Another month has passed without seeing any progress in the stalled six-nation efforts to dismantle North Korea's nuclear programs. Sung Kim, the U.S. State Department's top Korean affairs expert who visited North Korea last week, said Pyongyang did not provide him with the full list of its nuclear programs. Contrarily, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il called for the six countries involved to ``fulfill promises according to the 'action-for-action' principle.'' How long will they let this tedious tug-of-war continue?
Two things show it is too early to give all up, as some U.S. hawks maintain. First, the top leaders of the two countries still appear committed to holding up their ends of the deadlocked six-nation nuclear deal. Kim reiterated there are no changes in the North's stance to push ahead with the six-party talks and implement all the agreements. U.S. President George W. Bush stopped short of calling Pyongyang or its leader by any name in this year's State of the Union address, either.
Second, there are proposals on both sides of the Pacific for modified and phased approaches to put the Oct. 3 agreement into action. The U.S. Congressional Research Office (CRS) has suggested that Washington should remove Pyongyang from its list of states sponsoring terrorism first upon the complete dismantlement of the Yongbyon atomic plant, and lift trade sanctions if the North completes the remaining process later. This could be a realistic alternative, considering Pyongyang's strenuous calls for corresponding action. Most other proposals also focus on content, not form.
As there is the will at the top political level and flexibility with working-group officials, the diplomats of the six countries should be discussing to resume their talks. This is no time for toying with an entirely new conference format. It's noteworthy in this regard that President-elect Lee Myung-balk recently made remarks stressing the importance of the EU's contribution in breaking the stalemate. However, if Lee's comment meant more than a general wish to include the EU as a formal negotiating party, it would entail many risks.
It's natural that most incoming administrations are tempted to completely halt policies from their predecessors and start anew, whether it be in domestic affairs or diplomacy. One can't help remembering the failed attempts of the former Kim Dae-jung government, which tried to change it from four-party to six-party talks in 1998 but couldn't have decent multilateral dialogues almost throughout his tenure. It has also become common sense now that U.S. President Bush's ``ABC'' (anything-but-Clinton) policy turned the North Korean nuclear clock back to before his inauguration.
It's time for the president-elect to not sever but succeed his predecessor's diplomatic policy, particularly as far as the North's nuclear issue is concerned. This is an international promise that leaves plenty of time for Lee to test his own ways if international society formally declares it dead.