Last week in Beijing, progress was finally made in the six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear weapons program.
After the fourth and fifth rounds of talks ended in a standstill, the United States, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and North Korea negotiated a deal in the sixth round that would begin the process towards ending the North Korean nuclear weapons program.
In return for $400 million worth of fuel and aid, North Korea has agreed to disable its nuclear facilities and re-open them for inspection, essentially preventing any further development of nuclear fuel. This first step shows a remarkable change in attitude by the Bush administration, a change I see as both welcome and long overdue.
The rhetoric this administration had been using up until this point only worsened the situation with North Korea. While naming North Korea a member of the "Axis of Evil" and refusing to seriously negotiate with North Korea, the White House managed to undo the little progress that had been made.
Throughout the 1990s, the United States and North Korea had roughly abided by the Agreed Framework treaty of 1994 which laid out a framework for the normalization of diplomatic relations and gave U.S. aid in exchange for progress towards North Korean nuclear disarmament.
By 2003, this treaty had fallen apart, and North Korea pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By 2004, President Bush and Kim Jong-Il were publicly swapping insults, calling each other "tyrants." By 2006, North Korea had tested a nuclear bomb.
After four years of deteriorating relations that have led to a global threat, it's a good sign that 2007 has started differently.
However, this change in attitude was by no means universal, and many from the right wing have assailed the recent agreement and openly wished for its failure. Most notably, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said the agreement was "a bad, disappointing deal," and that "the best thing you can say about it is that it will probably fall apart."
Both Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have praised the nuclear deal and expressed their disagreement with Bolton. During a press conference last Wednesday, President Bush addressed criticism of the deal, stressing the importance of solving the "North Korean issue" peacefully and diplomatically. "The best diplomacy is diplomacy in which there is more than one voice," the President said.
I never thought the day would come where George W. Bush sounded like Woodrow Wilson.
But what does this deal really mean for the future of nuclear proliferation? The deal does not, in fact, address North Korea's nuclear arsenal. Such discussions will only happen later, after part of the aid has been delivered. For now, the aid-for-disablement agreement is just a stepping stone for "building a set of relationships," as Rice said on Feb. 13.
North Korea has been eager to build a relationship with the United States for years, but the United States' open desire for regime change has made that difficult.
When Dr. James Walsh, an international non-proliferation expert from MIT, met with North Korean heads of state in the summer of 2005, North Korean officials stressed the importance of their brave, strategic decision to work towards improving relations with the United States after a century of antagonism. They wanted to build a relationship first and then move forward with an agreement.
North Korea is on the way to getting their wish. It took the nuclear test in October 2006 to inspire China to join in negotiations, which gave the United States an incentive to take negotiations seriously. Counter-intuitively, the countries who wanted to prevent North Korea from going nuclear only seriously engaged diplomatically once the threat they were trying to avert had already come to fruition.
By acquiring nuclear bombs, North Korea made the world listen.
This does not set a good example for the rest of the world, but opening diplomatic relations is by no means a bad thing. The United States - as well as China, Japan, Russia and South Korea - should now take this opportunity to ensure controls on North Korea's nuclear program and prevent any further spread of nuclear materials abroad. By maintaining diplomatic relations, we can avert crises and misunderstandings.
There's a reason a hotline was established between Washington and Moscow during the Cold War. Communication was necessary to maintain peace between these two highly antagonistic rivals, and it would be foolish to forget such a lesson.
Is North Korea likely to fully disarm its nuclear arsenal?
Probably not. As a country facing deep economic issues and threats from many directions, North Korea is relying on nuclear deterrence to give itself power in the international arena.
We can scold North Korea and Iran for having nuclear aspirations, but we have not fulfilled our end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty either. Article VI of the treaty stipulates that all nuclear powers move towards full disarmament. The United States is unlikely to fully disarm its nuclear arsenal, but we can come to the bargaining table to engage other powers to ensure good governance and accountability on nuclear issues.
Now that the United States has opened better diplomatic relations with North Korea, it is time to engage Iran. Preventative diplomacy is far less costly than preventative war. What is disheartening is that President Bush does not yet see the value of engaging Iran, despite the suggestions of Baker, Hamilton, and many other international experts.
It's about time for a change. Unfortunately, this change comes after the North Koreans have already acquired nuclear weapons. Let us hope this change comes earlier for Iran.
Meghan Fenzel is a senior majoring in international relations and French. She is a member of EPIIC, which will cover nuclear proliferation issues at its upcoming symposium, Global Crises: Governance and Intervention, on March 1-4.
