Interfax's Interview

Reports from Washington quoted head of the U.S. delegation at the six-party talks Christopher Hill as saying that a new framework agreement may be signed at the negotiation’s next round, which is scheduled to open in Beijing on February 8. Hill also described Pyongyang’s readiness to abandon its nuclear weapons program as “firm”. What does Russia expect from the upcoming meeting?

 A situation is emerging ahead of the talks in which parties that are least of all prone to reach any agreements are acting as the greatest optimists. I am afraid that the expectations of the U.S. and the North Korean sides might not coincide completely.
The quality and level of an understanding reached by these parties "has yet to be clarified," he said.

 The resumption of the next round of the six-sided talks is a very positive step. But there is a big question mark over its results. The negotiations may have two outcomes. Our minimum program is to clarify representatives of which countries met and what they discussed ahead of the round. We also need to clarify what consequences these meetings may entail. If the parties’ positions coincide, which we count on, it will be necessary to understand what practical results may be achieved during the upcoming round and after it. But it is our maximum program. It is clear that all problems will not be resolved at this round. But, in any case, it would be possible to lay a sound foundation for further steps. What representatives of the U.S. and North Korea said in the run-up to the round sounds promising.
 
Does it mean that there is a chance to reach some agreements during the upcoming talks?
 
 In my opinion, there is almost no chance of reaching any definite, important agreements during these negotiations. However, it may be possible to map out ways of securing them at subsequent meetings. We are going to the talks with cautious optimism. We will be ready for constructive work. It is premature to speak about definite results. The objective of the upcoming negotiations is to determine what further steps the parties can take and to clarify how far the North Korean authorities are ready to go to facilitate this process.
 What is important at the moment is to clarify a schedule for our progress, specific steps that can be taken by each party and their order. The participants in the process are now keeping a very close eye on each other. Of course, no one wants to run before the hounds.

Are you speaking about calls to mothball North Korea’s nuclear program, to lift U.S. financial sanctions against North Korea and to provide North Korea with economic assistance?

 Yes, of course. I also mean the lifting of financial sanctions. Optimism has been voiced over this aspect. The Russian delegation will arrive in Beijing before the talks. We will certainly hold meetings with other delegations. South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Chun Young-woo is to visit Moscow on Thursday. We will give detailed consideration to various aspects of the six-party process. We have already met with representatives of China and North Korea.
 
 Is it possible to say that South Korea, the U.S. ad Japan are members of one “camp”, while Russia and China belong to another “camp” within the six-party process?
 
 I would not speak about different camp. Of course, we have nothing like this. There are specific positions of the parties. Some of them have closer positions due to, for instance, allied relations or a long-time history of bilateral cooperation. In this context, we can speak about our closer cooperation with the Chinese side and closer cooperation between the U.S. and Japan. But there are no camps and dividing lines. It is counter-productive.
 Making the Korean peninsula a nuclear-free zone is our common interest and the ultimate goal of the six-party process.
 
 Have North Korea’s recent nuclear tests changed our position at the six-sided talks?

 If one side conducts missile or nuclear tests, this shows that the process of settling the problem is moving in a direction undesirable for us. North Korea has its own idea of threats to its security and methods of protection from possible actions by other countries. But these actions do not help achieve positive results within the framework of the six-party process.
 I personally believe that these tests have really complicated the situation in the region and thrown the six-party talks process back. It seems like we are wasting time and the process of the nuclearization of the peninsula is continuing.

 What will happen if Pyongyang conducts more nuclear tests?

  I believe that, in case of new tests, there will be a very negative response from the international community, and perhaps tougher measures will be taken. I don't know if our North Korean partners need this.

 Has the negotiating process stalled because of disagreements between the U.S. and North Korea, or is it a larger problem?

 Agreements between these two countries are key to making progress. Making headway opens up opportunities for this multilateral negotiating process. It is obvious that the absence of agreements between Washington and Pyongyang is obstructing the negotiating process. I would not like to assess the activities of any of the parties. However, a great deal depends on them. Let us see how they interact with each other during the upcoming round.

 Does Russia think that North Korea is standing on the threshold of developing nuclear weapons? Do we see it as a threat?
 
 I would not speak in public about the scale of such work in North Korea. However, it is obvious that that these operations are not being conducted in a way which Russia and other states and parties to the talks desire. It is in our interests that there are no nuclear arms on the Korean peninsula. Since one of countries of the peninsula has become a nuclear power, this means that our interests are endangered.

 How do you assess South Korea’s position at the talks?

 In my opinion, the position of each party meets its interests. There is no need to criticize or praise any side. South Korea is a neighbor of North Korea. I believe that easing tensions is in Seoul’s vital interests.

 The Japanese side has its own considerations on the matter as well. Tokyo sees a growing threat to its security. They are quite seriously speaking about steps that need to be taken to protect themselves from this threat. There are military-technical steps among them. It is also a very serious negative factor for the situation in the region and comes as a consequence of North Korea’s nuclear tests. I would not like this situation to deteriorate. Japan also has other complaints about North Korea, including those related to the abduction of Japanese citizens. This problem is understandable from a humanitarian and humane standpoint. But if one is governed by the idea that good neighborly relations between all neighbor-countries in the region are crucial to resolving the North Korean nuclear problem, this problem probably deserves serious consideration as well.

 We have our own position: the population of the Far East are concerned about the growing nuclear threat on their threshold.
 All these concerns need to be settled, including at the six-sided negotiating table.

 What is the task of the Russian delegation at the upcoming talks?
 
 Our task is to work with the other participants to make the six-party process more effective. "Sporadic meetings once or twice a year, without definite and deep work done in the intervals, does not particularly facilitate successful talks.

 What steps should be taken to change the situation?
 
 A roadmap or an action plan must be drawn up, and it should be negotiated by the parties. The parties involved in the six-party process must be prepared to implement this program. Only afterwards will the discussion of individual problems by experts, and decision making by the governments of the six states have sense.

 Russia at one time proposed a detailed action plan, and other countries have been proposing their opinions of comprehensive approaches to the settlement process as well. However, all these steps end up against individual parties' lack of preparedness to move forward in handling individual issues." If this obstacle is removed, a program of this kind could be discussed.

 The prospects for forming groups of experts is being discussed in the six-state context. These groups would be responsible for finding solutions to the problems of normalizing relations between North and South Korea, and between North Korea and Japan. Experts could also discuss problems of denuclearization and other general issues. The format of the groups could vary and be bilateral, trilateral or broader.

 Are there any problems between Russia and North Korea that are complicating the six-sided process?
 
 We have always had normal relations with North Korea. We may have broader opportunities to reach agreements than the other participants in the process.

 We are interested in North Korea's involvement in integration processes. I am primarily speaking about projects such as the creation of a trans-Korean railroad and energy cooperation. The debt problem between North Korea and Russia is being resolved today.

 Are we prepared to invite North Korea to join our energy projects such as a transport corridor for our pipelines?

 It is one of the possible options.

 Do we share North Korea’s optimism over the possibility of settling the problem of North Korea’s debt to Russia through political methods soon?

 Yes, we do.  A political solution may soon be found to the problem of North Korea's debt to Russia. It would be increasingly helpful if the issue of our participation in economic assistance to North Korea is brought up. The debt problem has not been settled yet. Certain legal obstacles remain.

 Experts are currently discussing this issue. The gap between the parties' positions is narrowing little by little. A moment may come when the last step can be taken. That is what a political solution is needed for.
 
 And what do you think about Afghanistan’s debt to Russia? Is it true that we can write it off?
 
 As far as Afghanistan's debt is concerned, the situation is similar. The issue has been discussed for many years. I believe that we have already come close to settling the issue. Debt relief is one of the options.

 Afghanistan is a destroyed, ruined country, which will need aid for decades to come in order to rebuild its normal political and economic infrastructure. Methods of force alone are absolutely insufficient. The Afghan people will choose to earn their living by selling drugs and problems facing the country will remain, and they may even aggravate, until the people receive an opportunity to earn their living through legal methods.
 
 Has the issue of selling a light water reactor to North Korea been closed?
 
 No, it has not been closed. North Korea has already brought up the reactor issue. It is one of the issues that needs to be clarified during the upcoming round of the six-party talks. Do North Koreans' expectations match the level of readiness of the other parties working on this problem?

 Would we be ready to revisit the issue of delivering our reactor to North Korea?

 It would be premature to discuss this issue now. We have such technical possibilities. However, it would be too bold to say today that we will deliver a reactor to Pyongyang.
 As far as I understand, North Koreans would like to have such a reactor to generate electricity, which is in extremely short supply in the country. But will the experience of third countries building such a reactor in North Korea be repeated? It is a big question.

More Interfax’s interviews...