The six-party talks, a multilateral mechanism intended to peacefully resolve the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, once bore high expectations and optimism from the six participants and international observers concerned about peace and stability in Northeast Asia. However, after five rounds of negotiations, the mechanism is showing signs of exhaustion.
　　On December 2, 2005, North Korea’s Foreign Ministry spokesman asserted his country wanted to hold a bilateral conference with the United States to discuss financial sanctions Washington took against Pyongyang’s enterprises, saying that was a necessity for the next step of the six-party talks. Previously, it has been Washington’s basic policy not to hold bilateral talks, saying that all issues should be negotiated under the multilateral mechanism. This is a major obstacle for the talks.
　　
　　Last October, U.S. Department of the Treasury announced the blacklisting of eight North Korean enterprises and froze all their assets under U.S. jurisdiction, saying they were suspected to have proliferated weapons of mass destruction. The United States also accused North Korea of being involved in cash forgery and organized crime, to the indignation of North Korea, which responded by saying the accusations were tantamount to slander against the country.
　　It has been reported that during the first phase of the fifth round of six-party talks held November 9-11, North Korean representative Kim Kye Gwan spoke to his U.S. counterpart Christopher R. Hill about the financial sanctions and both men agreed to hold special talks on the issue.
　　Later, U.S. officials said that financial sanctions against the eight North Korean enterprises were legal issues, which should be addressed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and therefore, there was no need to negotiate. However, North Korea insisted on bilateral talks instead of a unilateral explanation. This dissension has become another important factor influencing the six-party talks.
　　It is expected that the course of the six-party talks will be complicated. Financial sanctions are the latest obstacle preventing the vehicle from moving forward and will not be the last.
　　
　　Since the very beginning of the six-party talks, during each step, new disputes have occurred before the old ones could be resolved. All these disputes have piled up and formed deadlocks one after another.
　　
　　ON THE MARCH: North Korea holds a massive military parade to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of its Workers’ Party
　　Before the multi-national talks began in August 2003, disputes between the United States and North Korea were mainly about whether Pyongyang’s nuclear program was an issue of proliferation or an issue of North Korea’s self-defense, and whether the situation should be resolved through North Korea-U.S. bilateral talks or through multilateral talks with other involved parties.
　　After the second round of talks resumed, the above-mentioned disputes were not resolved and new ones emerged-namely, whether the security guarantee to North Korea should be literally committed by the United States or multilaterally signed by parties concerned, and whether North Korea’s nuclear program should be frozen or abandoned.
　　In follow-up talks, even more disputes arose, such as whether North Korea’s frozen or abandoned nuclear program included uranium enrichment and whether North Korea had the right to peacefully utilize nuclear energy.
　　During the fourth round of talks, whether to supply a light water nuclear power plant became a fresh focus for disagreement. In the fifth round, the dispute focused on which should come first--abandoning the nuclear program or discussing the light water nuclear power plant. Currently, the U.S. financial sanctions have become the key determinant in whether the second phase of the fifth round of six-party talks will be held.
　　All the problems seem to be insolvable issues based on the method of the six-party talks. These, to a great extent, are artificially imposed obstacles.
　　The real problem lies in the attitudes toward the multilateral mechanism--which is, whether the involved parties really wish to peacefully resolve the nuclear issues and maintain peace and stability in Northeast Asia through the consultation mechanism of the six-party talks. If they are sincere, all obstacles can be conquered. Otherwise, even a grain of sand will become a mountain standing in the way.
　　The six-party talks have continued intermittently for two and a half years, which is long lasting compared with other talks related to North Korea’s nuclear problem. The Pyongyang-Washington bilateral talks started in June 1993 and ended in October 1994, only lasting a year and a half; the four-party talks began in November 1997 and ended in August 1999 with no result; the three-party talks were held only once, for three days in April 2003.
　　To avoid falling into difficulty, the current six-party talks must maintain a clearly set orientation and strengthen its system in order to regain momentum.
　　The North Korean nuclear issue is a question of regional security related to the core interests of the six participants. This is the legal basis for holding the six-party talks. Thus, all participants are the subjects of the conference and have the obligation and responsibility to promote the talks and ensure success while not using them as a bargaining counter.
　　The main task of the six-party talks is to find an interest dividing line acceptable for all. It is natural for each party to raise claims. But negotiation means compromise, and one party’s stubborn insistence on its own interests while refusing compromise is an abandonment of the true spirit of the negotiations. In order to achieve an all-win situation, various parties should seek only a small victory instead of persisting in greater victory since one party’s great victory means another party’s great defeat, as well as a difficult long-term position to maintain.
　　The six-party talks are focused on the goal of resolving the security issue. Enlarging the function of the mechanism and seeking a package solution to all problems are idealistic and can only make issues more complicated and delay a solution to the nuclear issue. Thus, the topics of the six-party talks should be corralled to simplify complicated problems. The previous four-party talks only sought a package solution and divided the negotiation into several levels and special topics, making the whole process complicated. As a result, every unsettled detail influenced the talks as a whole, leading to the collapse of the mechanism.
　　Meanwhile, the six-party talks urgently need a rebuilt system. Otherwise, it may be very hard to take follow-up actions. First, the talks should be held regularly and a timetable set to prevent tactic delay; second, the topics raised during the negotiations should be distilled and classified, and topics unconnected to security should be eliminated from the mechanism and be discussed at a proper time and occasion later. The six-party talks can only be successful when the participants focus solely on the security issue.

相關(guān)熱詞搜索：Troubled Talks Ｔｒｏｕｂｌｅｄ　Ｔａｌｋｓ troubling troubledyouth歌詞