Russia's Bilateral and Multilateral Talks - Case Study Example

Running head: Russia at Six Party Talks Name Course name Professors’ name Date Outline Bilateral and multilateral talks Russian strategy Russian Interest in Korean peninsula Russian efforts in Korea Russian proposal Russia at Six Party Talks Response to Russian proposal Settlement of Korean Peninsula Future of Six Party Talks Table of Content Executive summary 3 Introduction 4 Bilateral and multilateral talks 5 Russian strategy 6 a.Russian Interest in Korean peninsula 7 b.Russian efforts in Korea 8 e.Russia at Six Party Talks 10 f.Response to Russian proposal 11 Settlement of Korean Peninsula 12 Future of Six Party Talks 13 Conclusion 15 Executive summary Six Party Talk aims to resolve security concern following weapon program executed by North Korean. China, North and South Korea, Japan, USA, and Republic of Russia took part in Six Party Talks. The talks were necessitated by North Korean withdrawal from Nuclear Non-proliferation program in the year 2003. There was minimum progress until the fifth round of talks when North Korea settled for fuel aid instead of nuclear facilities. Subsequently, relationship with USA and Japan was enhanced. In most occasions, North Korea does not agree with United States approach to deal with proliferation which therefore lays a drift from 1987-1996 bilateral agreement that yielded substantial benefits in controlling arms. Whilst Moscow advocate for Ukrainian model, United States proposes for Libyan model. In a nutshell, Ukrainian model purports that a proliferating country is forced to abandon pursuit of nuclear weapons by way of a multilateral consultations and guaranteed negotiations from member states. Libyan model is based on: coercion, threaten regime change, and sanctions directed to a proliferating state until it gives up producing weapons of mass destructions. Such country is then assured of better relationship with partner states. Moscow’s support for Ukrainian model as the best approach in resolving issues to do with weapons and the United States proposal for Libyan model is the current cause of stalemate. If the two developed nations can settle on a single approach, it is apparent that substantial positive results would be realized. Russian interest in Korea explains the existence of gap with America. Its economic consideration in Northeast Asia more so in the Republic of Korea is a cause of disagreement with USA. Shaping transportation systems, energy, and economic growth with Korea is the ultimate Russian intention. If North Korea manages stop weapons program, it would benefit from Russian supply of nuclear and other energy. From this point of elevation, Russia focuses on getting recognition as a nation with legitimate standing when resolving any security issue in Korean Republic. Such a stand evades war thus leading to non-proliferation of weapons across the continent. Introduction The Republic of Russia is one of the leading nations promoting nuclear free Korean peninsula through a multilateral process. It is in the vision of Russia to foster positive economic cooperation and encourage adherence to non-proliferation Treaty. Russia strictly dismisses sanctions or any form of coercion aimed at reducing production of weapons. In other words, the whole process of persuading Korea to quit nuclear program should be beneficial to Russia and other nations. In 1994, Moscow initiated six-party process to bring together the divided Korean peninsula. Nonetheless, United States has not recognized Russian efforts in resolving problems in Korea. It is the hope of Russians that six-party talks would culminate into cooperative security system including a peaceful Republic of Korea. Bilateral and multilateral talks After September 11th attack in United States, President Bush gave a speech, ‘Axis of Evil’, linking the attack to North Korean nuclear issues (Zhebin, 147). This U.S focus on terrorism has made it difficult to implement effective policy issues to deal with Pyongyang. Middle level U.S delegation sent to deal with the crisis proves that U.S is less interested as compared with Vice Foreign Minister from China. Failure to assign senior decision maker pulls down multilateral efforts. During a closed bilateral meeting to discuss coercing North Korea, Bush administration officials have been discontented with China’s reluctance (O’Hanlon, 65). The position is agreeable given that China had a close relationship with North Korea during the Korean War. This lack of coordination between China and Washington to lead multilateral diplomatic efforts is a hindrance to solving nuclear problem. Japan and Washington strongly advocate for Libyan model whilst the other parties proposed the Ukrainian model. Contrary to Libya who accessed frozen asset after disarmament exercise, North Korea is demanding for economic, diplomatic and security guarantees. Russia is therefore proposing a complete use of agreement and not coercion or any form of pressure as it can compromise security in the region and beyond (Katz, 30). In consideration of Japan’s ‘peace and prosperity policy’, president Roo wants to expand direct investment and trade with Pyongyang as an integration measure. One of the impediments to this unification is economic and political pressure from Unite states in an attempt to roll back North Korea’s nuclear programs. The subsequent effect of U.S pressure was that Pyongyang suspended talks to have an economic integration with Seoul until June 2005. Before October 2002 nuclear Crisis and China’s trilateral talks of April 2003, Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi sort to engage Kim Jong-il in an economic discussion. In September 2002, Koizumi visited Pyongyang to offer economic inducement which was to accelerate Japanese-North Korean diplomatic normalization. Excessive pressure on North Korea may bring about use of chemical or nuclear weapon on Japanese ground and that is why dialogue and engagement is most likely to transform a state. In a report ‘New Era, New Vision, New Diplomacy’, Japanese Foreign Affairs Minister stated vividly that North Korea had to apply own effort to gain access as a member of international community. In the same vein Japan would play a role of gradually transforming the nature of political-economic systems and not overthrowing a regime. Russian strategy a. Russian Interest in Korean peninsula The key security interest on the Korean peninsula is to form a firm and non-violent peninsulas that can assist Russia pursue its domestic agenda. This security goal is to prevent direct military conflicts caused by intrusion and minimize dominion effect in Asian arms which could further deteriorate peace and tranquillity in the Far East region. To strengthen Russia’s geopolitical political position, Putin’s political interest on the peninsula is to be captured when moderating Korean Issues especially in the North Eastern section. In terms of economic interest, Russia had an objective of making Korea Peninsula a pathway to Asia-Pacific economy. While cooperating with South Korea, Russia seeks to gain entrance into “Southeast Asian Nations, Asian and pacific economic integrations and UN socio-economic commission for Asia and Pacific” (Ha, 17). Russia further wants to position itself strongly in the Asian-pacific region by entering Asia – Europe Meeting. Included in the economic goal is opening up markets for Russian products e.g. nuclear technology, sophisticated weapons, and energy resources. Russia also had an interest in developing its economic desert of Siberia and the Russian Far East. The two regions have dense oil and gas resources which ought to be exploited economically. Capital and technology used in the exploitation process will be sourced from South Korea. This is a reason why Korea’s cooperation and investment strategy is vital for Russian Economy. Extension of Trans-Siberian Railway and Eurasian land bridge of transportation destination to the South is well-established in Russia’s economic interest. Recently, Russian stressed connection of Trans-Siberian Railway to Trans-Korean Railway along East Coast of Korea line to ease movement of goods across the region. North Korea is therefore a good geopolitical ground for Russia to control economic situation both in Korean Peninsula and North East Asia. As stated by Russia’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Losyukov, “Korean peninsula is an excellent ground where Russia can pursue its interests” (Ha, 17). b. Russian efforts in Korea In 1994, Russia foreign ministry publicized its intention for a six-party conference with: North and South Korea, United States, China, Russia, and Japan (Toloraya, 46). United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency were to participate in finding solution to the first North Korean nuclear crisis. The onset of the crisis was in 1993 when Korea discovered nuclear weapon and subsequently quit Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement. The talks were to handle the following diverse issues: upholding non-proliferation in Korea, measures to build military confidence, enactment of a new peace treaty, and enhancing bilateral relations with certain members e.g. U.S – Korea, Japan-Korea. After the end of Korean War, armistice agreement recommended for a consultative conference to solve problems associated with withdrawal of countries from Korea. It was during such forums, 43rd session, when the idea of Six Party Talks was proposed by South Korea and seconded by Japan. The basis of Russian support for the ‘talks’ was that Korea had historical relations with Japan, USSR, United States, and China. The connection can be traced back to World War II when Japan was the colonial master of Korea before encountering defeat by USSR and United States. USA and USSR agreed to divide Korea but later became adversaries during the Korean War consequently involving China in the clash. This led to global competition between USSR and China. Even though Russia campaigned for a collective responsibility of six states, USA and China dismissed it and implemented 2+2 formula in 1996 without consulting Moscow. It therefore did not consider Russian interest of collective security in Asia. However, Russia consistently pursued six-party negotiations which could have considered interest of all parties. When four- party program broke down in 2002, the idea of multilateral settlement was reinvented with a mission to coerce North Korea into giving up its nuclear program. Due to the fact that Russia is attached to the idea of multi-polar world, it could not propagate any pressure tactic. After several years of disagreement between Pyongyang and Washington, Russian proposal was sorted to set the criteria for negotiations and compromise in February 2007. c. d. Russian proposal The starting point was a freeze to nuclear proliferation and immediate resumption of oil supply from U.S to Korean Republic. The United States and Republic of Korea were to register individual demands from each other and afterward exchange them unconditionally. When the register was complete, Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan analyzed it to deduce realism before advising both nations on a way forward (Seung-Ho, 96). As indicated in the proposal, Republic of Korea had to declare return to Non-nuclear Proliferation Treaty, eliminate production of Weapons of Mass Destructions, and U.S guarantees not to infringe on sovereignty and security of Korea. To ensure fulfilment of the proposal, co-sponsors acted as guarantors just in-case Pyongyang and U.S failed to execute respective mandates. All factors considered, we can note that Russian ideas predicted a multilateral diplomatic process with active role from participants in political settlement. e. Russia at Six Party Talks Nuclear weapons acquired by Republic of Korea underestimates Nuclear Non-proliferation measures and threaten security in the Far East and the rest of the world (Park, 84). On January 19 2003, Itar-Tass news agencies captured Russian military chief of staff General Yuri Balufevsky who emphasized the need to stop North Korea from conducting the test and also called for the resumption of six party talks. Russia believes that Korean peninsula should never become a ground to dispense nuclear weapons. Russia is against U.S attempt to apply force or sanctions when solving nuclear problems. In this perspective, Russia is committed to employing its influence to prevent any external intrusion like a forced regime change (Toloraya, 51). Parties to the talk including international bodies must guarantee North Korea security and bring to a halt any kind of hazard. Furthermore, associations between North Korea and other nations ought to be stabilized. Additionally, Moscow suggests integration of solution into multiparty diplomatic process where ideas are packaged. It is important to reduce military tension and employ confidence building procedures that have the effect of bringing together diverse nations. In relation to non-proliferation treats, Republic of Korea must follow the rules to the latter and guarantees of denuclearization entrenched in international law. Since countries have embraced present sources of energies, Russia should aid Republic of Korea to build peaceful nuclear program such as Light Water Reactors. f. Response to Russian proposal North Korea received positively Russian Proposal and used it to establish own position in the Six Party Talks. In 2006, North Korean Foreign Affairs Minister lauded Russian proposal for settling Korean peninsula problems while at the negotiating table (Toloraya, 53). On the contrary, United States disregards Russian efforts and classifies the nation as a junior participant in international affairs. At the moment, Russia is viewed by U.S as an ardent supporter of China on Korean issues and not taking up its independent duty. This is evident not only during Korea’s Missile launch in 2006 but also tests carried out during the same year. In a different scenario, Russia is seen to be capable of executing Machiavellian design of arming North Korea so as to sell more arms to South Korea and eventually assist South Korea produce nuclear weapons after U.S exist. This view is regrettable since Russia has always pursued non-proliferation measures similar to United States. Moscow does not maintain one-sided pro-Pyongyang position as perceived by western world but has continual vowed to uphold propositions in the Six-Party Talks. Officials in Russia value cooperation between Russia and United States since it is a perfect model to carry out foreign-policy coordination. The 2007-2008 policy consultations recognize ability of Russia to influence denuclearization process without infringing its national interests. It is now evident that six party talks were preoccupied with security guarantee, construction of light water reactors as a source of energy, use of nuclear energy in a peaceful manner, normalization of trade, and irreversible disarmament after verification process. Settlement of Korean Peninsula From the start of negotiations, Russia did its best to prevent collapse of negotiations. Bilateral discussions between North Korea and U.S determine whether Six Party Talks will yield good returns. Frozen North Korean assets, declaration of nuclear activities and verification process are some of the factors likely to sprout conflict between U.S and other partner states. Nevertheless, Russia considers all oppositions resolvable and the whole process should be peaceful and constructive. In the framework of frozen assets, Russia consistently urged U.S to reconsider unfreezing North Korean assets so that the Six Party Talks would progress with ease. Russian dedication to solving Korean problem is evident from its continual supply of heavy fuel oil to North Korea despite near collapse of talks in 2008. Russia policy makers fear that Six Party Talks might collapse due to inherent contradictions between People’s Democratic Republic of Korea and United States. In the year 2008, Russia was more concerned with North Korea’s nuclear declaration and subsequent nuclear cooperation with Syria which might prevent U.S from removing trade sanctions and eliminate Korea as a terrorist supporter. This could hamper implementation of the six party agreements. Adoption of hard-line policies e.g. adherence to less strict verification process, kicking out inspectors, and dismantlement of Yongbyon reactors is a set back faced by the talks. Future of Six Party Talks Issues related to light water reactors could resurface following change in U.S administration. Pyongyang visualizes importance of an independent electricity production which can only be achieved via nuclear reactor. Instead of demolishing reactors, a safe proliferation-free light water reactor should be allowed for the purpose of generating electricity (Eberstadt, 54). Republic of Korea is prone to make demands covering on humanitarian conditions, access to financial resources, and development aid. In the agenda it is imperative to further consider implications of possessing Weapons of Mass destruction. Can a country really take custody of missiles and guarantee world the security it so much cherishes? The future of Six Party Talks is still unpredictable given the fact that United States has not shown long-term commitment to coexist with Pyongyang without an attempt to destroy it. North Korea has therefore formulated a defence mechanism by putting its military on the hook in order to keep and prevent the system from collapsing (Landler, 23). If security and other promises are guaranteed, Six Party Talks would register substantial benefits. Diplomatic talks must not only focus on denuclearization but also peace, development, and coexistence in Northeast Asia. Handling issue to do with Weapon of Mass Destruction ought to be a step by step process while taking note of denuclearization task. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must receive international assistance to overcome backwardness and realize economic growth with development. Complementary reforms for the aid programs are necessary to transform a country to a new era. Six party talks is a place to exercise a coordinated aid program including division of labour and international managerial skills assistance. The success of Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) proves that economic and development assistance is practicable. Conclusion We conclude this report by stating that Russian relationship with United States determines the nature of non-proliferation policy. Russia sought to use multilateral agreement simply because of its power disadvantages. Rise of China and Washington’s interest in North East Asia is a great challenge to Russia. The plan of linking Far East and Siberia with railway line is a move by Russia to re-establish geopolitical position in the region which is vital for its national interest. Hard-line policy perpetrated by U.S is unhealthy since it compromises both security and development. Russia and China favours Ukrainian model thus is against any form of coercion evident in the Libyan model supported by U.S. Despite several obstacles, Russia has offered selfless service to make Six Party Talks a success. Recently, Russia through its foreign affairs ministry urged for immediate resumption of Six Party Talks. Read More