Kim Jong Il's Unofficial Visit to China

Workers Party of Korea General Secretary and concurrently National Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong Il paid an unofficial visit to China from 3 to 7 May. Some China's international affairs experts said that Hu Jintao's five proposals on strengthening China-North Korea cooperation have set the basic tone for the development of China-North Korea relations in the future.

Viewing from the consensus reached by both sides on the Korean Peninsula's situation, the possibility of restarting the six-party talks has increased, but there are still variable factors on whether the talks can be resumed soon.

Five Proposals
During his stay in China, the North Korean leader put five proposals. They were:

First, is maintaining high-level contacts. Both sides' leaders should maintain close connections by conducting mutual visits, sending special envoys to each other's country, and delivering verbal messages to each other.

Second, is strengthening strategic communication. Both sides should, at any time and on a regular basis, conduct in-depth communication on the two countries' internal and foreign affairs as well as major issues, the international and regional situation, the experience in administering the party and the country, and other issues of mutual concern.

Third, is deepening economic and trade cooperation.

Fourth, is expanding humanistic exchanges.

Fifth, is strengthening coordination between both sides on international and regional issues so as to better safeguard regional peace and stability.

These five proposals have set the basic tone for the development of China-North Korea relations in the future. If these proposals can be implemented step by step through joint efforts, they will have important and positive influence on China-North Korea relations and enable the two countries to open up a new situation on the basis of inheriting their traditional friendship.

Strengthening Bilateral Cooperation
Specifically analyzing the five proposals, they consist of high-level political mutual visits and involve economic and trade cooperation that is conducive to the people's livelihood. In the meantime, these proposals also involve deepening cultural, education, youth, and other civilian exchanges.

Against the background of China-North Korea traditional friendship, promoting humanistic exchanges between the youths of the two countries bears important practical and historic significance.

Six-Party Talks Process
During Kim Jong Il's visit to China, both sides exchanged views on the situation in the Northeast Asian region and the six-party talks. Both sides are of the opinion that the relevant parties involved in the six-party talks should demonstrate sincerity and make positive efforts to push forward the six-party talks process. The North Korea side indicated that its stand on upholding the Korean Peninsula's denuclearization had not changed. The North Korea side is willing to work with all the relevant parties to create favorable conditions for the resumption of the six-party talks.

Chinese leaders have continued to uphold a constructive attitude on the six-party talks. The current consensus, based on the in-depth discussions between both sides during Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's visit to the North Korea last year, shows an explicit commitment to the international community in a very formal manner: The general direction of the Korean Peninsula's denuclearization has not changed.

The North Korea still wishes to strive for the Korean Peninsula's denuclearization on the basis of the current consensus. In this sense, there is greater hope for resuming the six-party talks. But there are still variable factors on whether the talks can restart soon. It does not matter much whether the talks will resume soon, but it is important whether the talks will achieve substantial progress. Through Kim Jong Il's visit to China, we should expect that the six-party talks will achieve important progress; we should also see the complexity and instability of the issue as well as the relevant parties' responses.

Resolving US-North Korea Nuclear Issue

A new treaty on Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms was signed recently between Russia and the United States in Prague, the Czech Republic. The treaty signed by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and US President Barack Obama stipulates that Russia and the United States should pare back the nuclear weapons deployed for action by approximately one-third. It is said that even if the treaty is implemented properly, as it should, Russia and the United States will still have about 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads each after seven years.

Nuclear Arms Reduction
In light of the fact that a long time has passed since the end of the Cold War and in light of the fact that the new environment in which the danger of a global nuclear war has greatly diminished, it can be said that the nuclear arms reduction has little practical significance.

Given that nuclear-armed countries, other than the two signatories to the recent treaty, have at best hundreds of nuclear warheads, Russia and the United States would still be able to retain overwhelming nuclear supremacy even if the treaty goes into effect.

It is quite natural that unlike the disarmament treaties signed during the Cold War period, the course of negotiations for signing the treaty that has just been signed and the news on the signing of it have triggered various reactions from all over the world.

The person in charge in the United States, who declared his promise to build a world free of nuclear weapons following his inauguration, has pursued the signing of a Russia-US Treaty on Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms as the first outcome of his commitment.

Pressure From Nonnuclear Countries
The United States kicked up the commotion of making the signing of the treaty a success with the intention of placating the pressure from nonnuclear countries that call for nuclear disarmament and raising its international popularity in the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation of Treaty (NPT) scheduled to be held in Washington next month.

Regardless of the background, environment, and the objective sought behind it, the latest treaty, though not satisfactory, showed that to a certain degree nuclear disarmament is possible among countries if there is confidence instead of hostile relations between them.

Witnessing the signing of the Russia-US treaty on reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms, the world is paying a great deal of attention to the issue of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula where the danger of a nuclear war is the greatest internationally.

What does the present status of the Six-Party Talks, which the wall of distrust -- called sanctions -- imposed on North Korea has kept it from being resumed, indicate? It indicates that issues cannot be resolved unless there is confidence between the parties concerned.

In order to put the process of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula, which has repeatedly experienced setbacks and failures, back on track, primary attention should be paid to building mutual confidence between North Korea and the United States, the parties primarily responsible for the nuclear issue. This is the conclusion we have arrived at.

Parties to Armistice Agreement
That is the purpose for proposing to the parties to the Armistice Agreement the holding of talks at an early date to replace the Armistice Agreement with a peace agreement this year, which marks the 50th anniversary of the Korean war.

In order to build confidence between North Korea and the United States, a peace agreement should be signed first and foremost to bring an end to the state of war, the root cause of the hostile relations. The formula aimed at advancing denuclearization before discussing the issue of establishing a peace mechanism on the Korean peninsula has ended up in failure.

To speed up denuclearization by breaking the vicious circle of distrust while building confidence between North Korea and the United States, the signing of a peace agreement is the only way and there is no alternative.

The signing of a peace agreement is the only reasonable and practical method for realizing the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. There has never been a case in history, in which parties in hostilities dropped their guns before building confidence.

Denuclearization of Korean Peninsula
In a state of war, where the parties concerned have their guns trained on each other, the distrust can never be removed, nor can talks be held smoothly, let alone denuclearization. Given its peculiar necessity and urgency, the peace agreement should have been signed a long time ago independent of the nuclear issue in the first place.

Had durable peace mechanism been built on the Korean peninsula early on, neither the nuclear issue nor the issue of denuclearization would have arisen. If and when a peace agreement is signed, it would expeditiously help remove the North Korea-US hostile relations and advance the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

The holding of negotiations for concluding a peace agreement alone undoubtedly will provide an effective driving force behind the denuclearization process.