Search

The six-party process aimed at North Korea's denuclearization has long been stalled since the Six-Party Talks (SPT) failed to agree on a verification protocol in early December 2008. North Korea now wants to be recognized as a nuclear state, and is unlikely to abandon its nuclear weapons without security guarantees provided by the U.S. Some scholars argue that the Six- Party Talks have outlived their usefulness, while others maintain that the SPT are still useful. The author has argued over the years that the six-party process remains alive and useful as the best means of resolving North Korea's nuclear issue to achieve North Korea's denuclearization, which is a pre-requisite for building a peace regime on the Korean peninsula and regional peace in Northeast Asia. The author discusses the current status of the Six-Party Talks, which have been stalled for over two years, analyzing the major events on the Korean peninsula as key obstacles to the restoration of the six-party process. He makes policy recommendations for an early resumption of the longstalled SPT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A Korean peninsula peace regime has not been established yet over a half century by replacing the Korean armistice agreement with a peace treaty. The two approaches to a Korean peninsula peace regime building are required: inter-Korean and international approaches. The two Koreas at the inter-Korean and international levels should play key roles in building inter-Korean confidence-building measures by reducing tension through inter-Korean reconciliation and economic cooperation and in a Korean peace forum involving the U.S., China and two Koreas under the Sept.19/Feb.13 joint agreements by concluding a Korean peninsula peace treaty to replace the armistice agreement. A peace regime can be institutionalized by implementing the inter-Korean basic agreement (1992) through inter-Korean cooperation and by concluding a Korean peninsula peace treaty at the forthcoming four-party Korean peace forum.The author makes three major arguments. First, the two Koreas and the four powers need to agree on a comprehensive roadmap for the Korean peninsula peace regime building. The inter-Korean and international approaches to peace regime building should be considered in parallel. Second, the North Korean nuclear issue should be first resolved peacefully through the six-party talks. Third, the two Koreas need to work together to find an alternative to their respective proposals. The author proposes a Korean peninsula peace treaty signed by the ROK, the DPRK, the U. S. and China as an alternative. Unless the two Koreas demonstrate their desire to cooperate through sincere deeds by sincerely implementing inter-Korean agreements and are willing to make concessions by working together for establishing a peace regime in Korea, there is little chance of achieving this goal. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been fifty-five years since the conclusion of the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement (KAA), but a peace regime on the Korean peninsula replacing the KAA with a peace treaty has not yet been achieved. For the last fifty-five years, the two Koreas have attempted to build a peace regime on the Korean peninsula. But their conflicting approaches to a peace mechanism are major obstacles to the Korean peace regime building process. The DPRK has insisted on concluding a peace treaty between the United States and itself to replace the KAA since 1974, while the ROK has equally insisted on a peace treaty between the two Koreas. The six-party talks have been stalled because of North Korea's delayed nuclear declaration of all of its nuclear activities and stockpiles under the October 3, 2007 deal among six nations. When the declaration problem is resolved, the six-party talks will discuss the Phase III (dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear facilities) and a Korean peninsula peace forum. Thus, it is significant to review North Korea's peace regime-building initiative and to make a preparation for a Korean peace forum within the framework of the six-party talks.This paper first will briefly review North Korean peace regime proposals, including re-evaluation of the four-party talks and the six-party talks dealing with a Korean peace regime building, and will look into the major problems of transforming the 1953 Korean armistice agreement into a Korean peninsula peace treaty before it will make policy suggestions for establishing a peace system on the Korean peninsula. The paper will focus on a North Korean perspective on a peace regime building. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper takes a closer look at the origin and developments of the current nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula, evaluates the six-party talks as an multilateral framework of resolving the nuclear issue and finally makes policy recommendations at least at the initial phase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the South Korean society, there are ongoing debates over North Korea¡¯s change. The conservatives and the progressives in South Korean society have conflicting views on this issue. The progressives hold that North Korea has changed significantly, whereas the conservatives argue that it has not changed fundamentally. To end futile and divisive debates over North Korea¡¯s change and to build a national consensus on the Republic of Korea¡¯s engagement policy of national reconciliation and cooperation with the DPRK, it is important to operationally define the concept of North Korea¡¯s change and establish objective criteria for its measurement. The authors of this paper have three specific objectives: (1) to analyze ROK’s engagement policy toward North Korea as a catalyst for North Korea’s change; (2) to set up objective criteria for evaluating North Korea¡¯s change; and (3) to make policy recommendations for constructive inter-Korean relations. The authors attempt to operationalize the concept of North Korea’s change to avoid confusion about North Korea’s change. A clear distinction needs to be made between changes in the North Korean-style socialist system and changes in North Korean leadership¡¯s thinking and policy. We do not expect North Korea will change its socialist system in the short run because North Korean leadership fears a sudden systemic change, which would threaten the very survival of its own system. In this paper we attempt to analyze North Korea’s changes in terms of thinking and policy. We argue that North Korea’s changes in thinking and policy would eventually bring about its systemic change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will discuss the origin, development and impact of US financial sanctions against North Korea as a key obstacle to the six-party process. The paper will make a possible solution to this important issue. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

North Korea's alleged admission of a highly enriched uranium program sparked the second nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula, accelerating North Korea's nuclear weapons development program. Pyongyang officially announced that it had nuclear weapons on February 10, 2005, and tested its first nuclear weapon on October 9, 2006. It is estimated that North Korea already has six or seven nuclear devices. The North Korean nuclear issue-- a serious international issue as the most important obstacle to the Korean peace process-- needs to be resolved peacefully through the six-party process as the Bush administration insisted. The author of this paper argues that while the six-party process is the best means to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, U.S.-DPRK bilateral talks are equally important to a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of North Korea's nuclear issue. Both U.S. and North Korea's hard-line policies cannot resolve the nuclear issue peacefully. Therefore, both sides need to be flexible about their respective positions with political will to make a compromise. This paper has two specific goals: (1) to analyze and evaluate international efforts to implement the 9.19 joint statement and the 2.23 initial action deal for resolving the nuclear issue and (2) to propose a roadmap for denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The North Korean nuclear issue-- a serious international issue as the most important obstacle to the Korean peace process-- needs to be resolved as soon as possible peacefully through diplomatic negotiations at the six-party talks. The Bush administration insisted that the North Korean nuclear crisis be resolved through the six-party process. The author has argued that the six-party process is the best means to resolve the North Korean nuclear dispute. The author maintains that bilateral talks between the U. S. and North Korea are essential to a resolution of North KoreaÂ’s nuclear standoff peacefully and diplomatically. Both need to engage in direct negotiations without preconditions through the six-party talks. Both U.S. and North KoreaÂ’s hard-line policies cannot resolve the nuclear issue peacefully. Therefore, both sides need to be flexible about their respective positions with political will to make a compromise. This paper has three specific goals: (1) to evaluate the fourth and fifth rounds of the six-party talks as a multilateral framework of resolving the nuclear issue; (2) to take a closer look at the U.S. financial sanctions against North Korea and the positions of concerned parties; and (3) to make policy recommendations for implementing the 9.19 joint statement to realize a denuclearized Korean peninsula. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]