U.S. Envoy: No Commitment by North Korea to Return to Nuke Talks
Email ABC News' Kirit Radia reports:President Obama's envoy to North Korea returned today from his first visit to the reclusive country with what he said was a common understanding on the need to resume stalled negotiations over its nuclear program, but without any clear commitments by Pyongyang on when that may happen.
Ambassador Stephen Bosworth said his talks over three days were "very useful" but added that "it remains to be seen when and how" North Korea would return to the so-called Six Party Talks between the US, North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia.
However, Bosworth told reporters at a press conference in Seoul, South Korea that he had reached a "common understanding" with North Korea on the need to resume the talks and to implement a September 2005 agreement that committed to a denuclearized Korean peninsula.
Speaking in Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that Bosworth's meetings were "quite positive" and said that the Obama administration is taking an approach of "strategic patience in close coordination with our six-party allies." And spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, P.J. Crowley, said that the visit was a "good start" but much work remains to be done. Bosworth's trip was the first by a US official under the Obama administration and the first since the Bush administration sent his predecessor there in October 2008.Before his trip, US officials said they had received signals from North Korea that it was interested in returning to nuclear talks that only this year they declared "dead." Some of those signs came during a visit to Pyongyang this summer by former President Bill Clinton to retrieve two American journalists detained there, as well as signals given to Chinese officials visiting Pyongyang and by a North Korean delegation attending the funeral of South Korea's former president.
A senior US official said Monday that Bosworth would not carry with him any additional incentives for North Korea to return to negotiations, saying they will not reward Pyongyang for returning to agreements they'd already made.
Bosworth told reporters he did not meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, who is reported to be ill, but added that he did not request to meet him.
North Korea had refused to return to the negotiating table after international protest over its attempt to launch a rocket capable of carrying a satellite earlier this year. Pyongyang soon detonated its second nuclear device, fired off a number of provocative rockets into the ocean, and declared it would not return to negotiations over its nuclear program.
After meetings with South Korean officials in Seoul today, Bosworth will travel to China, Japan, and Russia to brief the other members of the Six Party Talks on his visit.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
The guy has to fly to all these places to brief the other envoys? What about phones?
In reality, he got squat. N Korea refuses to deal. Instead, more posturing.
Great work Barry! Boy, your open hand is really paying big dividends for us!
Posted by: liz | December 10, 2009, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm
Posted by: liz | Dec 10, 2009 2:01:51 PM posted, “Great work Barry! Boy, your open hand is really paying big dividends for us!”
Jason Qian is a fellow at the Harvard Negotiation Project of Harvard Law School, so imo his perspective brings a bit more weight than a poster who calls President Obama “Barry”.
According to Qian, the party who has less time pressure always enjoys the upper hand in forcing its counterpart to make concessions. With continued economic aid from China and South Korea, North Korea can afford to hold onto a position of “no talks” – he suggests Washington needs to speed up meaningful negotiations.
Posted by: CenterOne | December 10, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
NK has already stated they don’t want 6 party talks, they want direct talks with the US. How long are we going to continue to be blackmailed by NK? We offered more “incentives” (ie blackmailed) and they didn’t bite. Hillary said “strategic patience in close coordination with our six-party allies.” That means we and 4 other nations sit and wait for NK who has already stated what they want. What a waste. Can we start introducing sanctions on NK and Iran and get them voted on in the UN even if Russia or China veto them? This way, we know who stands with them on record and we can go down the path even further. Right now, Iran and NK are building programs illegally with impunity. Heavy sanctions on NK could turn the people against the leader.
Posted by: lfrichar | December 10, 2009, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
Tell Kim we are sorry for the last 60 years of keeping the peace .
Posted by: nat turner | December 10, 2009, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm
Why would anybody think that they would want to talk? They see Obama for what he is: weak,indecisive and ignorant of the geopolitical effects of seemingly trivial actions. This is the true cost of the dithering on an Afghanistan decision-perception is reality.Well, we went for a community organizer and that is what we’ve got.The moment that the press starts to report the truth about the incompetence of this administration the wheels are going to fall off. God help us.
Posted by: Nephron | December 10, 2009, 3:09 pm 3:09 pm
Why should they return. Iran told Obama to take a flying leap. Iran is showing the world just how weak this president is. Dem presidents will only do enough to get by so they can let a rep president take care of it and take the fall. The socialist dem party is not worried about Americans. They are worried about their marxists pals.
Posted by: Jim Rod | December 10, 2009, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
This is the true cost of the dithering on an Afghanistan decision-perception is reality.
____________________________________
The real ‘ditherers’ on Afghanistan were Bush and Cheney who put the country on the back burner for 7 years while the Taliban and al Qaeda regrouped and got stronger – with serious consequences for our troops and the Afghan people.
Posted by: tierra | December 10, 2009, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
The real ‘ditherers’ on Afghanistan are Obama and Biden.
Posted by: Trojan War | December 10, 2009, 3:19 pm 3:19 pm
To say that Bush dithered over 7 years in Afghanistan is ridiculous.The situation there has evolved over time- it has not been static.The Bush policy in Afghanistan worked for years with a minimum of American deaths.How many Al Qaeda are in Afghanistan now?Are they using it as a base like they did when Clinton was president?How is pulling out in 18 months going to make the situation better?
Posted by: Nephron | December 10, 2009, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm
The Bush policy in Afghanistan worked for years with a minimum of American deaths.
___________________________________
If you consider allowing the Taliban and al Qaeda to regroup and get stronger a ‘successful’ policy . . . sure, you’re right.
Posted by: tierra | December 10, 2009, 3:40 pm 3:40 pm
tierra — Complaining about the past certainly has no affect now. Bush cannot affect anything Obama does, so let’s focus on what he is doing. He appears to be bolstering our troop numbers, but short of what was requested. Obama has laid out his plan and he needs to see it through. He also needs to accept the responsibility and criticism for his actions just as Bush has.
Posted by: lfrichar | December 10, 2009, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm
tierra — Complaining about the past certainly has no affect now.
________________________________-
It most certainly can. When right wingers are beating the ‘ditherer’ attack into the ground, pointing out Bush and Cheney’s 7 years of dithering on Afghanistan can rebalance the scale on who exactly ‘dithered’ and to what degree.
Posted by: tierra | December 10, 2009, 5:29 pm 5:29 pm
How many Al Qaeda are in Afghanistan? How many Al Qaeda died in Iraq?The issue with Afghanistan is a resurgent Taliban, not Al Qaeda.George Bush destroyed the hard core Al Qaeda in Iraq- that’s why they have to use home-grown terrorists in Britain and Spain.
Posted by: Nephron | December 10, 2009, 5:41 pm 5:41 pm
The issue with Afghanistan is a resurgent Taliban, not Al Qaeda.
_________________________________
The issue with Afghanistan is BOTH- and we know now that Bush and company backed off al Qaeda and Bin Laden when they had them cornered in Afghanistan – in order to attack Iraq. Not smart.
It’s even been suggested – and strongly – that Bush and Cheney let Bin Laden go because they knew if he was killed the support for attacking Iraq would have disappeared. I wouldn’t put it past them.
What Bush did was throw Iraq into complete turmoil and instability – and it continues to this day with tens of thousands of deaths and more maimings – and still counting. And he left Afghanistan to simmer on the back burner while the forces against America regrouped and got strong.
Posted by: tierra | December 10, 2009, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm