83% Say UN Referral of North Korea Won’t Help Solve Nuclear Crisis


By Reuben Staines
Staff Reporter


The six-nation talks remain a viable forum to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis, despite worsening tensions and Pyongyang’s continued refusal to resume negotiations, according to an informal survey of international relations experts.

Of a panel of 14 North Korea watchers canvassed by The Korea Times, 71 percent believed participating nations should stick with the multilateral negotiations, which have been stalled for nearly 11 months. Only four said the talks have failed and should be abandoned.

The result comes amid signs that the talks are on the verge of collapse, with U.S. officials hinting that other options will have to be considered if Pyongyang does not return to the bargaining table soon. Ratcheting up tensions are intelligence reports that indicate the North may be preparing to conduct a nuclear test.

But while most of the scholars, selected mainly from United States and South Korean institutions, said the multilateral framework should be kept, a wide variety of other possible measures were put forward to help break the standoff.

In terms of broad approach, the panel favored pressuring North Korea marginally over luring it with incentives. About 54 percent said sticks would be better than carrots in solving the nuclear crisis.

Asked about specific steps, however, Washington offering to hold direct discussions with Pyongyang _ either within or separate from the six-party talks _ was the most favored approach by the respondents.

Peter Hayes, director of the Nautilus Institute in Melbourne, Australia laid out a specific proposal of sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Pyongyang after inviting a North Korean military leader to Washington for preliminary discussions.



The suggestion is likely to remain a hypothetical, though, as the U.S. has ruled out one-on-one talks with the North outside of the six-party forum.

Paik Hak-soon, senior fellow at the Sejong Institute, preferred utilizing direct contacts between South Korea and the communist North to achieve a breakthrough.

Overall, pressuring China to exert its influence over the North was the second most preferred step among respondents. Another popular pressure tactic was to strengthen the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a naval interdiction aimed at blocking the export of nuclear material or weapons by Pyongyang.

Henry Nau, professor at George Washington University, believed keeping North Korea isolated is the key. ``If the North acquires nuclear weapons and the five powers stick together, condemn it at the U.N. and make sure through the PSI that it cannot export (nuclear technology), what is North Korea going to do with its nukes?’’ he commented.

However, Kenneth Quinones of International Action in Washington said this strategy would be impossible unless a broad international consensus is reached on how to deal with the crisis.

``The U.S. should work with Beijing, Seoul, Moscow and Tokyo to forge a common diplomatic approach to North Korea instead of trying to use China as its hammer,’’ he argued.

Several experts including Hudson Institute senior fellow Michael Horowitz backed using human rights as a platform to pressure the North and encouraging increased defections. Horowitz played a key role in drafting the North Korean Human Rights Act, which was enacted by Washington in October.

None of those surveyed, however, believed Washington should execute a precision strike on Pyongyang’s nuclear facilities, an option actively considered by the U.S. administration at the height of the first North Korean nuclear crisis in 1994.

Only 21 percent of respondents believed referring the North’s nuclear programs to the U.N. Security Council would help to solve the crisis. About 46 percent said it would exacerbate the situation while 33 percent believed it would have no significant impact.

Several neocons in the U.S. government have been pushing for the issue to be sent to the top U.N. decision-making council. But President George W. Bush appeared to rule it out last week, alluding to the fact that China would likely veto any U.N. sanctions against its traditional ally.

The survey also revealed widespread disappointment with the approaches of all major players in the nuclear talks, particularly South Korea.

Half of the panelists said Seoul’s stance on the nuclear issue has not been helpful while about 30 percent assessed its performance as mixed.

While South Korea has demanded the North abandon its nuclear ambitions, it has also continued to pursue economic and diplomatic engagement with its communist counterpart.

China, the host of the six-party talks, fared better in the survey. About 63 percent said its approach was either useful or mixed.

But the panelists were critical of the U.S., with 36 percent saying its attitude has not helped resolve the crisis and only one expert viewing its stance as helpful.

``The current situation is a tragedy that could have been prevented had the principal parties been willing to deal with each other respectfully,’’ concluded Paul Chamberlin, adjunct fellow to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. ``Now is the time for serious statesmanship, but no leaders are in sight.’’

Other South Korea-based experts surveyed included Park Ihn-hwi of Ewha Womans University, Lee Jung-hoon of Yonsei University, Dennis Florig of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies and Sheen Seong-ho of Seoul National University.

International specialists included Balbina Hwang of the Heritage Foundation, John Copper of Rhodes College, Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute and Ralph Cossa of the Pacific Forum CSIS.

rjs@koreatimes.co.kr