Six parties, six  versions, one truth

By Chris Gelken

Feb. 7, 2007 -- SEOUL (apj.us) -- The six-party talks aimed at convincing, cajoling, bribing, browbeating or threatening North Korea into giving up its nuclear weapons program are about to get underway in Beijing. The world's media has put the Chinese capital back in the spotlight and for the next couple of days we will be hanging onto every soundbite by negotiators and talking heads to get an idea of what is really happening behind closed doors at the Diaoyutai State Guest House.

What they don't say, however, is often as equally or more important as what they do say. 

Why certain things are left out of a statement or a story can often be put down to innocent omission, ignorance, time or space constraints (in the case of a newspaper) – or deliberate omission. And that makes it an unforgivable attempt to mislead.

For example: “The Agreed Framework deal eventually collapsed in late 2002 after Washington accused the communist regime of continuing with its nuclear development activity. Pyongyang later confirmed that it had in fact fired up its Yongbyon facility in contravention of the 1994 agreement.” True and factual in every respect.

The above paragraph has been reproduced in various forms many times in official statements, print and broadcast news over the past few years. The impression it imparts is that North Korea unilaterally fractured the Agreed Framework. This fits very nicely with the concept of good versus evil, and the accepted perception that North Korea is a rogue regime that simply can't be trusted to keep its word.

I am not suggesting for one second that North Korea isn't governed by a rogue regime and can in fact be trusted, but the addition of one extra sentence to the paragraph in question changes the entire dynamic of the statement.

“The North said it had grown frustrated at the slow pace at which Washington was implementing the agreement, accusing the U.S. government of dragging its heels on the construction of light water reactors and the delivery of promised oil supplies for much needed energy generation.” Also true and factual in every respect.

Unfortunately, this clouds the issue. Perhaps the North did have a genuine gripe after all. The Republican led congress which came into power shortly after the agreement was signed, then a few years later President George W. Bush, both harshly criticized the deal, saying it rewarded Pyongyang for bad behavior. So yes, the truth is they were dragging their heels on raising funds for the construction of promised light water reactors, and Congress often did not provide enough money to sustain the oil shipments. So, who broke the agreement first? Or at least, who broke the spirit of the agreement?

Once a few extra details are thrown into the mix it makes things terribly complicated doesn't it?

The six-party talks resumed last December after a 13-month hiatus following Pyongyang's decision to boycott the process in late 2005. The “why” they boycotted the process is often left out, and when it is included, it is usually limited to something like “Pyongyang walked out in protest over U.S. financial sanctions imposed for money laundering, counterfeiting and other illicit financial activity.”

The crucial word “alleged” is rarely used. The fact is, to date no concrete and irrefutable proof has ever been presented to substantiate the claims made by Washington. So imagine this scenario; you, dear reader, are being punished by sanctions and castigated by the international media for crimes you are only “alleged” to have committed. What would your reaction be?

When the talks reconvened last December, the North opened proceedings by reading out a shopping list of demands, first and foremost was a lifting of the financial sanctions and the release of some $24 million frozen in the accounts of a Macau based bank. The talks got nowhere. The North was accused of being intransigent and was universally blamed for blocking any progress in the talks that wound up with everyone making surly remarks and muttering threats.

The U.S. said the financial sanctions were a completely separate issue – in their words “a law enforcement issue” – and totally unrelated to the denuclearization talks. Not to North Korea they aren't. They are upset, and angry. The timing of the economic sanctions, coming as they did just as Pyongyang and its six-party partners had reached a hard fought for agreement on a roadmap for nuclear disarmament, leaves one with the nasty suspicion – a suspicion widely held but vehemently denied – that Washington deliberately sabotaged the so-called September Agreement.

Conspiracy theorists suggest, among other things, that Washington needs North Korea as a bogeyman to justify its hugely expensive missile defense shield. Sounds plausible enough.

North Korea might be everything its critics claim it is, and more. It is certainly and verifiably guilty of human rights abuses, for example. But is it solely responsible for the nuclear crisis? Was it pushed to the precipice, or was it always their intention to go there? In truth, perhaps a bit of both. 

By the same token, the United States may be playing the same nefarious games it did during the decades of the Cold War. Who knows? But we would certainly be making progress if we in the media at least kept to the facts, all of them.

As the negotiators head back into the talks Thursday in Beijing, there is a atmosphere of optimism that certainly hasn't been seen in a very long time. But the potential for it all to go terribly wrong is already being made evident in pre-negotiation statements – mainly from the United States and Japan.

Tokyo has made it clear they won't sign onto any agreement until the issue of Japanese citizens kidnapped by the North several decades ago is resolved. They want this on the six-party agenda, and the United States has endorsed the proposal. While one cannot have anything but sympathy with the families of the kidnap victims and fully understand Tokyo's desire to get to the truth, the six-party talks should not be held hostage to what is essentially a bilateral issue.

After all, and in the interests of open handed fairness that Washington is famous for, the United States refused to discuss the financial sanctions issue within the six-party framework, insisting it was completely unrelated to the dismantlement of the North's nuclear weapons program. Decades old crimes of kidnapping – despicable as they were – are equally unrelated to the dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons. Why has Washington so dramatically about-faced on what and what cannot be discussed multilaterally?

Interestingly, U.S. negotiator Chris Hill told reporters on his arrival in Beijing that promises by North Korea, even signed and agreed to promises, would not be enough for the United States to lift those contentious financial sanctions. Interesting because previously Mr. Hill had emphatically insisted he had nothing to do with the financial sanctions and that they were a separate issue. A bit of an about-face on that too. Not surprising that North Korea frequently accuses the United States of negotiating in bad faith.