| |
North Korea talks: Multilateral
intrigue
By Jaewoo Choo
 It's all up to the
US, says North Korea
SEOUL
- Someone had to iron things out. Too many things were
going on around the Korean Peninsula seemingly without
much notice while our attention was very much
preoccupied with 24-hour breaking news during the past
month or so. In the end, victory in Iraq was achieved by
the United States as it envisaged, and the North Korean
nuclear issue will now be discussed and negotiated in a
multilateral setting as the US desired.
To
achieve the latter end, the US and its allies, namely
South Korea and Japan, made every possible effort in
persuading their counterparts, China and North Korea.
Those efforts are now heralded as a victory of
multilateral cooperation not only among the US and its
allies but also with those other concerned states,
Russia and China. At the outset, the coordination behind
the cooperative efforts seemed to be out of tune.
Nevertheless, it all ended in harmony as it satisfied
the concerned players.
This is how it started
out. Despite many threats and speculation from and to
Pyongyang on its nuclear programs, no concrete action
followed. On April 1, for instance, there were reports
that North Korea was about to conduct another round of
long-range missile tests, for which there was later to
be found to be no evidence. An April Fool's Day joke?
What happened with the International Atomic Energy
Agency's effort to present the North Korean nuclear case
to the United Nations Security Council for discussion as
a result of its vote on February 13? The vote result
received much glamorous appraisal because China
consented to it.
The Security Council convened
as originally scheduled on April 9 to discuss the
matter, but there ended up being no substantial
consequences. It was supposed to draft a condemnation of
North Korea for its unregulated nuclear program. It
failed to do so, however, based on the reasoning,
proclaimed by China, that such a message would cause
North Korea loss of face and would only backfire. A day
later, when North Korea was expected to announce its
official withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) as it claimed it would do three months ago,
there was not a word from Pyongyang on the matter.
Instead, an economic cooperation meeting and ministerial
talks that were supposed to have been held during the
week between the South and North were canceled at the
unilateral call from the latter.
In the
meantime, Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi
made an official visit to Beijing early this month.
About the same time, South Korean Foreign Minister Yoon
Young-kwan met with his US counterpart, Secretary of
State Colin Powell. On his way back, Yoon made a
stopover in Tokyo. Earlier, South Korean National
Security Advisor Dr Ra Jong-il assumed his mission of
negotiation and discussion with his counterparts in
Moscow and Beijing. After Ra's return to Korea on April
3, Kawaguchi resumed talks with Beijing diplomats.
Finally US President George W Bush, on April 11, gave
both Beijing and Pyongyang a lot to think about. His
statement was simple: rogue states, including Syria,
should not be so silly as to try to become another Iraq.
It seemed his message was conveyed directly with
a great effect to North Korea, as Pyongyang responded in
a positive way. It decided to come to a negotiation
table with China present if the United States changed
its stance on the issue, meaning no bullying and
exercising patience. Now Bush has one more reason to
celebrate his nation's victory in Iraq: bringing North
Korea to negotiation. Now this is where one has to raise
one's eyebrows and wonder what happened with China,
which had previously maintained an unyielding posture
against the world's demand that it play a more active
role to achieve such consequences.
Unlike
Russia, which went public about its intolerance of any
further action by North Korea on the nuclear issue and
demanded that Pyongyang accept multilateral negotiation,
China refrained from expressing its position.
Admittedly, China is sly when it comes to North Korean
issues. It is not going to tell you anything nor will it
say anything, but will maintain an indifferent posture.
One thing for sure is that it is not moved by any force,
or any kind of pressure, regardless of its origin.
China's foreign policy and behavior always revolve
around its national interests.
China is
certainly reluctant to see anything happen on the Korean
Peninsula, especially anything that would contrast with
its own national interests. This is particularly so as
long as its relationship with North Korea is bound by
the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance ratified
in 1961. Under this treaty, China has an obligation to
provide assistance and military support if and when
North Korea is under a threat from a third party or is
attacked. On the other hand, it would not be so obliged
in a case in which its ally threatened or attacked
others. Whether China would abide by the treaty in case
of emergency remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the
treaty has defined how China conducts relations and
policy with North Korea and those concerned with the
North Korean affairs.
It has been reported that
on at least two occasions, China talked to, and perhaps
persuaded, North Korea to consider alternatives to its
nuclear program. Last month China reportedly sent a
delegation consisting of officials from the Communist
Party's Foreign Attache Office. Then there was
speculation involving the recent unofficial and discreet
visit by Cho Myong-nok, the first deputy chairman of
North Korea's Central Military Committee. It is reported
that Cho has been in Beijing for medical treatment since
April 7. A man of his stature in the midst of all these
developments surrounding his nation would have a
profound influence on the outcomes, such as this week's
announcement by Beijing of North Korea's agreement to
have talks with the United States in a trilateral
setting that excluded South Korea.
The critical
question remains for further observation. Will we be
able to see any sufficient progress as a result of the
trilateral talks among Washington, Beijing and
Pyongyang? If we recollect correctly, it took almost two
years before the four-party talks saw any action in
December 1998.
What the trilateral talks will
accomplish is difficult to say at this moment because
they will be subject to the wishes of the US, as it is
in the driver's seat. The US determination and action
will obviously be subject to President Bush's reelection
scheme. Given that he will seek another term, he may
want to go slowly with the North Korean case and other
related issues as he will be preoccupied with other
matters that are in more direct concern for his
reelection strategy. Maybe China has realized this and
utilized it for its own benefit. Maybe not. It will be
become clearer as the trilateral talks progress.
(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights
reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
