Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Six-Party Talks:
The Best Option for Resolving The North Korean Nuclear Issue

By Ban Ki-moon, Foreign Minister, ROK

A year has gone by now since the last round of the six party talks was held in Beijing. While this long and undesirable hiatus has lingered, North Korea had ratcheted up its rhetoric and actions earlier this year, further aggravating the situation.

But the recent positive developments have moved us closer toward the resumption of the six-party talks. The par­ticipants in the talks and the international community have strongly hoped that the dialogue would go on. The resump­tion of high-level inter-Korean talks and the contacts made between the United States and North Korea in New York have boosted the atmosphere for a new round of talks. Also, it is worthy to note that the North Korean leader has stated that North Korea is committed to the six-party talks and that it could come back to the negotiating table as early as July.

Nonetheless, since a full year has already gone by, it would only be natural for one to ask, "Are the six-party talks really an effective way to address the nuclear issue?" But my answer is yes, and here are some reasons why.

One could argue that the six-party talks have not achieved much. But if we take a closer look, we can see that the talks

have controlled a once volatile situ­ation. It is worth noting that all the participating parties are committed to working toward the de-nucleariza­tion of the Korean Peninsula through dialogue.

Here are some highlights of what the talks have accomplished: The first round of the talks held in August 2003 resulted in a general consensus on the need for a comprehensive, step-by-step solution, laying the ground­work for further discussions.

The second round held in February 2004 provided the setting for discussions on a number of substantive issues and resulted in the first written agreement among the partici­pants in the form of a chairman's statement.

In the third round of the talks held in June 2004, the par­ties re-emphasized their commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and stressed the need to take the first steps toward that goal as soon as possible. In particular, detailed proposals were tabled by the ROK (South Korea), the United States and North Korea, setting the stage for sub­stantive discussions to follow.

Multilateral approach: I believe that the six-party talks are the most appropriate multilateral forum, in which the countries with the most in­terests and stakes come together. Every party has something that it wants and something that it can offer in the process of resolving the North Korean nuclear issue.

For simplicity's sake, the five parties do not want North Korea to become a nuclear weapons state for more or less similar reasons. North Korea, on the other hand, is interest­ed in gaining economic cooperation including energy assis­tance, and improving its relations with the United States and Japan.

In addition, all the countries that can offer the most in­centives to North Korea, both politically and economically, are taking part in the talks. On the other side of the coin, the same countries, if turned against North Korea, have the leverage to put tremendous pressure on North Korea.

Perhaps the most significant factor of this multilateral framework is that China and Russia, which wield much in­fluence over North Korea, are actively involved in the talks. They are not in a position to look away from this serious proliferation issue, for it could lead to an unwanted arms race and instability in the region. Thus, I expect that both China and Russia will continue to play a constructive role throughout the talks.

To our disappointment, all of us have witnessed what a failed bilateral agreement looks like when the Geneva Agreed Framework came crumbling down a few years ago. However, the participants in the six-party talks are not as­serting that we should renounce bilateral contacts altogether.

We do realize that bilateral dialogue within the framework of the six-party talks is a necessary part of the negotiating process in breaking stalemates and fine-tuning specific is­sues of interest.

An eventual agreement signed by the world's most influ­ential political and economic powers would definitely carry weight. Should one of the parties breach the agreement, it would be met with punitive measures, which would act as a deterrent against discord or derailment.

Diplomacy at the Forefront: In rational terms, it is not in anyone's interest to consider any other options than diplomacy. Having said that, the mil­itary option lies at the opposite end of the spectrum. This option, of course, is not a viable one, for it would be a night­mare for the entire Korean Peninsula. Therefore, all diplo­matic efforts must be exhausted before considering other options. It is important that we leave no stones unturned in our efforts.

However, if North Korea were indeed bent on going down the nuclear path, then it would be inevitable for the ROK and other parties to respond sternly. Thus, once again, the success of the six-party talks process is in the best inter­est of all the parties including North Korea.

As much as I would like it to be, it would be stretching the truth if I were to assert that the six-party talks are an immac­ulate solution. Although it is the most logical and reasonable approach, there is, of course, room for improvements.

For one, when the talks do reconvene, it should generate the needed momentum to spur intensive negotiations. The parties should meet more often and hold the meeting ses­sions for longer periods than a few days at a time. The for­mat should also be diversified to allow for more bilateral or trilateral contacts and issue-specific smaller group meetings, for example to flesh out the details of verification measures or energy assistance measures.

Although the six-party talks process can be a very power­ful negotiating tool with every chance of success, we cannot guarantee success in and of itself. All the parties involved must put forth their sincere efforts to make it work.

Most importantly, the North Korean leadership must make the fundamental strategic decision to give up its nu­clear ambitions once and for all. It needs to understand that fostering nuclear intentions will only lead to further isola­tion and economic hardships as the possession of nuclear weapons will not be an asset to its security and economy but will only end up being a burden. Once North Korea forgoes its nuclear programs, new doors of opportunity and coopera­tion will widely open up before them.

The other parties to the talks and the international com­munity as a whole should encourage North Korea to make such a decision in a swift manner. Thus, it is important for the others to state in concrete terms, what the benefits are for North Korea if it gives up its nuclear ambitions, abides by international norms, and becomes a responsible member of the international community.

At this juncture, the immediate task is to get North Korea back to the negotiating table. The ROK and other concerned parties have been making active concerted efforts to accom­plish this goal.

At the ROK-U.S. summit meeting of June 11, the two presidents reaffirmed the fundamental goal of resolving the nuclear issue through peaceful and diplomatic means and urged North Korea to return to the talks without further de­lay. While firmly stating that they will not tolerate North Korean nuclear weapons, the two presidents stressed that they are ready to provide substantive assistance once North Korea makes the decision to give up its nuclear ambitions. In this vein, the recent meeting between our unification minister and the North Korean leader is noteworthy in that Chairman Kim Jong-il affirmed his commitment to the de­nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and mentioned that North Korea is ready to return to the six-party talks. In addi­tion, he proclaimed that North Korea has no intention to transfer nuclear weapons to other countries and stated that North Korea will return to the NPT once the nuclear issue is resolved and receive IAEA inspections as well.

I welcome this positive position on the part of North Korea as I feel that it's high time for North Korea to return to the six-party talks. But the resumption of the talks cannot be a goal in itself. More importantly, we must strive even harder to attain substantial outcomes when the dialogue process does resume.

Toward a peaceful resolution to the North Korean nuclear issue has special implications in the creation of a new order in Northeast Asia. The six-party talks process has significance beyond its immediate purpose of providing the framework for dialogue in resolving the nuclear issue.

The talks could act as a meaningful process and invalu­able experience toward confidence building that could pos­sibly lead to the eventual establishment of a Northeast Asian security dialogue to help bring about peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula and the Northeast Asian region at large.

The ROK government will continue to uphold its princi­ple of having zero tolerance for North Korea's nuclear weapons while maintaining an open attitude so that the peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue can be realized in the near future. We will also continue to maintain our coor­dination with the United States and Japan and close cooper­ation with China and Russia to attain an early solution. In addition, we will also make use of the inter-Korean dialogue channels to convey to the North Koreans that a bright future lays ahead of them when they cease their nuclear ambitions.

We are at a critical juncture now, as the building blocks for another round of talks are being put into place. When the six-party talks process shifts into full gear again, 1 sin­cerely hope that substantial outcomes will come about. For our part, the ROK will work closely with other concerned countries to carve out the details of the important proposal for North Korea to discard its nuclear aspirations for good.

I believe that the North Korean nuclear issue can be re­solved through the six-party talks process if all six parties sincerely strive to realize the common goal of the denu­clearization of the Korean Peninsula. 1 assure you that the government of the Republic of Korea will put forth its ut­most efforts to achieve this objective.

The writer is Korea's foreign minister.

JULY 2005 1 KOREA POLICY REVIEW, Text courtesy: Embassy of ROK in Kathmandu, Nepal.

With Buddhism, I discovered an ocean of thought, traditions and writings - Roger- Pol Droit, French Philosopher

Emmanuel Thévenon, journalist, FRANCE

Roger-Pol Droit is a philosopher who manages to bring his subject within reach of everyone. His best-seller, 101 Expériences de philosophie quotidienne [101 Experiments in the Philosophy of Everyday Life], has been translated into twenty-two languages. For twenty-five years this distinguished academic has also studied the way the East is seen in Western philosophy. An interview.

Where does your taste for philosophy come from?

Roger-Paul Droit : When I was sixteen, in the ‘terminale’ class [the year in which the Baccalauréat is taken when students study philosophy], I was dazzled for a while, for I had the impression that I was at last encountering the ultimate, radical, essential questions. Which does not mean the answers!

What is your definition of philosophy? 

Any human being who reflects methodically about the way he thinks is doing philosophy. It isn’t enough just to ask ourselves questions. We must also cast a critical and methodical eye over the way in which we pose them, on the way in which we phrase the answers; asking ourselves whether or not they are valid, whether they are true or false.

You have enjoyed great success with 101 Expériences de philosophie quotidienne. For one of them you suggest “Pull out a hair, count up to a thousand, go down an endless staircase, look for a blue food ...”. What is the purpose of this?

It’s about creating intellectual triggers, in such a way that someone who has never posed a question to themselves before discovers it in an experimental way. One example, if I say to you, “We are going to ask ourselves whether or not mental images are an accurate reflection of external reality”, you will probably gape … Instead, try to peel a particular apple in your head! At any point in your mental film, you will lose the right apple and will no longer know where you are. After that, draw whatever conclusions you wish about the relationship between your mind and external reality. These experiments are incentives to philosophise, but not yet fully philosophy …

What do you think about the current developments of philosophy in France, for example, its popularisation through philosophy cafés?

I have a feeling, although I may be wrong, that many of them are more “café” than “philosophy”. People come to talk about their doubts, their associations of ideas, their problems … and why not? But that isn’t philosophy. In my last book, Votre vie sera parfaite [Your Life Will Be Perfect], I criticise the convergence between this return to grace of philosophy and the whole mishmash of personal development, of the “How to be happy by reading a little Seneca every morning” kind. I don’t believe you can manufacture a method of flourishing by plucking precepts or formulas here and there from Antiquity and adapting them as cheaply as possible to our daily lives. Fifteen hundred or two thousand years separate us from the Greek philosophers! And perhaps too, the sense of reflecting …

Philosophy seems to be experiencing a revival just about everywhere in the world. What do you think about this?

For six years I was an advisor on philosophy to the Director General of UNESCO. In this capacity I conducted a worldwide survey which indeed showed that philosophy was on the increase rather than on the decline. What particularly struck me was the list of reference authors. In the West we find only Western philosophers. In Asia, and in some Arab countries, there is, on the contrary, a combination of Greek and European philosophers and Arab or Asian philosophers. In China, for example, Aristotle is found behind Confucius and Lao-Tseu.

Why don’t we in the West learn about other philosophical approaches?

This was the question I asked myself in my early thirties. I read, somewhat by chance, books about Buddhism. I discovered an ocean of thought, traditions and writings. It is difficult to say, for the most theoretical treatises, that they are not philosophical texts. Indeed, they are well-argued and dialectic, and deal with fully articulated questions of logic and metaphysics. I tried to understand why I had not been taught these philosophies in the course of my studies.

In 1989, in L’Oubli de l’Inde [The Forgetting of India], I explained that the discovery of Sanskrit teachings [an ancient Indo-Aryan scholarly form in which the principal Indian Brahmin texts are written] had, in the 19th century, aroused intense enthusiasm among intellectuals, especially the German Romantics, but also among philosophers (Schopenhauer, Victor Cousin and, later, Nietzsche). Brahmin India was then thought of as a philosophical continent to be explored. Then an extraordinary reversal occurred. India, established on the philosophical stage in the 19th century, was evicted from it in the 20 th. According to Heidegger, the only philosophy is Greek and European! For him, talking about “Indian philosophy” is as contradictory as saying “wooden steel”. I believe that for too long we have taken an extraordinarily limited, narrow, almost rigid, view of philosophy, considering too many approaches to be non philosophical, not legitimate.

(With Buddhism, I discovered an ocean of thought, traditions and writings”)

How can we broaden the boundaries of philosophy?

I think we can try to go down several paths. I endeavour to do so in two main ways. One is to think up unusual books, like 101 Expériences [101 Experiments], or Dernières nouvelles des choses [The Latest News about Things], halfway between reflection and poetry, or even by rediscovering satire and the savage philosophical tale, as I have just attempted to do with Votre vie sera parfaite.

The other way is to analyse the historical mechanisms of the closure: not only the exclusion of India, but also the terror, now forgotten, that seized Europe in the 19th century in the face of the discovery of Buddhism, which I analysed in Le Culte du néant [The Cult of Nothingness]. I am currently working to understand what the Ancient Greeks said and thought about “the philosophy of the Barbarians”. There will be a few surprises … If we wish to re-open philosophy, we must also closely examine its past in order to shed light on the history of its imagination.

Text courtesy: Label France, Embassy of France in Kathmandu.

The New-Pope

Wolfgang Thierse, Germany

For the first time in almost 500 years, a German cardinal has been elected head of the Roman Catholic Church: much is expected of Pope Benedict XVI. Wolfgang Thierse com­ments on the pontiff and the unity and diversity of the church

"Pontifex" means bridge builder: Benedict XVI faces the difficult task of creating a church with prospects for the future.

(Joseph Ratzinger, the son of a rural policeman from Marktl am Inn in Bavaria, studied theology and philosophy in Freising and Munich. He entered the priest­hood in 1951. At just 30 years of age he completed his postdoc­toral studies and became profes­sor at the university in Freising. He later taught in Bonn, Mun-ster, Tubingen and Regensburg. In 1977, Joseph Ratzinger was appointed Archbishop of Mu­nich and Freising and became a cardinal shortly afterwards. Af­ter just four years in Munich, Pope John Paul II called him to Rome. As Prefect of the Congre­gation for the Doctrine of the Faith the German cardinal was given a central position within the Vatican. From 2002 onward he was Dean of the College of Cardinals and as such headed the Conclave. After the death of Pope John Paul lI, Cardinal Ratzinger was seen as one of the favourites for the Throne of St Peter. One of the new Pope's first journeys will take him back to Germany: in August Benedict XVI is expected to attend the World Youth Day in Cologne).

The election of Cardinal Ratzinger as the new Pope is essentially a sign of continu­ity. He was one of the closest associates of Pope John Paul II, and as Prefect of the Con­gregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he had a strong influence on the theological de­cisions of his predecessor. He is seen as con­servative, but he is also exceptionally intelli­gent and well educated. Why shouldn't an in­telligent conservative be able to create new openings? Both ecclesiastical and political his­tory is full of examples illustrating that con­servatives in particular are capable of moving in new directions. Apart from this, Joseph Ratzinger is experiencing a major role change from preserver of official church dogmas to "pontifex", literally the builder of bridges, a particularly attractive title for the Pope.

So why shouldn't people hope that Pope Benedict XVI will be a convincing head of a for­ward-looking church: "Ecclesia reformanda" - a church that remains true to itself by demon­strating its ability to continually adapt and change. This is what I hope and anticipate: that the new Pope will preserve the unity of this great church in its vast diversity, by simulta­neously sustaining loyalty to the faith while promoting the diversity of organizational and expressive forms of Christian life - the condi­tions of Christian existence in Europe, Africa, South America or Asia are, after all, complete­ly different. This means granting greater in­fluence and freedom to the individual church­es and the national bishops' conferences, es­pecially in areas concerning pastoral work. Lay people should also have more influence and weight at local church level, since the future of the church depends increasingly on the in­volvement of lay people and not solely on the work of priests and bishops.

Finally, the church also needs a new understanding of the role of women. In many places they are the backbone of the church and prove themselves just as in­dependent and capa­ble as in their secular activities. Nobody de­nies that all people are equal, with equal dignity, in all societies shaped by Christianity. Why is this precisely where the Roman Catholic Church intends to uphold a traditional image of women that at­tempts to force female Christians into a subor­dinate, subservient role and keep them there? How on earth can this succeed in the long run? It's high time the church started building bridges in the direction of the free and self-as­sured women of the present as well.

I hope for continuity from Benedict XVI in the commitment to peace - in the dialogue be­tween confessions and religions to which John Paul II dedicated a great deal of energy. The religious and the political world both need this dialogue between religions and cultures.

In the past few weeks, many people were amazed at the worldwide sympathy expressed for John Paul II during his illness and on his death, and some observers tried to explain this phenomenon as a result of his time in office as head of the Roman Catholic Church. The con­tradiction between the actual examples set in devoutness and conservative dogmas, espe­cially in the church's attitude to sexual moral­ity, and the clearly huge numbers of followers remains a mystery to many. Or maybe not, in­deed it was almost to be expected that, in an everyday culture seemingly governed by in­creasing arbitrariness in our western societies, values and firm convictions become more fas­cinating, even though we don't necessarily share them in detail. Have we not experienced over the past ten to twenty years how little sat­isfaction there is to be gained from egoism, ma­terial success, disregard for solidarity and so­cial cohesion - in short, an individualized, fun oriented society - and unbridled capitalism? Aren't we becoming even more aware than ever that we are doing ourselves far more harm than good with this arbitrariness and this par­ticular spirit of the times, because as human beings we are more than simply producers and consumers, and we need more than just mon­ey and trivial pursuits?

In this situation, attitudes can be impres­sive and exemplary in taking a stand against pure egocentricity and setting standards for correct and responsible behavior. It the na­tionality of the new Pope could cause us in Ger­many to live with slightly more awareness of values, slightly more mutual solidarity and a slightly more catholic outlook - it wouldn't do any harm to our quality of community life! •

The author is a dedicated Roman Catholic and SPD politi­cian who has held the Federal Republic of Germany's second highest office as President of the Bundestag since 1998. Text courtesy: Deutschland, No/3/2005. Embassy of Germany in Kathmandu.