reply

Hi, thanks, will post this.

Brian

It was meant to be the fruit of three years of confrontation, florid insults and intermittent negotiations - a statement of principles intended to form the framework for an eventual agreement to rid the Korean peninsula of nuclear weapons.

Yet within 24 hours, North Korea had made it clear that fundamental differences remained over the agreement's implementation, underlining how much work the negotiators still have to do.

Under intense pressure from its neighbours and the United States, North Korea signed up on Monday to a document that commits it - in theory - to scrapping its nuclear weapons and weapons programmes and readmitting inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The North's neighbours and the US, in return, agreed to supply energy assistance and move towards diplomatic normalisation.

The US also stated it had no nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula and had no intention to attack the North.

The joint statement was the first tangible sign of progress after four rounds of six-party talks in Beijing - a diplomatic process that recently appeared to be in danger of stalling.

But the real test will come when the diplomats return in November to discuss how the agreement is implemented, and how North Korea's nuclear claims will be verified.

"Whether this agreement helps solve this will depend in large measure on what we do in the days and weeks that follow," said the chief US negotiator, Christopher Hill.

"We need to take the momentum of this agreement and work to see that it is implemented."

Mr Hill came to the negotiations this summer with new tactics - to show more flexibility and engage the North Koreans directly.

But he only managed to reach the current agreement by postponing discussions on the most contentious disputes.

North Korea came back to the talks last week with a new demand that threw the negotiations into disarray, and threatened a breakdown that might have scuppered the diplomatic process altogether.

It called for the construction of a modern, civilian nuclear power plant, in addition to the other rewards on offer for scrapping its nuclear programmes.

That was clearly unacceptable to the Bush administration, which insists the Communist state cannot be trusted with any nuclear capabilities.

Monday's agreed statement merely said this issue would be discussed again "at an appropriate time", which looks like a recipe for further deadlock in the future.

North Korea made clear on Tuesday that it saw the issue as central, stating that it would not end its nuclear programmes or readmit IAEA inspectors until the new power plant was built.

Omissions

Another fundamental disagreement - over the scope of North Korea's nuclear capabilities - has also not been addressed.

North Korea continues to deny American allegations that it is running a second, secret uranium enrichment programme in addition to its well known plutonium plant at Yongbyon.

There is also no agreement on sequencing - who is to make the first move? - and this could be another key stumbling block.

And the fraught question of verification - North Korea is one of the world's most closed and secretive nations - has also not been addressed.

Given these omissions, the agreed statement looks like the minimum necessary to keep the diplomatic process alive.

Nevertheless, the agreement has been warmly welcomed in the region - perhaps more out of relief than any expectation of an early settlement.

The accord is "an important turning point that will help peace take root," said a statement issued by the South Korean government.

South Korean officials believe it will be hard for the North to go back on an agreement that was signed in the presence of all the regional powers as well as the US.

But they are also aware that North Korea has made many previous commitments to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

There is a clear understanding in the region that the real work of defusing the North Korean nuclear threat is only just beginning.

North Korea has said it will not scrap its nuclear programme until it is given a civilian nuclear reactor, undermining an agreement reached 24 hours earlier.

Pyongyang agreed on Monday to dismantle its nuclear programme in return for aid and security guarantees, following six-nation talks.

The BBC's Charles Scanlon says that the North's new statement looks like a recipe for continued deadlock.

Both Japan and the US have rejected Pyongyang's demand for a reactor.

Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura said the North's demand was "unacceptable", Kyodo News agency reported.

Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the US State Department, said: "This was obviously not the agreement they signed, and we will see what the coming weeks bring."

South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said the issue would be discussed before the next round of talks, which is set to take place in November.

But diplomats involved in these negotiations have few illusions about the scale of the task facing them, our correspondent says.

Mutual suspicion

At the end of the six-nation talks in Beijing on Monday, North Korea agreed to a statement of principle under which it would abandon all nuclear weapons and current nuclear programmes and return to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

In return, Pyongyang was offered electricity and an assurance that the US "has no intention to attack or invade [North Korea] with nuclear or conventional weapons".

The agreement, which came after a three-year stand-off over North Korea's nuclear ambitions, was hailed as an important breakthrough.

However, in a statement broadcast on North Korean radio early on Tuesday morning local time, Pyongyang reiterated its "right to peaceful nuclear activities".

It said the US "should not even dream" it would dismantle its nuclear arsenal until Washington had provided it with a light-water nuclear reactor.

Soon afterwards, Vice-Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan told reporters that his nation was not prepared to make the first move.

"They are telling us to give up everything, but there will be no such thing as giving it up first," he said.

UN return

The nuclear dispute began in late 2002, when the US accused North Korea of having a uranium-based nuclear arms programme, in violation of international agreements.

Since then four rounds of nuclear talks - between Russia, China, Japan, the US, South and North Korea - have failed to break the impasse.

Even before Pyongyang's latest comments, analysts warned that there were still many hurdles ahead in finding a lasting solution to the problem of North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

But there was one positive development on Tuesday. Japan's foreign minister said that Tokyo and Pyongyang would soon resume bilateral talks, restarting negotiations that have been stalled for nearly a year.

Relations between the two nations have been strained by the issue of Japanese citizens kidnapped by North Korea in the 1970s and 80s.

 

5.20.2006

reply

Thanks, posted.

Brian