Six Party Talks

2,430 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,430
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
39
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 1994: in return for US help building 2 power-producing nuclear reactors2000: If the US doesn’t compensate for loss of electricity due to delays in building the promised nuclear power plantsJune 2001: If the US doesn’t resume contacts aimed at normalizing relations between the two countries
  • Sept. 2004: Accused US of “hostile policies”Sept. 2005: US also pledges not to invade and to respect North Korea’s sovereignty
  • Oct 2006: Drawing unanimous condemnation from the UN Security Council
  • March 2010: Killed 46 sailors
  • South – they conducted military exercises, but they were aimed away from the North.
  • Sept. 2005: in return, NK would receive food and energy assistance from other membersDocuments – 18,000 page document detailing production records of nuclear program (from NK to US)
  • To signal that the Obama administration hasn’t abandoned the goal of NK’s denuclearization
  • This would entail an unwillingness to negotiate with North Korea at allPros: They clearly wouldn’t be reaching those goals; hopefully this would prompt them to change some of their actions if the US is unwilling to budge.
  • Almost a continuation of the current policy
  • Almost a continuation of the current policy
  • Six Party Talks

    1. 1. Should the U.S. press for a return to the Six Party Talks?<br />Meredith Lamberti<br />
    2. 2. What are the Six Party Talks?<br /><ul><li>Members:
    3. 3. United States
    4. 4. Russia
    5. 5. Japan
    6. 6. China
    7. 7. North Korea
    8. 8. South Korea
    9. 9. Goal: to end the North Korean nuclear program through a negotiation process.</li></li></ul><li>Timeline<br /><ul><li>1994: North Korea/U.S. agreement
    10. 10. North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle nuclear weapons in return for 2 power-producing nuclear reactors
    11. 11. 1998: North Korea fires a missile over Japan, into the Pacific Ocean
    12. 12. 1999: North Korea pledges to freeze long-range missile tests
    13. 13. 2000: North Korea threatens to restart nuclear program
    14. 14. June 2001: North Korea warns it will reconsider lifting the freeze on missile testing
    15. 15. July 2001: US State Department reports that North Korea is developing long-range missiles.
    16. 16. Jan. 2002: President Bush labels North Korea, Iran, & Iraq an “Axis of Evil”</li></li></ul><li>Timeline<br /><ul><li>Sept. 2002: North Korea pledges with Japan to extend the freeze on missile testing
    17. 17. Oct. 2002: North Korea tells US delegation it has a second covert nuclear program
    18. 18. Jan. 2003: North Korea says it will withdraw from Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
    19. 19. April 2003: US, China, and North Korea announce talks in Beijing
    20. 20. April 2003: North Korea announces it has nuclear weapons and may test, export, or use them depending upon US actions
    21. 21. Aug. 2003: North Korea joins the first round of Six Party Talks
    22. 22. Feb. 2004: Second round of Six Party Talks
    23. 23. May 2004: North Korea reaffirms it’s missile testing freeze in talks with Japan</li></li></ul><li>Timeline<br /><ul><li>June 2004: Third round of Six Party Talks
    24. 24. Sept. 2004: North Korea threatens not to attend the fourth round of talks
    25. 25. Feb. 2005: North Korea announces it has nuclear weapons
    26. 26. May 2005: North Korea fires short-range missile into Sea of Japan
    27. 27. July – Aug. 2005: Fourth round of Six Party Talks. North Korea was in attendance
    28. 28. Sept. 2005: North Korea pledges to dismantle nuclear programs in return for pledges of energy assistance.
    29. 29. Nov. 2005: Fifth round of Six Party Talks</li></li></ul><li>Timeline<br /><ul><li>July 2006: North Korea fires 7 missiles into Sea of Japan
    30. 30. Oct. 2006: North Korea declares that it conducted first nuclear test
    31. 31. Feb. 2007: Sixth round of Six Party Talks
    32. 32. July 2007: North Korea closes down a nuclear reactor after the US returns the transfer of previously frozen funds
    33. 33. July 2007: Seventh round of Six Party Talks
    34. 34. Sept. 2007: North Korea pledges to disclose all nuclear activities and disable nuclear programs by end of 2007
    35. 35. Jan 2008: North Korea fails to fulfill its promise to disclose all nuclear programs</li></li></ul><li>Timeline<br /><ul><li>June 2008: North Korea destroys the cooling tower at Yongbyon nuclear facility
    36. 36. July 2008: Eighth round of Six Party Talks
    37. 37. Sept 2008: North Korea announces plans to restart nuclear programs and bans international inspectors from Yongbyon
    38. 38. Oct 2008: President Bush removes North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism
    39. 39. Oct. 2008: North Korea resumes tearing down Yongbyon and removes ban on international inspectors
    40. 40. April 2009: North Korea launches a long-range missile over Japan. The UN Security Council condemns the launch and broadens sanctions against the country</li></li></ul><li>Timeline<br /><ul><li>April 2009: North Korea expels inspectors from the country and vows to never return to Six Party Talks
    41. 41. May 2009: North Korea explodes nuclear device underground
    42. 42. Jan. 2010: North Korea calls for end to hostile relations with the US and vows to strive for a nuclear-free peninsula
    43. 43. Feb. 2010: North Korea declares 4 areas near disputed sea border with South Korea to be naval firing zones
    44. 44. March 2010: Sinking of South Korean warship
    45. 45. July 2010: US announces new sanctions on North Korea in response to warship sinking</li></li></ul><li>Timeline<br /><ul><li>Aug. 2010: Kim Jong-il visits China; both countries push to resume Six Party Talks
    46. 46. Sept. 2010: President Obama signs new sanctions against North Korea into law.
    47. 47. Nov. 2010: North Korea shows visiting American nuclear scientist a new, secretly-built uranium enriching facility
    48. 48. Nov. 2010: Cross-border clash between North and South Korea
    49. 49. South: North fired on border island; resulted in death of 2 marines
    50. 50. North: South began firing first
    51. 51. One of the worst clashes between the two countries since the Korean War</li></li></ul><li>Six Party Talks<br />Accomplishments<br />Pitfalls<br /><ul><li>Sept. 2005 Agreement
    52. 52. North Korea pledges to eventually abandon quest to become nuclear power
    53. 53. Denuclearization Plan
    54. 54. Feb. 2007
    55. 55. Yongbyon plant
    56. 56. 2008: release of documents
    57. 57. North Korea has continued to fire missiles over/near Japan
    58. 58. Stop-and-go negotiations; unpredictability of North Korea
    59. 59. Multiple missile tests
    60. 60. Document left out details
    61. 61. Warship sinking
    62. 62. November clashes with South Korea</li></li></ul><li>US Stance<br /><ul><li>Since North Korea walked out of 2009 talks, President Obama has pursued negotiations with the other parties
    63. 63. Doubts that multi-lateral talks will produce results; bilateral talks between the US and North Korea may produce the best/quickest results
    64. 64. Dec. 1: “We are not interested in talks, and talks are no substitute for having North Korea fulfills its international obligations, meet its commitments and cease provocations…As North Korea demonstrates a willingness to do that, then we will act accordingly” (State Department spokesman Philip Crowley)
    65. 65. Until North Korea shows a responsible attitude toward recent provocation, the stalled talks will not be resumed</li></li></ul><li>Option One<br />The U.S. should push to NOT return to Six Party Talks<br />Pros:<br /><ul><li>North Korea needs to be held responsible for its actions
    66. 66. Country has a past of aggressive action prompting negotiations; this isn’t a trend we should continue
    67. 67. North Korea’s end goals in the talks are a pledge of nonaggression from the US and aid from other parties</li></ul>Cons:<br /><ul><li>Doesn’t help anyone achieve their goals, not just North Korea
    68. 68. Kim Jong-il is already unpredictable; no guarantee that not negotiating with him make the country take responsibility or change their actions
    69. 69. Results in a standstill where nothing will change</li></li></ul><li>Option Two<br />The U.S. shouldn’t push for a return to the talks, but also shouldn’t rule out the option of talks in the future<br />Pros:<br /><ul><li>Places pressure on North Korea to take responsibility for their actions and change their behavior, but offers an incentive if they do
    70. 70. Leave open the option for bi-lateral as well as multi-lateral talks
    71. 71. South Korea isn’t interested in resuming the talks; China is</li></ul>Cons:<br /><ul><li>Under what circumstances would the U.S. be willing to return to the talks?
    72. 72. Not pushing for a return to the Six Party Talks but holding bi-lateral talks with North Korea could undermine the other countries in the group</li></li></ul><li>Option Three<br />The U.S. should push for an immediate return to the talks<br />Pros:<br /><ul><li>Could show that the U.S. is serious about reaching a solution
    73. 73. There is no guarantee that North Korea will change their behavior without a negotiation process
    74. 74. Multi-lateral talks will decrease North Korea’s feeling that the U.S. and South Korea are teaming up against them</li></ul>Cons:<br /><ul><li>Continuation of past trends where North Korea acts aggressively and the other parties make concessions
    75. 75. South Korea has no interest in returning to Six Party Talks this early
    76. 76. The success of the previous meetings of the Six Party Talks is questionable</li></li></ul><li>My Decision – Option Two<br /><ul><li>Gives the United States the most options
    77. 77. North Korea can be unpredictable; gives us the option to pursue multi or bi-lateral talks depending on how the climate changes
    78. 78. Puts some pressure on North Korea to change their behavior without either seeming like we are bending to their will or refusing to negotiate</li>

    ×