Experts Say Nuclear Deal with North Korea Necessary but Elusive

Thursday, May 31, 2007

By Yonhap News Agency

May 4, 2007

A former envoy on North Korea and a nuclear verification expert described Thursday a serious U.S. dilemma in dealing with Pyongyang, needing a workable deal to stop nuclearization of the communist regime but unsure if it can be done.

"This is not a deal. We are in a process toward one," said Jack Pritchard, former U.S. envoy on North Korea who now heads the Washington-based think tank the Korea Economic Institute.

He was referring to a Feb. 13 agreement produced at what is commonly called the six-party talks, a denuclearization forum that includes South and North Korea, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan. Under the pact, Pyongyang would shut down and eventually disable its nuclear facilities in return for an aid package, including economic assistance and diplomatic normalization.

But the first-phase 60-day deadline, in which the North was to seal the key facilities and invite back international inspectors, passed without any implementation. Pyongyang insists it first must see US$25 million in North Korea-related funds recently released after being held by a Macanese bank.

Pritchard said a deal that achieves North Korea's full denuclearization cannot be expected during the George W. Bush administration.

North Korea has more leverage than the U.S., having weakened U.N.-backed sanctions and establishing a bilateral channel with Washington through the February agreement, Pritchard said.

"That's okay as long as there is a follow-up to serious negotiations that leads to the commitment and decision by the North Koreans to give up their nuclear weapons," he said at a luncheon session sponsored by the Center for National Policy.

"But that hasn't happened yet," said Pritchard.

Nonetheless, the U.S. cannot afford to walk away, he argued.

Washington has not yet gained credibility for its North Korea engagement policy with other members of the six-party talks, according to Pritchard. Walking away would subject the U.S. to accusations that it killed any chance for a deal, he said.

But the greater consequence is North Korea's nuclearization, he argued.

"If we stop now, you are essentially guaranteed a permanent nuclear North Korea," he said. "There is nothing this administration can do in this environment in the next two years that is going to (roll) back a nuclear North Korea."

Jon Wolfstahl, a former Energy Department official who was previously in Pyongyang to monitor the nuclear facilities, focused on technical obstacles to a deal with the North.

"We are never going to get to absolute zero on North Korea," he argued, and the choice would come down to what the international community is willing to live with.

The question for him was a choice the U.S. and others have to make between getting to what North Korea already has or capping its future nuclear capabilities. Pyongyang, he said, will give up only a part of its nuclear production capacity and retain others.

"We are going to be playing this game with, 'You got the dollar, I got the cookie,' said Wolfstahl, "and we are going to sort of try to go for a grab without giving up both."

He asked if the U.S. and other countries can financially afford North Korea's nuclear disablement, which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

"I don't know if the Congress is prepared for this," he said, reminding that getting a few million dollars in the 1990s for energy aid to the North met legislative opposition.

"Now we are talking about providing hundreds of millions of dollars to a country where (North Korean leader) Kim Jong-il is still in charge. That's going to be a real challenge, to say the least," he said.

Ultimately, he said, other members of the six-party talks will have to share the financial and technical responsibilities.

###