Six-way Dialogue Participants are not Full of Optimism

Six-way Dialogue Participants are not Full of Optimism

North Korea has escalated tensions in Northeast Asia since it revealed its nuclear development programs in October of last year. Let us put some light on issues facing the Korean Peninsula from four perspectives.

First, U.S. interventions in strategic decision making over the Korea issues so far has been somewhat unilateral while its policies toward the Peninsula have remained expedient. Examples are found in history: The U.S. agreed with the former Soviet Union in 1945 over the division of the Peninsula and recently the U.S. wanted to nullify the 1994 Geneva Agreement between the North and the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. recently suspended its support to the construction of light water reactors in the North. The U.S. once supported four-way talks with the North in 1997, but accepted the trilateral talks instead, when the North proposed it in April this year.

Second, the way the North takes part in negotiations should be examined. The communist regime ostensibly pursues utilitarianism, but harbors “last resort plans” in a long-term perspective. The North provokes a crisis in preemption and often buys time after proposing a negotiation, quelling the doubt of the international community. It sticks to a buying-time strategy at every negotiation table by making volatile comments, which bring the ongoing negotiation to a standstill. The North raised its nuclear threat again in October of last year, which is the first time since 1993, which coincided with the time when the U.S. was preoccupied with its preparation for an attack on Iraq. While maneuvering this buying-time strategy, the North has continued its nuclear development programs over the past 10 years. At the trilateral talks in Beijing in this April, the Stalinist regime employed this strategy again by announcing its possession of nuke weapons and driving the negotiations to a stalemate.

The U.S. and the North have never dreamed the same dreams even though both countries might be seen as sleeping in the same bed. The U.S. has employed expedient and rhetorical policies toward the Peninsula while the North has repeatedly demonstrated its own plans, which served no one`s interests but the North`s. In reality, few things can be expected out of the six-way dialogue, which are essentially bilateral, between the North and the U.S. It is expected that the North will shake the world during the negotiations by making some specific comments, such as revealing its capacity to produce and use the nuclear weapons, thereby ruining the talks again.

Third, the situation on the Peninsula is not completely negative. Future developments can alter if China includes the Peninsula in its over-ten-year-old plan to reorganize the East Asian region and takes Korean issues seriously. China showed its commitment to taking the lead role in the region by providing lavish support for improving relations between the two Koreas. This explains why China assumed and will take a proactive role as a coordinator in the April talks and in the upcoming six-way talks. Previously, China has been a passive participant at four-way talks since 1997.

The upcoming talks might weigh heavily on China since the dialogue will serve as a test for China to see whether it can promote itself as a leader in Northeast Asia. Whatever results the talks would bring about, China`s participation in the event has ample significance in that its stance on the North`s issues including nuke weapons and the Korean Peninsular Energy Development Organization (KEDO) will become clear.

Yet, immature and blind optimism should be avoided in the six-way talks. It has been 12 years since the end of the Cold War, but none of the four powers surrounding the Korean Peninsula so far have volunteered to be a determined supporter of the reunification of the two Koreas. No nation in the region believes that a reunified and stable Peninsula would be a threat to their country instead of serving their interests.

Fourth, the talks should be expanded to include more regional and multilateral parties beyond the six in order to solve the issues on the Peninsula. The North`s nuclear issues need to be managed first at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) with the North and South taking the initiative. And afterwards, the talks should be expanded to include the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the Asia-Europe Summit (ASEM).

There is skepticism on whether the North`s nuclear issues, which have been pending for the 12 years since the Cold War, can be resolved by the four powers, who themselves have taken advantage of the Peninsula in the past.