Even the ink had not dried on the agreement reached at the six-nation talks, held in Beijing on North Korea's nuclear programme, when it became controversial. After the fourth round of week-long talks ended on Monday, all parties except for the North Koreans, were in a celebratory mood. China's chief negotiator, Wu Dawei, said.
"The joint statement is the most important achievement in the two years since the start of the six-party talks." The claim, indeed had merit since North Korea had agreed with the US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea to scrap its nuclear weapons programme and sign the NPT in return for energy aid and security guarantees. Both sides seemed to have gotten what they wanted, but the devil was in the detail.
Soon enough, the North Koreans were interpreting things differently than the other side, saying they would not abide by the agreement unless they received guarantees from the US for a light water nuclear reactor. That may look like the brinkmanship that, in the past, had characterised the country's nuclear policy, but this time round it is a different situation.
During the negotiations the US and Japan had taken a tough line, maintaining that Pyongyang could not be trusted with any kind of nuclear facility and hence it had to forgo its claim to nuclear energy.
Which was a non-starter. China, Russia as well as South Korea, however, had held that it could have a nuclear programme in the future provided it got rid of its nuclear weapons and accepted strict safeguards.
As a matter of fact, the international treaty on the issue does allow the establishment of peaceful nuclear plants if the interested countries are willing to present such facilities for strict international scrutiny; that is, why Iran insists it has the right to a peaceful nuclear programme.
Irrespective of the worth of the two positions that the parties in the talks took, it is hard to believe that while seeking to resolve such a high stakes crisis as North Korea's nuclear programme they overlooked an ambiguity on a crucial question.
Intentional or not, because of the ambiguity the two sides are interpreting the agreement as they want rather than what it was meant to be. Though the Americans and some others are now acting surprised and accusing Pyongyang of having scuppered the agreement, analysts had said soon after it was announced that the issue of light water nuclear reactor had remained unresolved. The North Koreans have said the same thing while demanding the reactor before dismantling their existing nuclear programme.
Therefore, it would be wrong to accuse them of resorting to brinkmanship once again, in order to squeeze more concessions out of the other side. As things stand, the situation is disappointing but not hopeless. As much as the US would like to refer an 'Axis of Evil' country to the UN Security Council for punitive sanctions, it knows that the other veto wielding powers involved in the negotiations are averse to such a course of action. And both South Korea and Japan, too, favour a negotiated settlement.
Hence, the process of negotiations is expected to go on. Already, the next round of six parties' talks is scheduled for November. Since all parties have a will to negotiate a settlement, it is reasonable to believe that they will not take too long to arrive at a solution that addresses the concerns of both sides.
Comments
Comments are closed.