U.S. Declines North Korean Proposal of Direct Peace Talks
by Richardson ~ July 13th, 2007. Filed under: Diplomacy, Korean War, U.S.-Korea Relations.On Friday (13 July) North Korea proposed direct military talks with the U.S., referring to, “for the purpose of discussing the issues related to ensuring the peace and security on the Korean peninsula.” This is alluding to a formal peace treaty to replace the armistice that has been in place since 1953. By asking for direct talks with the U.S., North Korea is attempting to both exclude South Korea and temp the U.S. violate its position of conducting multi-lateral talks. Later on Friday the U.S. declined North Korea’s likely less than genuine offer:
Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. envoy to six-nation talks on North Korea, says Washington wants to see an end to Pyongyang’s nuclear programs first.
Why is the DPRK offer disingenuous? By suggesting its now and not later, the offer is also a form of blackmail, not exactly the most honest way to start such talks if sincere:
“It is easy to miss a chance, but difficult to get it,” the North warned.
[. . .]
But indicating that any further progress on detente will be difficult, the North’s proposal came at the end of a lengthy statement criticizing Washington for stoking tension on the peninsula through the international standoff over Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.
The military said that if U.S. pressure persists, implementing recent agreements on the nuclear issue would not be possible.
It added that the North also “will have no option but to exert utmost efforts for further rounding off the means for retaliatory strike strong enough to cope with the U.S. nuclear attack and pre-emptive strike in order to protect its dignity, sovereignty and right to existence.”
North Korea, which has no intention of giving up its nuclear weapons, is attempting to set conditions so that it can blame the U.S. for a lack of progress.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
I agree with your assesment Richardson, this is an offer they knew would be quickly dismissed out of hand but gives them fodder for their propoganda. Sadly, I think this game playing by the DPRK furthers the notion that none of their previous offers have been in good faith & likely none of their future ones will be either. It would appears they have no intentions of resolution as long as Kim Jog-il is in power. This is tragic considering the toll of human suffering that is being endured by the citizens of the DPRK. My heart goes out to them……
July 13th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Spot on, Richardson. Bad faith DPRK gamesmanship. It might work on South Korean progressives, who will look past the obvious snub of Seoul (some, I bet, because they don’t recognize the ROK’s legitimacy) and blame the US.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I know I’ve made this point in the past, but I believe this rediculous gamesmanship on the part of DPRK is actually EFFECTIVE! When the most recent agreement ultimately fails, the media, and other left-minded folks will point their finger at the Bush administration and say “the Bush administration missed an opportunity for a nuclear free North Korea because they were too stubborn and refused to simply negotiate with the North.” To think that the American people actually buy into North Korean propaganda and lies is sickening.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Stewart, when you say this strategy of gamesmanship is “EFFECTIVE”, who is it effective for? Please explain.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Lets not forget by leaving South Korea out of the issue thier main line of support continues. Its time for the US to get out of Korea. This is not a game we want to get into.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
I think by “effective” he’s referring to how things can be twisted and presented out of context to make Pyongyang appear the moral equivalent of the U.S. in such dealings. For example; Kessler, Albright, Cumings, McCormack, and Beal. And those like them. But who’s keeping track?