be rescheduled for January or February, it is unlikely that the other parties, including Russia, will be able to present Pyongyang with a joint statement demanding an end to the nuclear program.

“If we can’t achieve a consensus among ourselves, how will we reach an agreement [with North Korea]?” asked a South Korean official, who requested anonymity. “I’m afraid if any more time goes by, we will lose momentum.”

The Bush administration has insisted that any negotiations on North Korea’s weapons program involve not only the United States, but also the North’s nearest neighbors -- China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. The U.S. argues that Pyongyang’s possession of nuclear weapons would be anathema to the entire region. President Bush has sought to avoid the strategy of the Clinton administration, which in 1994 signed a bilateral treaty giving North Korea energy assistance in exchange for a nuclear freeze.

Critics complain that the Bush administration’s stated intention to resolve the North Korean problem diplomatically conflicts with its refusal to engage in direct negotiations.

“The insistence on a multilateral setting is impractical,” said Charles L. Pritchard, who until August was the State Department’s special envoy to North Korea on nuclear matters. “There is no opportunity for a detailed discussion to take place. The idea that these are relatively simple problems that only require that the North Koreans say ‘yes’ -- well, that is just not going to work.

“It baffles me why bilateral engagement is equated with capitulating to the North Koreans. It’s not like if we sit down with them in a bilateral setting, they’re going to put a spell on us and make us agree to the goofiest of deals,” Pritchard said.

The U.S. has engaged in “back channel” talks through the North Korean mission to the United Nations in New York. But those talks have not risen to anywhere near the intensity of, for example, months of secret negotiations that preceded the agreement with Libya to give up its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Donald P. Gregg, head of the Korean Society in New York and U.S. ambassador to Seoul in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, said that the United States has been too distracted by Iraq to craft a solution to the North Korean crisis.

“It’s not going to happen with the snap of a wrist or a blink of an eye,” Gregg said. “It is going to take a sustained engagement. I don’t know whether the Bush administration is ready to do that or if they are just going to kick the can down the road.”

Other critics say that conducting negotiations with six countries in five languages is too cumbersome -- or as Koreans say, too many sailors on the ship. The six-party talks in August, for example, required more than 20 translators.

“By the time everybody gets through their opening greetings, it is time for lunch,” said a U.S. source, who asked not to be named.

Each country wants its own items on the agenda -- the most notable example being the Japanese demand that the negotiations resolve the issue of its citizens who have been abducted by North Korea. Scheduling has been difficult because of several national holidays.

It’s been almost a year since the North Koreans expelled U.N. weapons inspectors from their country, and only two negotiating sessions have taken place, both in Beijing. The first, in April, involved only the United States, North Korea and China; the most recent round included all six parties.

Those talks ended in disappointment. The North Koreans complained bitterly that they didn’t understand the U.S. position and that when they requested that the lead U.S. negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly, clarify it, he refused, telling them to read his opening statement.

The Chinese, who have invested considerable energy in organizing the talks, were unhappy that the parties were unable to produce a joint statement at their conclusion. They insisted that an opening statement of principles be crafted before the next round. In the latest version of the document, which has gone through many drafts, the United States wants to include specific language calling for North Korea to irreversibly and verifiably dismantle its nuclear program.

The Chinese, who have been in regular contact with the North Koreans, have rejected that language as too provocative.

The North Koreans have said they do not want to return to the six-party talks unless they have a promise of a specific reward, such as assistance with their fuel shortage or their removal from a State Department list of terrorist-sponsoring nations. The U.S. insists that there will be no rewards until after the North Korean nuclear program is dismantled.

South Korea says that the talks should be scheduled as soon as possible even if there is no draft proposal.

“We don’t want to have one of these prolonged periods of foreplay when you have to negotiate to get back to the table,” said a U.S. official, who asked not to be named. He added, “I’m fairly comfortable at the pace at which we are going.”

The risk, critics say, is that the negotiations will be so drawn out that the North Koreans would have the time to reprocess 8,000 spent rods from its nuclear reactor. Those fuel rods contain enough plutonium for five or six nuclear bombs.

Despite some technical difficulties, North Korea is believed to be about halfway through the extraction process, a source said.

Pritchard, the former special envoy, fears that if the talks break down, there will be a temptation for the cash-strapped North Koreans to sell their nuclear wares.

“Time is not on the side of the United States,” he said.