Will North, Iran Listen to Diplomacy?

Two major negotiation rounds that will determine the direction of international action regarding nuclear weapons issues took place thousands miles of apart recently. In Beijing, the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan are negotiating over the dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. In Vienna, Germany, France and Britain are negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program.

Although different countries are involved in the two negotiations, the negotiations address the same issue. If the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Japan and Germany can not succeed in stopping North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions, nuclear weapons will be proliferated all across the globe and we will have to face the consequences.

The two negotiations are stirring up the age-old debate of whether diplomacy is carried out in accordance with each government’s norms, or if diplomacy gains a driving force only when there is international pressure or compensation to be applied.

Pressure is an inducement that brings opponents to negotiating table. If sanctions cannot bring Iran and North Korea to negotiating table, what could? Former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” His remark portrays the current situation very well.

The future of the North Korean nuclear issue does not depend on how well the U.S. is prepared ahead of negotiations with Iran and North Korea, but rather on the purpose and intent of the negotiations. Negotiations over the North Korean nuclear standoff have come to a deadlock because the communist regime insists on an ideology that demands sacrifices from its own people. Moreover, the participating countries of the six-party talks do not have good relations, either.

Although South Korea is directly related to the North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, it has been showing a lukewarm attitude. South Korea, which pursues unification with the North, does not want to impose sanctions on the communist regime as it will cause a financial crisis in the country. China, which has avoided adding pressure on the North, is carefully calculating the aftereffects of failed six-nation talks and how the failure would influence its relations with the U.S.

So how best can the U.S. prepare for its dialogue with Pyongyang within the six-party framework? The answer is that the U.S. should not end up imposing further punitive actions, but focus on negotiation in accordance with its own timetable. The following will be its three major challenges in the future.

First, the U.S. should not repeat the mistake of discontinuing pressure in return for dialogue as happened during the Korean War and Vietnam War. It should continue to impose sanctions on North Korea, which might serve as a breakthrough in bringing it to negotiating table. Second, the U.S. should avoid discussing issues which the North insists on brining up as part of the main agenda. Third, the U.S. should focus on key issues and should not be swayed by minor issues.

Above all, both the U.S. and the North should clarify the nature and the details of the timeline to carry out the agreement made in September 2005. The timetable for the dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program must be specified while giving the North a guarantee not to invade, and economic assistance. .

Whatever card the U.S. plays, a conclusion is about to be made in regard to the North Korean nuclear standoff. If South Korea, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan cannot stand up against the challenge of North Korea, which has a small population without natural resources, the argument that the international dispute should be resolved through diplomacy will lose its legitimacy.

spear@donga.com