Everyone engaged in the six-party talks in Beijing to persuade the North Koreans to give up their nuclear ambitions should see that Pyongyang's latest shenanigans have made two conclusions patently clear:
One, the North Koreans have shown once again that they are not to be trusted because they say one thing on Monday and something quite different on Tuesday. This evasion is not a new tactic but one that goes back 50 years to the end of the Korean War.
Two, Kim Jong-il, the leader of North Korea, has no intention of dismantling his nuclear programs no matter what the US and the other nations offer. The Bush administration and the other negotiators should accept this as hard fact and move on.
A summary of how the US, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and South Koreans got to this point with the North Koreans: On Monday, the six nations issued a statement that said, in part: "The DPRK [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." They also "agreed to discuss, at an appropriate time, the subject of the provision of light water reactor to the DPRK." Light water reactors [LWR] generate electricity but it is difficult to use their nuclear fuel to make bombs.
On Tuesday, the North Koreans reneged, effectively asserting that the "appropriate time" is now.
"The US should not even dream of the issue of the DPRK's dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing LWRs," they declared.
On Wednesday, they declared they were "fully ready to decisively control a preemptive [US] nuclear attack with a strong retaliatory blow."
Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency continued in the same vein this past week, saying it was "most essential" for the US "to provide light water reactors to the DPRK as early as possible" as evidence that the US recognized North Korea's right to have nuclear activity for "a peaceful purpose."
The latest North Korean ploy is a series of hints that Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill should visit Pyongyang to be followed by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and possibly even President George W. Bush or his father, former president George Bush.
This should be seen for what it really is, a pitch for US leaders to journey to Pyongyang to pay tribute to Kim, to accord international stature to his regime, and to hold out hope that an agreement could be reached down the line if only the Americans would make more concessions.
Maybe Hill should go to Pyongyang for the sake of diplomatic appearances and to show the Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and South Koreans that the US is willing to go an extra mile in an effort to get a realistic agreement with the North Koreans. Nothing substantive, however, should be expected to come of that visit.
For Rice or either of the Bushes even to consider such a venture would border on madness and would only hold out the false hope that somehow, sometime, someplace the North Koreans will suddenly renounce their nuclear plans and actually keep their promises. Anyone who believes this will ever happen will believe that the sun will come up in the west.
What, then, to do?
The time has come to stop trying to cajole the North Koreans into a verifiable agreement and for Hill and his colleagues to pick up their briefcases and walk away. They should thank the Chinese, who have been the hosts of the negotiations, for a nice try and give the North Koreans a phone number and an e-mail address and say that if they ever want to negotiate in good faith, let us know.
The consequences? North Korea will have a free hand to develop nuclear weapons, but they have that anyway. Walking away will damage the endeavor to prevent more nuclear proliferation, but that has already been damaged. Iran and possibly others will be encouraged to proceed with plans to acquire nuclear weapons but the Iranians have indicated they intend to go ahead anyway.
China has scored its first big diplomatic success and little the US do will detract from that. South Korea moves away from its alliance with Washington day by day. It remains to be seen whether Beijing and Seoul will be happy with a nuclear armed North Korea next door.
So, what's to lose by saying goodbye to the North Koreans?
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing