US, NK show subtle differences in latest nuke agreement

Experts say Wednesday’s nuclear agreement between North Korea and the U.S. and its implementation are “two different issues.” Though the deal has put the Korean Peninsula`s situation vis-a-vis the North’s nuclear program in a “management phase,” both sides could clash over the timing and enforcement of the agreement.

○ Different purposes in one agreement

The subtle differences in the agreement’s announcements made by Pyongyang and Washington indicate different intentions of the two sides.

In its announcement, North Korea put the U.S. offer of 240,000 tons of nutritional aid in the front and Pyongyang’s suspension of its uranium enrichment program in the back. Washington put the uranium enrichment suspension in the front of its announcement. Since both sides have different points of emphasis, a dispute over implementation priorities could come later.

The U.S. described North Korea’s uranium enrichment suspension as a “moratorium,” but North Korea called it a “temporary halt,” which is weaker than the terms it previously used –- freeze, shutdown and disablement -– in the 1994 Agreed Framework and six-party talks.

In addition, North Korea attached the condition that it will suspend its nuclear program “while productive dialogue is underway,” suggesting a resumption of uranium enrichment at any time if talks reach a stalemate. Several experts say Pyongyang is resorting to “salami tactics,” or the slicing of bargaining trade-offs into thinner slices to gain more concessions.

Pyongyang mentioned the “provision of light-water reactors” but Washington did not. A South Korean official said, “It seems that the North unilaterally inserted what was not in the agreement.” If so, the inclusion suggests Pyongyang’s obsession with light-water nuclear reactors.

North Korea also said both sides recognized that the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War is the cornerstone of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula “before a peace treaty is concluded.” The U.S. announcement did not include this, either, however, suggesting Pyongyang’s intention to use its proposal for a peace agreement to continue pressuring Washington.

On additional food assistance, the U.S. said the possibility was open while Pyongyang said Washington agreed to “make efforts to provide additional food aid.” Both sides also used different expressions on sanctions, as Pyongyang said Washington made it clear that sanctions against North Korea do not target civilians, while Washington said the sanctions are not aimed at the daily lives of the North Korean people.

○ Criticism and questions

The differences in announcements suggest that the two sides have a long way to go.

North Korea’s pledge to suspend uranium enrichment is reversible, as the communist country can resume it any time. A senior U.S. official admitted that the latest agreement is reversible and that the North could pull the switch and go in a different direction. If North Korea does so, however, the official said Pyongyang will lose an opportunity and make its return to the six-party talks impossible. “It would be a very different future for North Korea,” the official noted.

The latest agreement will not necessarily lead to the resumption of the stalled six-party talks. Officials of South Korea and the U.S. have shown a cautious attitude toward the prospects for the reopening of the dialogue.

Previous denuclearization negotiations with Pyongyang have often ended up buying time for the North and failed to stop its nuclear program even after food and a light water reactor were given.

Saying “talks for the sake of talks are meaningless,” a U.S. official stressed the need for meaningful results and expected “very tough” negotiations in the process of the North`s suspension of uranium enrichment. A South Korean official also said, “The key lies in how the two sides prioritize the implementation of what they agreed to do under the principle of simultaneous action. There is a long way to go.”

Other experts in South Korea also warned of the possibility that Seoul, which was excluded from the negotiations, will end up with the bill as it did in 1994, when the Agreed Framework was concluded. Back then, South Korea had to shoulder more than 70 percent of the budget of 1.56 billion dollars for the light-water reactors for the North though the South never participated in the negotiating process. The latest Pyongyang-Washington agreement also did not mention improving inter-Korean relations.

○ Washington, Pyongyang accelerate follow-up steps

North Korea and the U.S. are expected to quickly implement their latest agreements. Ri Gun, director general for North American affairs at the North Korean Foreign Ministry, and Robert King, U.S. special envoy for North Korean human rights issues, will soon discuss the timing and monitoring methods for nutritional assistance to the North.

A U.S. official said Washington offered 20,000 tons of monthly nutritional assistance over a 12-month period, adding that the U.S. was ready to contact North Korea as soon as possible. U.S. food aid will go to North Korea after American monitoring agents open an office in the communist country and begin operations.

On North Korea`s suspension of uranium enrichment, the core part of the agreement, Pyongyang will discuss it with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Right after the announcement of the North Korea-U.S. agreement, the agency said it was “ready” to return to the North.

Whether North Korea will turn off its uranium enrichment facilities under supervision by the agency`s inspectors or if the suspension will be verified after the facilities are turned off will be determined at working-level talks.

Since Pyongyang and Washington also agreed to increase human exchanges in culture, education and sports, the two sides will likely progress in thawing relations to a certain degree. The U.S. is said to be mulling inviting to Washington Ri Yong Ho, North Korean vice foreign minister and chief negotiator to the six-party talks.

lightee@donga.com shcho@donga.com