Op-Ed Contributors

What the future holds for DPRK

By Wang Sheng (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-09-16 07:48

At their meeting with Wu Dawei, US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg and US special envoy on the DPRK Bosworth said Washington wanted to play a constructive role in maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. They agreed to join hands with other parties to create conditions for advancing the Six-Party Talks process.

There are differences among the parties on whether to seek an apology from the DPRK (for the Cheonan incident) and whether the should restart sending aid to it. Plus, the ROK is yet to decide how to respond to China's appeal for resuming the Six-Party Talks. But despite all that, Seoul has agreed to make joint efforts with Beijing and the other parties to create the right conditions for the resumption of the talks as early as possible.

Japan and Russia both want the talks to resume as soon as possible. By all accounts, China's mediation has produced positive results for the resumption of the talks.

The DPRK, the ROK, the US and Japan may want the talks to resume, but each has its own set of conditions - and differences among them still exist.

Pyongyang has set three preconditions for returning to the talks: lifting financial sanctions on it, a US security guarantee and joint discussion on nuclear disarmament.

US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters on Sept 1 that Washington would be guided by what the DPRK did as far as the resumption of the Six-Party Talks was concerned. He urged Pyongyang to stop "provocations", shelve its nuclear program, implement the statement of principles agreed to on Sept 19, 2005, and accept responsibility for sinking Cheonan. And Seoul has been insisting that Pyongyang take steps to and prove it is ready to abandon its nuclear program before the stalled talks could be resumed.

During his shuttle diplomacy, Wu Dawei proposed a three-step scheme. The US and the DPRK should first hold bilateral talks, followed by meetings of heads of delegations of the six parties, which would culminate in the Six-Party Talks.

But the problem is whether the US and the DPRK will come to terms with history (and the Cheonan incident) to break the deadlock and whether the US would restrain from imposing more financial sanctions on the DPRK. Unless the US addresses the two problems, it is unlikely for it to resume talks.

The DPRK, on its part, should show that it sincerely wants to abandon its nuclear program, otherwise, its "returning to the negotiating table for talks could only be seen as temporary tactics" because in reality it would have to commit itself to denuclearization.

Experience shows that the Six-Party Talks have been representative and authoritative. They are an irreplaceable and effective mechanism to resolve the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue and maintain security in Northeast Asia.

Frankly speaking, the significance of the regional forum lies not in the achievements made during the talks, but in the establishment of an "institutional" dialogue and communication mechanism in the region.

Regardless of prospects ahead, the Six-Party Talks cannot be replaced and it has been and will continue to be a cornerstone of the Northeast Asian peaceful mechanism.

The author is a professor of international studies at Jilin University.

(China Daily 09/16/2010 page9)