Global Beat: GRN Publications--Politics and the Agreed Framework: North Korean Deal On Thin Ice?

Global Reporting Network Publications Politics and the Agreed Framework: North Korean Deal On Thin Ice? Global Beat Issue Brief No. 44 November 10, 1998 Center for War, Peace, and the News Media Press Briefing with Hon. James Laney, Co-chair, Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force on Managing Change on the Korean Peninsula; Ambassador to South Korea (1993-1997). Includes Additional Comments by Jason Shaplen, Policy Advisor to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization on KEDO's November 9th cost-sharing agreement. Renewed congressional funding for oil deliveries to North Korea and an international cost-sharing agreement on building nuclear reactors there have strengthened the Agreed Framework to end the DPRK's nuclear weapons program, according to James Laney, former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea. "But there is a growing sense of skepticism about North Korea's intentions," he told reporters during a November 10 telephone press briefing sponsored by New York University's Center for War, Peace, and the News Media. As President Clinton prepares to visit South Korea and Japan following the APEC summit next week, coordinating policy toward North Korea is a high priority. Laney, who serves currently as co-chair of an influential Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force on Managing Change on the Korean Peninsula, provided journalists with a status report on the Agreed Framework and a preview of some of the likely discussions during the President's trip to Asia. Looking back, said Laney, "we had the expectation that the Agreed Framework would open up the possibility for change in North Korea and lessen tensions on the peninsula. The United States was expected to remove trade sanctions; the South and the North were to begin bilateral talks, and the United States and North Korea were to exchange liaison offices. Very little of that occurred." The creation and progress of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) in delivering oil to North Korea and beginning construction on the two promised light water reactors, however, has been "a major success," he noted. The inclusion of China in four party peace talks (with the U.S. and South and North Korea) has also been quite important, given China's central role in sustaining North Korea with food assistance. And regardless of critics today, the success of the agreement itself in halting a North Korean program which appeared to have the capacity to build 10 to 15 nuclear weapons "was an extraordinary achievement." "The North Korean missile test [on August 31] shattered our complacency," said Laney, "and the discovery of potential underground nuclear sites opened up questions of whether the North was playing a game with the world." "The Council on Foreign Relations Korea Task Force's Open Letter to President Clinton [October 7, 1998] acknowledged that there is growing skepticism about the North's intentions, and suggested that we need to coordinate our approaches to the North to give greater clarity and more results." "A few weeks ago Congress did appropriate funds for oil to maintain a continuous flow, and that lessened some tension. And a US team will visit North Korea next week to talk about inspection of at least one of the suspect sites. President Kim Dae-jung [of South Korea] has maintained his policy, unfortunately translated as the 'sunshine policy,' of allowing nongovernmental organizations to make contact with the North." "So we have a mixed bag as Clinton goes to Seoul. KEDO funding [for oil deliveries] is assured through next October; North Korea understands that we need assurances about its nuclear programs, and now we have tours in North Korea for South Koreans." * Jason Shaplen: " [The cost sharing agreement] is a very important agreement for KEDO and the light-water reactor project. It reconfirms the strong support and commitment of KEDO's Executive Board members to the project and KEDO's mission, with all the implications that has for strengthening the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and for building peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia. Since August, 1997, KEDO has been engaged in significant preliminary infrastructure work at its project site in the DPRK, and, unrelated to today's agreement, will more than double the pace of that work starting next week. Today's agreement, however, sets in place the funding we need to increase even further this work and to move into the next phase of the project." [See KEDO's press release on Cost-Sharing Agreement] QUESTIONS AND ANSWER SESSION [The following is a summary of the question and answer session that took place during the second part of the briefing.] Q: I have heard that North Korea will only talk about its [alleged nuclear] underground site if the U.S. comes up with some cash. What do you expect to come out of the talks? Laney: We aren't going to pay them, of course. The [US inspection] trip is still on, and there will be discussions with the North on conditions of access to their sites and satisfaction of our questions. Apart from Clinton's visit, it is important we have satisfaction on this issue. The fact they are going to meet is important. Q: What do you expect from President Clinton's talks in Seoul? Laney: The main thing is to establish a basis for close cooperation between the U.S. and South Korea. Presidents Clinton and Kim have to agree on where we go from here. We need to see the same horizon, the same situation, and agree on how to address them. We need to coordinate so we are completely together. Besides the North's nuclear program, they will discuss economics because of the Asian economic crisis. Q: What is your response to the North Korean charge that Americans aren't living up to the Agreed Framework? Laney: We have kept it. We are trying to move step-by-step with the North, but there has not been a North-South dialogue, as agreed to. And we have not lifted sanctions, as they had hoped. The North hasn't followed up on establishing liaison offices in Pyongyang and Washington. The steps we expected have not occurred. The Council on Foreign Relations task force letter says we need to resolve these nagging niggling problems with our dealings with the North. Q: Are we together with South Korea on the interpretation of holes in the ground in North Korea? Kenneth Quinones has noted that underground digging is common in North Korea . Do we know this is a nuclear site? Laney: I read Ken Quinones' article--they do dig a lot. But there are questions about sites where there is a more than normal amount of digging. The ROK understands the legitimate concerns we have. We want reassurance. If there is nothing there, we can move on. Q: Now that we have agreement for KEDO funding, can we expect improvements in this deal? *Jason Shaplen: The cost-sharing agreement puts in place funding for rest of the project. It lowers the estimated cost to $4.6 billion from $5.1785 billion and states how much each Executive Board member will pay. Financially, we needed this agreement so we can move towards the conclusion of a contract with our prime contractor for the project, KEPCO. The agreement is also important from a political perspective because it reconfirms to North Korea that KEDO's Executive Board members remain commited to this project. Laney: That last point is very important. The fact that Japan has come through with funding after threatening to drop out following the North Korean missile launch is very significant. Q: Is the North Korean underground facility a make-or-break problem? What if it is a nuclear facility? Will we figure out a way to work around it because we don't have any real alternative? Laney: Well, that's a hypothetical question. We want to know what it is because we don't want to be faced later with a full-fledged weapons system or a bomb. If it is a nuclear facility, we need to be assured it will be closed down. If they continue to build a nuclear facility after signing the agreement we would have to conclude they are entirely untrustworthy. The U.S. Congress and Japan, and even China, would then need to look at northeast Asian stability. It goes beyond the Korean peninsula. Japan has deep concerns that its vulnerability needs to be addressed. China is not interested in having a resurgent military in Japan. All of us are concerned about an arms race between China and Japan. So it is important that North Korea does not trigger such a race. Q: What role would a U.S. special coordinator for North Korea policy play? Laney: We called for this in the Task Force Open Letter to the President. No one has been appointed yet, but we thought a high level coordinator would have the confidence of the administration and Congress to put together pieces of the policy and make recommendations about implementation. He would attempt to determine the intent of North Korea and if there is a possibility to pull together a total package to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula. We have done this piecemeal, but we need to do it comprehensively to build levels of confidence. We don't have that now. Congress is tired of North Korea's attitude of threatening if they don't get their way. A high-level person, if appointed, would be faced with these tasks. Q: During President Clinton's visit to Japan, will he ask for more Japanese contributions to KEDO? Laney: No, not after yesterday's cost-sharing agreement on KEDO. Q: Could you talk more about Chinese interests vis-à-vis Japan? How does the White House view those interests? Laney: I can't speak to what the White House believes. There was a trip canceled by Defense Secretary [William] Cohen that would have dealt with these issues--theater missiles, etc. People in Washington are concerned about the role China can play. China can bring more influence to bear on North Korea. Q: Do you see more involvement by the United Nations or the European Union in negotiations with North Korea? Laney: I don't know. Kim Dae Jung, the ROK president, is interested in starting a regional network of nations, like NATO, to deal with stability in the region. There is none in Northeast Asia. It would include Russia. The fact that the EU has come into KEDO strongly says they are interested in peaceful resolution of Korean peninsula problems. Q: Could you respond to critics of the framework who say it didn't provide for challenge inspections or enough oversight of the North Korean weapons program? Laney: Under the circumstances it was an extraordinary achievement. The fact is we were deeply concerned about not only activity with spent fuel but with 8,000 spent fuel rods that could provide plutonium to build 10 to 15 nuclear weapons. They have been stopped and "canned." We now need to get them out of country. The framework was to take care of nuclear weapons, but the fact that it couldn't deal with all contingencies just means we need a broader agreement with North Korea. Q: Will the South Korean tourists visiting southern North Korea harm the four-party talks? Laney: Tourists visiting will not affect the four-party talks. They could contribute to a less ominous mood on the peninsula by providing possibilities for contact between South and North. It is a strange situation: We have tourists visiting from the South, and the North may still be pursuing its nuclear weapons program. We need to exploit the possibility of better relationships. * Amb. James T. Laney, President Emeritus of Emory University, is co-chair of the Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force on Managing Change on the Korean peninsula. He served as U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea from 1993-1997, where he coordinated former President Jimmy Carter's trip to Pyongyang in June of 1994 which resulted in a freeze of the nuclear program in North Korea, and was intimately involved in the four power initiative launched by Presidents Clinton and Kim at Cheju Island in April 1996. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS: Ambassador James T. Laney, President Emeritus, Emory University (Speaker) Robert Leavitt, Associate Director, Center for War, Peace, and the News Media (Moderator) Jason Shaplen, Assistant Director of Policy Planning, Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) Hiroyasu Akutsu, Australian National University Jeffrey R. Allan, Canadian Broadcasting Corp Bob Deans, Cox Newspapers Kwang Eom, Seoul Broadcasting Systems Yuko Fuse, Nippon Television Takahiro Kato, News Reporter, NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) Francine Kiefer, Christian Science Monitor Myong Chol Kim, People's Korea Linda Kim, Associated Press Eduardo Lachica, Asian Wall Street Journal Daniel Lee, Radio Free Asia Korean Service Jay Lee, MBC TV Kenro Najoshi, Jiji Press Richard Parker, Knight-Ridder Newspapers Takashi Sakamoto, Yomiuri Shimbun Timothy Savage, Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development Daniel Song-Kyu Lee, Radio Free Asia Korean service Marsha VandeBerg, VandeBerg World Report Amanda Watson-Boles, Nuclear Weapons and Materials Monitor Jim Wolf, Reuters Sukmin Yun, Korea Times Tony Yun, Korean Broadcasting Systems Elliott Negin (Rapporteur) Return to Global Beat Home Page Nuclear Watch | East Asian Security | Economic & Monetary Union | NATO Expansion | Nuclear Weapons and Proliferation | U.S. Defense Policy | Publications | Events | Experts Directory | Links Directory | About the GRN |