By August 2, the fourth round of six-party talks on the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue had run into the 8th day without a break on weekend. Compared with the previous three rounds, the talks this time not only last longer but display unprecedented patience by all parties concerned to engage in close exchange of views and in-depth consultations. All these send a signal: the talks have entered a critical stage.

The frequent bilateral discussions and shuttle contacts have been simply dazzling. The spokesman of the Chinese delegation, who had always been cautious about making remarks, described the talk process with "intense shuttle consultations and contacts" on August 1.

Within the framework of six-party talks, the intensive discussions between the United States and the DPRK are all the more eye-catching. Kim Kye-gwan, DPRK Deputy Foreign Minister and head of the DPRK delegation, said on August 2 that long-time talks had been made with the US part in these days, and despite differences still existing between the two, we still hope to narrow them down to the utmost degree and achieve results.

To sit down to talks is a good thing by itself, and there is hope as long as the talks continue. Without intention to talk, the negotiations would have long collapsed. Although the negotiations are trying, all parties have expressed, on various occasions, the political goodwill to continue "candid consultations" and "unremitting efforts". This is itself an inspiring message.

The fourth round of talks turned out to be more profound and pragmatic than the previous three. To be profound is difficult, and to be pragmatic needs time. To declare "I'll conquer the mountain" is easy, but to really do it one needs efforts and perseverance. It is widely hoped that this round of talks can produce a common document, although it's rather difficult to be "common".

The de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and to realize it through talks can be called two cornerstones, or agreed principles, of the six-party talks. But regarding how to reach the goal of de-nuclearization, each party has its own calculations. All called for a "package solution" to the issue, but the solution proposed by one party may differ fundamentally from that of another.

The Japanese delegation, for its part, has been insisting on a "package solution" to outstanding issues concerning nuke, abduction and missile, as well as on "all-out efforts" to write its "national interests" into the joint document. Such "efforts" doubtlessly added to the difficulty of hammering out a "common" document. On questions concerning each side's fundamental strategic interests, seeking common grounds out of the disputing parties is a painstaking process of bargaining for the maximization of one's own national interests. So one can imagine how hard, sensitive and delicate it could be.

Kim Kye-gwan said openly on August 2 that the DPRK stand is: whether his country would decide on giving up its nuclear weapons and nuclear program depends on whether the United States could remove its nuclear threats on the DPRK and build up mutual trust. Apparently, for DPRK's part, whether "nuclear threats can be removed" and "mutual trust can be built" are preconditions for nuke abandonment.

How should the DPRK and the Untied States build up mutual trust after all? How to handle DPRK's concern over its own security? How to define the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula? And finally, how to take the first step towards the de-nuclearization? All these are key questions to the talks. Facing such a question list, it is apparently unrealistic to expect the goal to be reached at one go.

Members of the six delegations are now cracking a tough nut at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse. Let us send our best wishes: we hope to narrow differences down to the utmost degree and achieve results.

This comment by Wen Xian, senior editor of the People's Daily, is carried on the first page of People's Daily Overseas Edition, August 3, and is translated by People's Daily Online