BEIJING, Jan. 14 (Xinhua) -- At the beginning of the
year 2010,the conflict between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)
on one side and the United States and South Korea on the other over the nuclear
issue on the Korean Peninsula took a new turn.
In a statement issued on Monday, the DPRK Foreign
Ministry said it is ready to discuss signing a peace treaty to replace the
Armistice Agreement with relevant states within the framework of the six-party
talks.
The DPRK indicated in the statement that only with
the signing of the peace treaty is it possible for denuclearization on the
Korean Peninsula to materialize, and the lifting of sanctions against the DPRK
and other obstacle to confidence building would eventually lead to the restart
of the six-party talks.
In response, the White house said the DPRK had to
return to the six-party talks first and take steps towards denuclearization
before discussion on the peace treaty can make real progress.
Meanwhile, South Korea's Defense Minister Kim
Tae-yong said Tuesday that progress in the DPRK's denuclearization efforts and
the resumption of the six-party talks should come first before South Korea and
the DPRK can discuss replacing an armistice with a peace treaty.
In fact, the conflict derives from U.S. insistence on
"denuclearization first" and the DPRK's adherence to "peace first." Their
different priorities are clear indications of their respective strategic
interests.
By making another gesture at the beginning of the
year, Pyongyang reiterated that its "consistent position" is to strive for the
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and contribute to peace and stability
in Northeastern Asia and the denuclearization of the world.
While attributing the setbacks of the six-party talks
to a lack of confidence among the related parties, the DPRK put forward its own
solution -- to discuss among the relevant parties of the Armistice Agreement the
signing of a peace treaty to replace it.
It also proposed to hold separate talks on
establishing peace mechanism on the Peninsula, or discuss the issue within the
framework of the six-party talks.
Despite the DPRK's emphasis on a new peace treaty to
replace the Armistice Agreement, a close look at its proposal indicates that
Pyongyang's understanding of the need to resume the six-party talks and fulfill
the Joint Statement on September 2005.
In line with the Obama administration's policy on the
Korea Peninsular issues, Washington rejected Pyongyang's new proposal.
"We've made clear, going back several months, we're
not going to pay North Korea (DPRK) for coming back to the six-party process,"
said U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley.
Crowley's remarks echoed with U.S. President Barack
Obama's commitments in June when meeting with visiting South Korean President
Lee Myung-bak.
Obama vowed to "end a cycle of allowing Pyongyang to
create a crisis and then be rewarded with incentives to back down.
Analysts said the U.S. response showed that the Obama
administration, while sticking to its current policy on issues related to the
Korean Peninsula, is not eager to create a more favorable diplomatic atmosphere
with the DPRK for the time being.
However, it does not mean the U.S. does not care
whether the DPRK would return to the six-party talks, an expert with the U.S.
think tank Cato Institute said.
Some analysts said it might well turn out to be a
feasible alternative to have simultaneous talks on denuclearization and peace
mechanism on the Peninsula.
