or launching long-range missiles. Still, the Six-Party Talks are the only currently available diplomatic vehicle to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis. While they may not deliver results in the immediate future, these talks are likely to continue given the interest in denuclearising North Korea.
The EU takes part in multilateral sanctions against North Korea, but is not currently a member of the Six-Party Talks. There is no compelling reason why the EU should not be a party to the talks. The EU has recently demonstrated a keen interest in deepening its involvement in East Asia; and becoming an observer in the Six-Party Talks would allow the EU to act as an objective, helpful, and mutually acceptable broker, who could actively avoid the difficulties and frustrations the forum has met with in the past.
The EU has participated in regional efforts to denuclearise North Korea before: it was a board member of the now-defunct Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) and has regularly engaged in political dialogue with the DPRK since 2001, when it established formal diplomatic ties.
The EU’s member states share the common goal of achieving a lasting peace. To this effect, the EU has developed expertise in promoting democratic processes, reforming the security sector, and developing inclusive solutions to long-standing problems, with a focus on security and defence issues. The EU also has a long history of promoting diplomatic negotiations to solve major issues, and is well regarded as such.
France, Germany and the UK are currently involved in the ‘Five Plus One’ negotiations with Iran (also known as ‘E3 plus 3’); at times they have been seen to adopt ‘hawkish’ attitudes. Yet it is unlikely that the EU joining the Six-Party talks would create the same problem, because a majority of EU member states also have diplomatic relations with the DPRK, and some have a long history of involvement in DPRK-related negotiations. Sweden, for example, has five representatives stationed at Panmunjom as members of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission (NNSC), and Poland also attends some NNSC meetings, through South Korea.
The current situation in East Asia presents unique challenges for the EU, such as the ongoing China–US struggle for regional hegemony. The complex relationships between the parties involved, and the potential repercussions for the North Korea debate could make it difficult for the EU to maintain a strong level of credibility in negotiations and in the region in general. The position adopted by some EU member states at the ‘Five Plus One’ talks with Iran may either prevent proper negotiations with the DPRK or highlight possible contradictions in various countries’ stances.
If the EU joins the talks as an observer, it could act as a buffer between the other six parties: the EU has a history of providing humanitarian and development aid to the DPRK (over €366 million since 1995; equivalent to US$458 million), it has know-how in cultivating multilateralism, it favours a ‘soft power’ approach (as opposed to NATO’s more ‘traditional power’ style), and does not have a military presence in East Asia.
In a deadlock situation, where negotiations are difficult because of the deeply entrenched political positions of different parties, an additional actor could facilitate new discussions. Given its status as an impartial outsider, the EU can play a uniquely constructive role in the multilateral talks for denuclearising North Korea. The proposal for ‘Six plus One’ talks is therefore worth considering.
Philip Worré is Executive Director of ISIS Europe. He is an expert in European security and defence policy as well as disarmament and non-proliferation.
Intaek Han is a policy advisor to the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Associate Research Fellow at the Jeju Peace Institute.
This was first published by the Jeju Peace Institute: JPI PeaceNet No. 2012-14
The six party process is already proving to be difficult enough, how inclusion of the EU could make it easier is difficult to fathom.
The difficulty in the six party process has not been the struggle for regional hegemony between China and the US, but between North Korea and the militarily allies of the US, South Korea and Japan.
The EU could hardly be seen as a neutral party between those two difficult sides, particularly in the eyes of the North.
After what has occurred in the Arab world over the past couple of years, North Korea is unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons without some sort of security arrangement where its security is guaranteed and there is significant reduction in the US military presence in North East Asia.
Would EU dare to propose anything close to that?
Dear Mr Fung
I can’t speak for my co-author, Philip, but I feel you have not read our essay as we wrote it but rather as you imagine it.
What we try to do in our essay is to show how and why the EU’s participation in the six party talk process might be helpful.
We do not argue in our essay that security guarantee for the North was the key to the denuclearization of the North. This is your assertion, not ours, to which you ask if the EU is willing to propose a security arrangement that you have outlined.
As such, I believe it is not our responsibility to defend or explain a point that is not ours. I feel you have merely posed a rhetorical question to which you already have your own answer. I would be happy for you to share your thoughts on this answer.
Many thanks
Intaek
I agree with Lincoln’s comment. The article’s argument is not convincing. First of all, has the EU shown any genuine interest to be included in the process and if so, what were the reactions of the current members to that? What are the facts?
Further more, an additional actor could easily complicate the whole process. Bringing a new bag of interests to the table is risky and would probably fragment the negotiation process even more. I think Japan’s case, although not identical, is illustrative. Japan has been using the six party process as a tool for the resolution of the abduction issue. Some believe that this has become an obstruction to the real purpose of the talks.
For similar reasons I also believe that the current members are not enthusiastic about bringing on-board any additional help.
In the end, including the EU in six party talks is an extremely hard sell, bordering on wishful thinking.
Dear Mr Bertalanic,
Thank you for your comment. The spirit of the essay as I saw it (and I of course cannot speak for Intaek) is to find new ways of unclogging the issue and developing a framework of better understanding and cooperation while keeping an open mind.
The idea of involving the EU in the Six-Party-Talks has been mentioned in the past. However, the EU is only now developing its external capabilities, including its diplomacy.
The importance of the bilateral economic ties between the EU and each of the 5 actors in the Talks, combined with the fact that the EU is playing a leading role in trying to solve other complicated issues in other areas of the world (and not only in North Africa) show that the EU has reached a certain degree of maturity as a negotiator.
Lastly, the EU’s security interests in the region are minimal compared to the other actors, so adding the EU to the talks, especially as an observer, would not complicate matters much more than they are now. Remember, EU member states represent a wide range of opinions on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and that is the strength of the EU as an institution built on the concept of consensus, and as a negotiator. As an observer able to approach each party in the talks through the most appropriate channel, thanks to its “multidimensional” structure, the EU could play a valid role; and I do mean the European Union, not individual its EU member states or NATO.
Regards,
Philip
Dear Mr Worré,
Thank you for taking your time. With Mr Han you wrote an interesting article and given your background and experience in disarmament and nonproliferation your opinion is well accepted.
You wrote that that “the idea of involving the EU in the Six-Party-Talks has been mentioned in the past.” If it is not to much ask, could you please elaborate on that? Any pointer would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Bostjan Bertalanic
Dear Bostjan,
Thank you for your message. I’ll email you directly with additional resources.
Best,
Philip