I just saw this at the Chosun Ilbo:
A member of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the European Parliament believes the EU’s involvement in six-way talks on North Korea’s nuclear program is crucial in ensuring a more diversified approach. On the U.S.-based Nautilus Institute’s website, British representative Glyn Ford posted an essay claiming that all participating countries to the six-way talks with the exception of the U.S. have indicated interest in or willingness to accept the EU’s involvement in the nuclear negotiations. Ford states that Europe qualifies for the nuclear talks as it has contributed half a billion euros in humanitarian aid and development assistance to North Korea for several years.
I did a quick check and found the piece at the Nautilus Institute’s web page. As an indication of where this guy is coming from, he chose to put quotes around the word ‘threat’ when referring to the North Korean nukes. As Ford sees it, the problem isn’t Norks with nukes but ‘powerful forces’ in the USA and Japan who want to use the nukes as an excuse to start a regional arms race that the pacifist Chinese hope to avoid.
Here is the relevant section from the ‘expert:’
But while the rest of the World realises the dangers of a misstep on the Peninsula there are powerful forces in Tokyo and Washington who want the sword of Damocles to hang a little longer. In Japan a revision of the US imposed Constitution to remove the ‘Peace’ clause will only work with a fearful public and North Korea provides that fear. In the US politicians and military-industrial complex selling ‘Star Wars’ know that Taliban technologists will not produce the ICBNM or a nuclear warhead. If North Korea wasn’t there they would have to be invented.
Yet there is a way that will not remove US hostility but rather tame it. That is by providing multiple guarantors of any settlement. The clever thing for China and the two Korea’s to do now is to widen rather than narrow the number of participants, even if at least initially they only have observer status. They might force Japan and the US from their procrastination as well as give the North Koreans the confidence to start the long march to a comprehensive settlement.
First on the invitation list should be the EU. As the Pyongyang’s most serious interlocutors not already present and providers of half a billion euros of financial assistance to North Korea over the past few years the EU has the financial and political muscle to make the difference.
Let’s face it. There are only four relevant parties to the six-party talks: North Korea, Japan, China and the USA. Russia and South Korea are included mainly to prevent the North Koreans from exploiting cleavages between regional powers when/if a deal is reached (that and to sooth egos in Moscow and Seoul). A rep from the EU would be dead weight. What is their interest, other than ’taming US hostility?’
This proposal is also more than a little self-serving. Ford is a member of the European Parliment. He is a member of the European Parliament’s Delegation with Relations to the Korean Peninsula and could very well be on the short list to be on any EU delegation to the six-party talks.
To see more of Ford’s views on EU participation, check out this piece (pdf) he wrote for the Japan Times last year. One cute thing that Ford mentioned in the J Times piece is that the EU will adopt a ‘no say, no pay’ policy in the future and will not provide funds for any future agreements unless it has a hand in making them. Fair enough but I wonder how much ‘say’ the EU has gotten with Kim Jong-il for the $650 million it has given Pyongyang over the past decade?
Now that I have read this post, I realize that I have already spent too much time on it. Ford’s stuff is barely worth commenting on.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Ford sounds self-important/delusional enough to be French.
Ford has said more silly stuff about North Korea in his lifetime than the last several Unifiction Ministers combined. That’s an achievement!
It is about time for the US to withdraw from this turkey of a meeting and let these clowns talk themselves to death.
The US should say “enough is enough” and tell KJI to prepare for the eventuality.
NK is a regional problem between China, Japan and Korea. Let these turkies clean up their own outhouse (I think China is the one taking shit and stinking up the whole neighborhood).
There is no reason for the US to meddle with these losers.
I love how this guy claims the US and Japan are the ones procrastinating not the North Koreans.
‘only four relevant parties…us, nk, japan, and china. sk only there to soothe it’s ego.’
you don’t know what you’re talking about. just an expat mouthing off. the country that isn’t relevant in your list is japan since their only concern is a few abducted comfort women.
Wouldn’t you consider Japan a relevant player given that the overwhelming odds are that Tokyo, Osaka and Okinawa will suffer any NK nuclear attack?
The US doesn’t want to talk to North Korea – that’s the reason there are 6 parties. Adding Europe would make a lot of sense.
It would also add weight to the argument to engage North Korea, the wisdom of which America idiotically fails to see.
btw, I had a chat with Ford 2 or 3 years ago and he said he thought China would intervene and remove KJI.
In that case, why not add Indonesia, Peru, and Upper Volta as well? If adding one party on the reasoning that the US doesn’t want to talk to North Korea makes sense, then why not add as many as will participate? It could be like a mini-UN, only less efficient.
Maybe adding people with diplomatic experience to the talks could be an idea that is worth trying. The 6 party talks process is not going that well anyway.
Robertson:
It seems to me that if the US had tried to listen a little bit what French and German people said before the Iraq invasion, US would not be in that situation now. Most of the predictions that “old Europe” leaders made turned eventually to be true.
Did it even occur to you that you sound arrogant/aggressive enough to be… American ?
The EU will take Uncle Sam over its knee and impart deep diplomatic secrets from their masterful strategy to keep Iran from getting the means to nuke Israel.
Is this a Republicans Abroad meeting?
Haven’t read Mr Ford’s article, but I’m going to comment on the idea: considering how “well” the talks are going right now, I can’t see why offering a new idea can be simply and purely “rejected”. That does not sound very mature, no? I’m not saying it is necessarily a good idea, I’m saying let’s see if it can help. Mind you, Europe’s been bombed by extremists before the US, and although the focus is on America now, Europe’s also wary of its security.
As for the comments about the French, and although I’ve always been the first to criticize the wave of anti-americanism in my home country and have a lot of (not exactly good) things to say about my fellow countrymen, I find some comments a little bit arrogant also, considering what history is telling us right now, and considering the past.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/10/19/193648/40
oh yes, “french fries” are not French, they’re from Belgium
Kudos for the link br, I agree wholeheartedly. You know its a Republican meet when it involves UN, EU, French bashing. What made the whole anti-French thing particularly grotesque in the lead up to the Iraq invasion was that the French were absolutely right in their assessment of the war and its justifications/implications (even if their motives were debatable)
I don’t agree with the rubbish from Ford about taming US hostility (Pyongyang deserves no shielding from any state). But I do think the EU can play a part, particularly in light of the amount of money it’s thrown into the whole thing, and the way the talks have gone so far. Seoul is also relevant, and will always be relevant in the talks.
And it’s easy to take pot shots at the EU for providing aid in the past without strings, but from my understanding the US has also sunk about 1 billion into NK since 1995 without returns.
“Maybe adding people with diplomatic experience to the talks could be an idea that is worth trying.”
The US acts the way it does due to inexperience?!? The talks have failed in the past due to inexperience?!?
How many endless sets of talks do we have to suffer through to realize that there is not going to be any deal worth the paper its written on, unless the US bends over and gives KJI what he wants?
“Is this a Republicans Abroad meeting?”
Trust someone with the name MrMao to think that anyone who believes that yet more endless talks are a waste of time, is a Republican.
Let me just state for the record that Ford is British, not French.
Here is what we know so far:
As the security guarantor for Japan and S. Korea, and as the apple of Kim Jong-il’s eyes (note all the demands for one-on-one talks), the USA obviosly needs to be there.
North Korea obviously need to be there (unless the other five decide to act as a group to get the North Koreans to comply with their wishes).
As a major power in the region and leading potential target for North Korean nukes, Japan needs to be there.
As North Korea’s main backer and another major regional power, China needs to be there.
Although South Korea is pretty much ignored by the other parties (especially the North Koreans) they should be there since they will be directly effected by whatever happens. BTW, the South Koreans are at least partially to blame for their being sidelined. They have chosen not be on the side of the US and Japan as one of the ‘grieved parties’ (the guys complaining about the Nork nukes) but instead want to act as a mediator. The problem with that is the North Koreans ignore them, which leaves them with little to do.
Although the Russians don’t really need to be there, having them on board ‘closes the circle’ which will help with compliance when/if a deal is reached.
In short, I am all for having six parties in the six party talks but the reality is that these are 4+2 talks.
If someone can tell me the EU’s interest in the area, I would glad to change my opinion on bringing them in. And ‘in the interest of world peace’ doesn’t cut it. Until I see EU troops slugging it out with Charlie in the Sudan, I don’t see any reason for them to start getting involved in a place that wasn’t even a former Euro-colony.
A division of EU peacekeepers posted along the Imjin River would do the trick.
speaking of expats, I was always curious.
Are most of you expats or are some of you immigrants to South Korea?
How many of you who have married into a Korean, have children who will go thru the South Korean school system to face the day of recknoning Le Bac style, to get into South Korean universities?
Or are most of you paying the private tuition bill for foreigners to eventually take the SAT and go to higher educaton in the states as US citizens?
Personally, I think it’s a no brainer.
Stick with expat status.
Also, what’s the avg duration of years you get to legally stay in South Korea, by choice or by legal limitations? Thank you. Wish you all Happy Holidays and a great year, wherever you go.
hoju_saram wrote:
From, Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong (PDF):
Revulsion of the French was totally justified (even if ‘freedom fries’ was stupid); they knew and continued to feed the *known* threat.
The vast majority of U.S. funds spent on North Korea was food aid sent via the UN to ensure it was properly monitored and not distributed to the govt elite and the military (unlike no-strings aid from South Korea, which is in reality unmonitored). The U.S. was in fact the largest aid donor to North Korea for years.
The EU can hardly manage itself – can you say Cyprus faster than a Turk border guard whip out his Quran and M-16? Seriously, a *Limey* wants the EU involved in a mess they prolly can’t locate on a map? Shouldn’t the UK first get involved in the EU before one of Her Maaaaahjesty’s citizens proposes far-fetched junkets in the boondocks? French and Italian troops in Lebanon make – somewhat – sense [the French after all created that artificial joke of a country...] but so far, the only relevance I can see in EU instances getting involved with NK would be, er, hmmm, protecting the sales of German cars and French booze? *snort*
The EU’s interest in the area is WMDs under questionable control.
Strange how the UK’s ‘qualified’ to be interested when the US needs support on the issue of WMD’s in Iraq, but seemingly we’re not ‘qualified’ to be interested on the issue Nork WMD’s.
Should add,
Whether Ford has anything useful to say is another matter entirely…
dda,
Intelligent debate is obviously alive and well under your care.
The Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus is hardly evidence of the EU’s ability to manage itself having occurred some 30 years before Cyprus joined the EU.
Can’t locate on a map, bit rich from a place where the President can’t hold a school book the right way up, and considering many European nations fought in the Korean War.
The UK is involved in the EU it joined in 1973. Being involved doesn’t mean agreeing to every proposal put forward in the EU’s policy chamber’s. Did the Southern States resistance to racial desegration mean that they were no longer “involved” in the United States of America.
Arghaeri, for the record I am French [the US flag here is just a sign of where I am staying, until tomorrow], and well aware of when the UK joined – after Le Général died. “Over my dead body,” of sorts… And my quib about Cyprus wasn’t about North Cyprus – I woulda said so – but about the member of the EU who doesn’t get access to Turkey harbours, and the lack of spine and unity the EU displays on the Turkey candidature – and that’s my taxes at work, or lack thereof, here…
Dda, think I said the comment was a bit rich “from a place where…”, not “from an american”, after all I’m not Korean either.
Nonetheless I did think you were likely american, but that was because of the US slang usage such as “boondocks” and “limey”, [not a term I've ever heard used by a frenchman about "les ros bifs"].
Regardless of your knowledge or otherwise of UK the entry date, the point still stands that involvement in the EU doesn’t mean bending over backwards to please the french!!!
OK understand your quip about Cyprus now, but if spineless management of foreign affairs is the issue doesn’t that pretty much rules out everone else involved in the Nork talks!
Indeed. But do we need more of ‘em?
As for pleasing the French, I don’t think that’s possible – they can’t please themselves on their own apparently, I can’t see outsiders please them. And as for the UK wanting to be only a little EU-pregnant, fear not, the Limeys’ throne as the EU’s contrarians will be soon enough taken over by either the Poles or any of the newcomers, who are way more spine, and hunger, than the founders. And that’s before a Turkish membership – although by the time they join I’ll be retired, dead or otherwise not paying taxes in the EU anymore.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }