|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 'Simultaneous Action' Key to NK Nukes |
| OhmyNews columnist Cheong Wook Sik suggests placing reactor securely in the hands of NAECO, IAEA |
|
Cheong Wook Sik (internews)  |
 Email Article
 Print Article
|
|
|
|
Published 2005-09-21 11:53 (KST) |
|
|
|
 | |  Kim Gye Gwan, North Korea's chief negotiator, center, and his U.S. counterpart Christopher R. Hill listen to the discussions in Beijing, Sept. 19. | | | ©2005 Yonhap | | After much effort, a joint statement was adopted at the six-way talks, but with the ink not even dry, a war of nerves has erupted between the United States and North Korea over the issue of light-water reactors. Even though it says "an appropriate time" in the joint statement, there is clearly a difference in interpretation between North Korea and the United States.
In a press conference immediately following the adoption of the joint statement, U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill stressed that the appropriate time to discuss the light-water reactor issue was when North Korea got rid of all its nuclear weapons and nuclear programs, returned to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and signed a safeguard agreement with the IAEA. The United States made clear its position that the North should first dismantle its nuclear program, with discussions on the provision of light-water reactors coming later.
With this, a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Tuesday that when the United States provided light-water reactors as a trust-building measure, North Korea would return to the NPT and sign a safeguard agreement with the IAEA. North Korea revealed its position that the provision of light-water reactors should come first, with the abandonment of its nuclear program coming later.
With a battle erupting between the United States and North Korea over the light-water reactor issue -- the most contentious one of the talks -- just a day after the adoption of the joint statement, there is concern that the light-water reactors might trip up efforts to implement the communique. This is because through the vague expressions in the joint statement, they were successful in getting a breather, but with North Korea and the United States interpreting the phrase "an appropriate time" in accordance with their own self-interests, the issue is expected to once again become a major point of contention during the fifth round of six-way talks scheduled for early November.
In particular, one could say the debate over which comes first -- the provision of reactors or North Korea's nuclear dismantlement -- is a teaser showing the complexity of the issue of sequencing concerning the corresponding measures to be taken regarding the North's dismantlement of its nuclear program. The joint statement contains a number of principles and final goals for resolving the nuclear issue, but it doesn't include how to resolve the problem by connecting them simultaneously. It's premised on the principle of "pledge for pledge" and "action for action," and that mutually harmonized measures would be taken in stages so that the agreements could be implemented.
'Simultaneous action: Returning to the NPT and reactor accord'
What's easy to predict is that because of the light-water reactor issue, the fifth round of the six-way talks are likely to be delayed or end fruitlessly even if opened, with only the difference in position between North Korea and the United States confirmed. To discuss the provision of the light-water reactors after North Korea has completely abandoned its nuclear program, as the United States is calling, is not realistic, as it would take several years to complete the dismantlement of its nuclear program. Nor is the United States guaranteeing light-water reactors after the North dismantles its nuclear programs.
North Korea's claims are equally unrealistic. It will take over five years to complete the construction of the reactors, and for it to say it would rejoin the NPT after it had been provided light-water reactors sparks suspicion as to the country's will to abandon its nuclear program.
In order to bridge the fundamental difference in position between North Korea and the United States and begin first-stage simultaneous measures by agreeing to an implementation plan in the fifth round of the six-way talks, one needs to study compromise plans. And the compromise plan should be geared toward "simultaneous action." This is to say that the issue of North Korea's return to the NPT and the provision of light-water reactors should not be approached from the perspective of "first this, then that," but rather be implemented simultaneously.
There are difficulties in simultaneous action, however. This is because while North Korea's returning to the NPT and accepting IAEA inspections are "action," even if the United States promises to provide light-water reactors, this is just a "pledge," so discord may erupt. Moreover, it's unclear whether the Bush administration, which has stuck to its position that light-water reactors are out of the question, will make the reactors subject to "give-and-take" negotiations.
In order to resolve these issues, there's a need to resolve things at the level of "action for action." That is to say, North Korea should return to the NPT and accept IAEA inspections while the United States concludes a nuclear energy treaty with the North guaranteeing the provision of light-water reactors.
Some experts say that considering the negative feeling about a light-water reactor project in the U.S. Congress, it would be impossible to get the required nuclear power treaty approved, but the important thing is the will of the Bush administration. Not only does the Republican Party control the U.S. Congress, but because the light-water reactor deal was made during the previous Clinton administration, the Bush White House is sufficiently capable of persuading the legislature.
From KEDO to NAECO
It's also necessary to keep in mind the creation of a body to play a leading role in minimizing North Korea's energy needs, including light-water reactors. Just as the six-way framework was thrown together to resolve the nuclear issue, there's a need to a new body to discuss North Korea's energy requirements.
We should actively consider expanding and reorganizing KEDO into NAECO, a Northeast Asian Energy Cooperation Organization. This body could expand its membership from the existing KEDO members of South Korea, the United States, Japan and the European Union to include six-way talk participants North Korea, China and Russia.
This proposal would include KEDO non-members China and Russia as parties to provide energy, including heavy oil, to the North, and comes from a realistic judgment that with the virtual collapse of the Geneva Accords, there's a need to set straight the scope of KEDO.
Moreover, with the rivalry between Northeast Asian states over energy intensifying and environmental degradation thanks to explosive increases in energy usage, the question of energy cooperation could rise to become one of the region's most important pending issues.
In fact, the work NAECO could do is various and important. Not only could it deliver heavy oil, but it could also become a framework to rationally resolve the contentious issue of light-water reactors.
On the surface, Pyongyang says the commissioning of the light-water reactor is a concrete show of trust by U.S. and it is also the will of late leader Kim Il Sung. But these are not the only reasons for Pyongyang to be so attached to the light-water reactor. North Korea needs to diversify its power supply and the more than 4 million tons of estimated usable uranium reserves in North Korea is also an important consideration for this policy direction.
Still, some would fear that such reserves could be used in the production of nuclear warheads once North Korea is allowed to fire-up their uranium enrichment facility. NAECO can take the initiative in resolving this concern by providing uranium fuel for nuclear power and eventually assuming operation of the light-water reactor. This measure will put the North Korean reactor securely in the hands of NAECO and under the watch of the IAEA, eliminating any possibility of misuse of the uranium enrichment facility.
Eventually Seoul and Beijing will have to take responsibility of the preparation and resolution of the negotiated measures. The two parties played a significant role in overcoming the final obstacle by wisely playing the "creative ambiguity" card. Now it is time for them to come up with a more detailed resolution and start to bring Pyongyang and Washington closer together.
| | Text of Joint Statement From Nuclear Talks | | | |
Following is text of the joint statement issued Monday by six nations at talks in Beijing on North Korea's nuclear program:
For the cause of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in northeast Asia at large, the six parties held in a spirit of mutual respect and equality serious and practical talks concerning the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula on the basis of the common understanding of the previous three rounds of talks and agreed in this context to the following:
1) The six parties unanimously reaffirmed that the goal of the six-party talks is the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) and to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards.
The United States affirmed that is has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or conventional weapons.
The ROK (South Korea) reaffirmed its commitment not to receive or deploy nuclear weapons in accordance with the 1992 joint declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, while affirming that there exist no nuclear weapons within its territory.
The 1992 joint declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula should be observed and implemented.
The DPRK stated that it has the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
The other parties expressed their respect and agreed to discuss at an appropriate time the subject of the provision of light-water reactor to the DPRK.
2) The six parties undertook, in their relations, to abide by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and recognized norms of international relations.
The DPRK and the United States undertook to respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations subject to their respective bilateral policies.
The DPRK and Japan undertook to take steps to normalize their relations in accordance with the (2002) Pyongyang Declaration, on the basis of the settlement of unfortunate past and the outstanding issues of concern.
3) The six parties undertook to promote economic cooperation in the fields of energy, trade and investment, bilaterally and/or multilaterally.
China, Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Russia and the U.S. stated their willingness to provide energy assistance to the DPRK. The ROK reaffirmed its proposal of July 12, 2005, concerning the provision of 2 million kilowatts of electric power to the DPRK.
4) Committed to joint efforts for lasting peace and stability in northeast Asia. The directly related parties will negotiate a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum.
The six parties agreed to explore ways and means for promoting security cooperation in northeast Asia.
5) The six parties agreed to take coordinated steps to implement the aforementioned consensus in a phased manner in line with the principle of ''commitment for commitment, action for action.''
6) The six parties agreed to hold the fifth round of the six party talks in Beijing in early November 2005 at a date to be determined through consultations. / OhmyNews | | | | |
|
|
©2005 OhmyNews
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Comments Note: Kindly refrain from personal attacks and profanity. |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
How worried are you about the H1N1 influenza virus? |
|
 |
| * Vote to see the result. |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSS
Del.icio.us
Digg 
reddit
Y! MyWeb
.jpg)
