`US-NK Talks Positive Step’

By Michael Ha

Contributing Writer

WASHINGTON _ A number of Korean-policy analysts said the meeting between the top U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill and North Korea's chief negotiator, Kim Gye-gwan, over the past weekend was a ``step in the right direction.''

But they stressed that North Korea must further demonstrate its denuclearization commitment if the regime wants to normalize ties with the United States.

The Korean Central News Agency had reported this week that the two sides had talked about ``taking practical measures to neutralize the existing nuclear facilities'' in North Korea by the end of the year.

At the meeting, the United States may have signaled to North Korea that it could take the regime off the list of states sponsoring terrorism and lift economic sanctions if the regime meets certain conditions, including keeping its promise for denuclearization.

``If they did indeed agree to do all this by the end of this year, that's an accomplishment," Victor Cha, a professor at Georgetown University, told The Korea Times. He had served as Director for Asian Affairs of the National Security Council at the White House from 2004 until earlier this year.

``If Ambassador Hill came out of there with a commitment that North Koreans are to do this by the end of this year, that's positive for the six-party talks,'' he said.

But he noted the important question now is, ``Even if you have that commitment, how do you get from here to there?''

The implementation of denuclearization is what's difficult, he said, and that's what negotiators will still have to discuss.

And that will raise the stakes for the next round of six-party talks, Cha forecast. ``It could be a very long and difficult round, because negotiators are basically going to have to come up with necessary steps to get declaration and disablement of North Korean nuclear facilities by the end of 2007.''

Further, there are other issues that need to be addressed before Washington would normalize ties with Pyongyang. ``There are human-rights issues, and missiles, and the deployment of forces in the demilitarized zone. So it's a very complex set of issues,'' he said.

He observed that inconsistent, dueling initial statements following the U.S.-North Korean talks regarding if and under what conditions Washington may remove Pyongyang from the list of states sponsoring terrorism is ``not unusual'' in these circumstances.

Commenting on the upcoming inter-Korean summit, Cha said the most important thing is that the summit needs to support the six-party talks and support reaching the goal of denuclearization in the region.

Korea Economic Institute President Jack Pritchard is another Korean-policy analyst here who says the U.S.-North Korean talk was a ``step in the right direction.''

``I was very happy to see the meeting between Hill and Kim,'' he said. And while provisions on declaration and disablement of nuclear facilities are not new, the most important thing to remember is the new, end-of-the-year timetable.

``My view is that U.S. has signaled to North Korea it may remove Pyongyang from the terrorism list and lift sanctions following declaration and disablement of nuclear facilities by the end of the year.''

Another analyst said that while it's still early to tell, there may now be what could be described as a ``pre-wiring agreement'' between the United States and North Korea.

Bruce Klingner, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said this could turn out to be similar to what Hill and Kim had done in Berlin before the Beijing agreement at the six-party talks in February.

After the Berlin meeting, Hill had also denied there had been any agreement, and yet just several weeks later there was a major agreement that was arrived at by the six-party talk, he said.

As for the next month's inter-Korean summit, Klingner said there is a concern in Washington over how much President Roh Moo-hyun is willing to give to North Korea. He said the United State is hoping for more North Korean commitment and progress toward denuclearization prior to South Korea offering additional promises or deliveries of aid and a large-scale economic assistance.