[This past July I was invited to return to Pyongyang to secure the release of an American, Aijalon Gomes, with the proviso that my visit would last long enough for substantive talks with top North Korean officials. They spelled out in detail their desire to develop a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and a permanent cease-fire, based on the 1994 agreements and the terms adopted by the six powers in September 2005. With no authority to mediate any disputes, I relayed this message to the State Department and White House. Chinese leaders indicated support of this bilateral discussion.]
By Jimmy Carter
No one can completely understand the motivations of the North Koreans, but it is entirely possible that their recent revelation of their uranium enrichment centrifuges and Pyongyang's shelling of a South Korean islandTuesday are designed to remind the world that they deserve respect in negotiations that will shape their future. Ultimately, the choice for the United States may be between diplomatic niceties and avoiding a catastrophic confrontation.
Dealing effectively with North Korea has long challenged the United States. We know that the state religion of this secretive society is "juche," which means self-reliance and avoidance of domination by others. The North's technological capabilities under conditions of severe sanctions and national poverty are surprising. Efforts to display its military capability through the shelling of Yeongpyeong and weapons tests provoke anger and a desire for retaliation. Meanwhile, our close diplomatic and military ties with South Korea make us compliant with its leaders' policies.
The North has threatened armed conflict before. Nearly eight years ago, I wrote on this page about how in June 1994 President Kim Il Sung expelled International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors and proclaimed that spent fuel rods could be reprocessed into plutonium. Kim threatened to destroy Seoul if increasingly severe sanctions were imposed on his nation.
Desiring to resolve the crisis through direct talks with the United States, Kim invited me to Pyongyang to discuss the outstanding issues. With approval from President Bill Clinton, I went, and reported the positive results of these one-on-one discussions to the White House. Direct negotiations ensued in Geneva between a U.S. special envoy and a North Korean delegation, resulting in an "agreed framework" that stopped North Korea's fuel-cell reprocessing and restored IAEA inspection for eight years.
With evidence that Pyongyang was acquiring enriched uranium in violation of the agreed framework, President George W. Bush - who had already declared North Korea part of an "axis of evil" and a potential target - made discussions with North Korea contingent on its complete rejection of a nuclear explosives program and terminated monthly shipments of fuel oil. Subsequently, North Korea expelled nuclear inspectors and resumed reprocessing its fuel rods. It has acquired enough plutonium for perhaps seven nuclear weapons.
Sporadic negotiations over the next few years among North Korea, the United States, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia (the six parties) produced, in September 2005, an agreement that reaffirmed the basic premises of the 1994 accord. Its text included denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, a pledge of non-aggression by the United States and steps to evolve a permanent peace agreement to replace the U.S.-North Korean-Chinese cease-fire that has been in effect since July 1953. Unfortunately, no substantive progress has been made since 2005, and the overall situation has been clouded by North Korea's development and testing of nuclear devices and medium- and long-range missiles, and military encounters with South Korea.
North Korea insists on direct talks with the United States. Leaders in Pyongyang consider South Korea's armed forces to be controlled from Washington and maintain that South Korea was not party to the 1953 cease-fire. Since the Clinton administration, our country has negotiated through the six-party approach, largely avoiding substantive bilateral discussions, which would have excluded South Korea.
This past July I was invited to return to Pyongyang to secure the release of an American, Aijalon Gomes, with the proviso that my visit would last long enough for substantive talks with top North Korean officials. They spelled out in detail their desire to develop a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and a permanent cease-fire, based on the 1994 agreements and the terms adopted by the six powers in September 2005. With no authority to mediate any disputes, I relayed this message to the State Department and White House. Chinese leaders indicated support of this bilateral discussion.
North Korean officials have given the same message to other recent American visitors and have permitted access by nuclear experts to an advanced facility for purifying uranium. The same officials had made it clear to me that this array of centrifuges would be "on the table" for discussions with the United States, although uranium purification - a very slow process - was not covered in the 1994 agreements.
Pyongyang has sent a consistent message that during direct talks with the United States, it is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the "temporary" cease-fire of 1953. We should consider responding to this offer. The unfortunate alternative is for North Koreans to take whatever actions they consider necessary to defend themselves from what they claim to fear most: a military attack supported by the United States, along with efforts to change the political regime.
The writer was the 39th president of the United States.
[Prachanda's attack on India is believed to be coloured by the suspicion that Bhattarai, a moderate who advocates continuing with peace talks instead of launching a fresh revolt, is being backed by the Indian establishment, an accusation Bhattarai denies.]
KATHMADU: Amidst the Indian government's growing concern about the crisis in Nepal Nepal
The 55-year-old former prime minister, who blames New Delhi for the fall of his short-lived government last year and his failure to win the subsequent prime ministerial election, has begun predicting military intervention in Nepal by India and has advocated a "people's revolt" at a key meet of the party that will formulate the former guerrillas' future strategy.
The sixth Maoist plenum, an extravaganza that kicked off Sunday in Palungtar, a remote village in western Gorkha district where the party had begun its first military training before launching its "People's War" in 1996, has now become the battleground between Prachanda and his two deputies, who have attacked him for financial irregularities and other lapses.
Prachanda Tuesday returned the fire opened by his deputies, saying the collective leadership of the party was responsible for the errors, and not he alone.
His counter-attack came after former Maoist finance minister Baburam Bhattarai, who was demoted in 2005 for his ego clashes with Prachanda, accused the party supremo of fostering a personality cult like Stalin and questioned his punishment for advocating laying down arms, a suggestion that was finally followed by the party in 2006 when it signed a peace pact.
Prachanda's attack onIndia
Media reports Wednesday said that Prachanda, who presented his political document at the conclave Tuesday, had saidIndia Nepal
"Compradors, feudal forces and Indian expansionism are our arch enemies," a local daily reported him as saying. "Now we have to ready for a national war againstIndia
Prachanda's other challenger, Mohan Vaidya Kiran, who was arrested and imprisoned inIndia West Bengal state during the 10-year Maoist insurgency, has been advocating a return to the revolution even before the plenum started.
Vaidya has also recommended joining forces withIndia India India
As nearly 6,000 members Wednesday begin discussing Prachanda and his deputies' proposals,New Delhi
The UN has already registered its disapproval of the Maoists' guerrilla fighters, nearly 1,400 of them, exiting their barracks to take part in the plenum, saying it could affect the peace agreement.
Nepal's major western donors, ranging from the World Bank to the governments of the US, Britain, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Norway, have expressed growing concern at the lack of progress in forming a new government even five months after the resignation of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, implementing the peace process, and writing the new constitution.
Less than two months remain to address the fate of the Maoists' nearly 20,000-strong People's Liberation Army (PLA), with their UN monitors leavingNepal
However, the Maoists, in contradiction to their peace pact, are now refusing to disband the rebel army while the ruling parties have ruled out concluding the peace process as long the PLA remains intact.
The 55-year-old former prime minister, who blames New Delhi for the fall of his short-lived government last year and his failure to win the subsequent prime ministerial election, has begun predicting military intervention in Nepal by India and has advocated a "people's revolt" at a key meet of the party that will formulate the former guerrillas' future strategy.
The sixth Maoist plenum, an extravaganza that kicked off Sunday in Palungtar, a remote village in western Gorkha district where the party had begun its first military training before launching its "People's War" in 1996, has now become the battleground between Prachanda and his two deputies, who have attacked him for financial irregularities and other lapses.
Prachanda Tuesday returned the fire opened by his deputies, saying the collective leadership of the party was responsible for the errors, and not he alone.
His counter-attack came after former Maoist finance minister Baburam Bhattarai, who was demoted in 2005 for his ego clashes with Prachanda, accused the party supremo of fostering a personality cult like Stalin and questioned his punishment for advocating laying down arms, a suggestion that was finally followed by the party in 2006 when it signed a peace pact.
Prachanda's attack on
Media reports Wednesday said that Prachanda, who presented his political document at the conclave Tuesday, had said
"Compradors, feudal forces and Indian expansionism are our arch enemies," a local daily reported him as saying. "Now we have to ready for a national war against
Prachanda's other challenger, Mohan Vaidya Kiran, who was arrested and imprisoned in
Vaidya has also recommended joining forces with
As nearly 6,000 members Wednesday begin discussing Prachanda and his deputies' proposals,
The UN has already registered its disapproval of the Maoists' guerrilla fighters, nearly 1,400 of them, exiting their barracks to take part in the plenum, saying it could affect the peace agreement.
Nepal's major western donors, ranging from the World Bank to the governments of the US, Britain, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Norway, have expressed growing concern at the lack of progress in forming a new government even five months after the resignation of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, implementing the peace process, and writing the new constitution.
Less than two months remain to address the fate of the Maoists' nearly 20,000-strong People's Liberation Army (PLA), with their UN monitors leaving
However, the Maoists, in contradiction to their peace pact, are now refusing to disband the rebel army while the ruling parties have ruled out concluding the peace process as long the PLA remains intact.
