Newsletter
Weather
Community
English home Forum Photo Gallery Features Newsletter Archive   About US Help Site Map
China
World
Opinion
Business
Sci-Edu
Culture/Life
Sports
Photos
 Services
- Newsletter
- Online Community
- China Biz Info
- News Archive
- Feedback
- Voices of Readers
- Weather Forecast
 RSS Feeds
- China 
- Business 
- World 
- Sci-Edu 
- Culture/Life 
- Sports 
- Photos 
- Most Popular 
- FM Briefings 
 Search
 About China
- China at a glance
- China in brief 2004
- Chinese history
- Constitution
- Laws & regulations
- CPC & state organs
- Ethnic minorities
- Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping

Home >> China
UPDATED: 17:21, September 15, 2005
Framework agreement among six parties possible, scholars
font size    

After intensive bilateral talks on September 14, parties to the second phase of the current fourth round of six-party talks failed to reach consensus on a common document. Deep-seated resentment is the main reason behind the lack of mutual political trust between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and their failure to narrow differences. But it's still possible, experts say, for a framework agreement to be reached through negotiations on the basis of reserving differences.

The lack of mutual political trust and some historical factors all contribute to the huge differences between the two sides on the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the scope of nuke dismantlement, said Gu Guoliang, deputy director of the Institute of American Studies under Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Though the two parties signed an Agreed Framework in 1994, neither of them carried it out seriously. On the other hand, according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, every country enjoys the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. So each side sticks to its own version of argument.

Wang Dehua, research fellow with Shanghai Research Center for International Studies and vice president of Shanghai Institute for International Strategic Studies, believes that the dispute between the United States and the DPRK in fact involves a country's fundamental interest. By demanding the DPRK to give up all its nuclear programs, including civil nuclear facilities, the United States is unjustly depriving a country of its right to peaceful use of nuclear energy.

On the question of utilizing nuclear energy, Washington adopted double standards. It should acknowledge DPRK's right to peaceful use of nuclear energy, said Wang.

The ongoing talks have entered a stage of substantial discussions, with the focus still on the scope of nuclear abandonment and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Talking about how to achieve a breakthrough, Gu said that currently the most important thing is the political will of the two sides: whether the DPRK is really willing to give up its nuclear programs and whether the United States earnestly cares all DPRK concerns.

The six parties all agree on the ultimate goal of denuclearization on the Korean peninsula, said Gu. If both the United States and the DPRK have the above-mentioned political will, then it's possible for them to reserve differences and firstly reach a framework agreement on the objective of denuclearization through consultations and negotiations. Based on that, the parties can conduct further negotiations and talks, help the DPRK and the United States to build up political mutual trust, and take measures to finally reach their goals.

Now all parties are bargaining on kernel questions, each of whom in the hope of maximizing its own interests. At such a moment, if both the DPRK and the United States can make necessary compromise, there will be ample room for maneuver, said Wang.

South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Lee Tae-shik said earlier that in order to persuade the DPRK to give up its nuclear programs, Washington has offered Pyongyang the most favorable terms in recent 50 years.

US chief negotiator Christopher Hill also showed more flexibility in his attitude if compared to what some hardliners of the Bush Administration expressed earlier, indicating sincerity from the US side in resolving questions.

The six party talks is an opportunity, and I believe in the possibility of reaching an agreement on the final objective through consultations and negotiations, said Gu.

By People's Daily Online


Comments on the story Comment on the story Recommend to friends Tell a friend Print friendly Version Print friendly format Save to disk Save this


   Recommendation
- Text Version
- RSS Feeds
- China Forum
- Newsletter
- People's Comment
- Most Popular
 Related News
- DPRK, US fail to narrow differences, ROK delegation official says

- ROK chief urges more flexibility as nuclear talks see little progress

- U.S. dismisses DPRK demands for nuclear energy

- Six parties keep contacts on Korean Peninsula nuclear issue

- First US-DPRK meeting "not make a lot of progress", Hill says

- Core differences looming over 6-party talks

- Delegations to 6-party talks hold bilateral meetings Wednesday

- Two major differences remain in current 6-party talks, ROK chief negotiator

Online marketplace of Manufacturers & Wholesalers

Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved