The US approach to the North Korean nuclear crisis is different from its approach towards Afghanistan and Iraq, which are both essentially unilateral US campaigns. In the North Korean case, the US has consistently involved other powers with a stake in Northeast Asia. The US prefers a multilateral approach here because of its inherent strategic implications. The US knows it cannot cut any deal with North Korea without the Chinese underwriting it.  South Korean, Russian and Japanese security interests are also affected by any change in the strategic balance on the Korean Peninsula; therefore their stake in any negotiated solution is very high. Hence, the US has not had any trouble putting together a multilateral initiative of all these stakeholders. The US hopes that this will silence some of the criticism regarding growing US unilateralism.

As the six nation multilateral initiative to resolve the DPRK nuclear crisis begins in Beijing, the parties are aware of the huge challenge ahead. Both the US and North Korea are entering these negotiations with hard-line positions. North Korea has demanded a non- aggression pact with the US, establishment of diplomatic relations and a guarantee that the US will not disrupt its trade with other countries. The US demands the dismantling of DPRK’s nuclear program but has refused to sign a non-aggression pact. The positive aspect is that both sides have agreed to talks within the framework of a multilateral forum. Earlier, North Korea had demanded a one-on-one dialogue with the US, but the US had refused to negotiate unless North Korea agrees to dismantle its weapons program.

Both the principal players are entering these negotiations realize that, while these talks might not yield a solution, the earlier positions were taking them closer to a conflict which neither side wanted. North Korea attracted attention to its nuclear program in October last year, not to get embroiled in a military conflict but to be able to use its nuclear program as a bargaining chip to end its diplomatic and economic isolation. Therefore, despite the high pitched rhetoric in the official DPRK media, a military solution of the crisis is not a priority with the leadership. American forces committed for a long haul in both Afghanistan and Iraq, a conflict on the Korean Peninsula is the last thing that the Bush administration could afford.

Since its declaration about reviving its uranium enrichment program, North Korea has been feeling the pressure of international interception of its ships carrying on clandestine trade in drugs and missile parts. The US initiated a multilateral policing program called the DPRK Illicit Activities Initiative to crackdown on North Korea’s trade in narcotics, counterfeit currency and money laundering which funds DPRK’s nuclear program. Under this program, in December, Spanish warships stopped a North Korean ship carrying Scud missiles to Yemen, which was later released because of a Yemeni protest.  In April, Australia seized a North Korean freighter off Brisbane on suspicion of smuggling heroin and Japan tried to shut down a large trading company involved in illicit trade with North Korea. In August this year, the Taiwan authorities boarded a North Korean freighter and found lethal chemicals that the United States claimed could be used to make chemical weapons.

Under another multilateral program called Proliferation Security Initiative, the US has proposed holding a naval exercise in early September with Australia programmed to interdicting North Korean ships engaged in clandestine trade. Britain, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain are part of this Initiative but it is not clear whether any other countries, except Australia will be part of this exercise.  This exercise is also meant to convey a tough message to DPRK about US willingness to use force to settle an issue if all else fails. The US also conducted a joint military exercise with South Korea close to the Military Demarcation Line between North and South Korea. At the same time, the two Koreas have exchanged accusations of naval violations of the sea border in the Yellow Sea. While the six-nation talks were being planned, the US kept up a sustained military pressure on North Korea. The US believes that military pressure is responsible for the DPRK’s agreement to negotiating within a multilateral framework that the US prefers.

None of the parties to this multilateral process are expecting an immediate solution to the crisis. All have cautioned against high expectations from the proposed meeting. In fact, the success or failure of these talks should not be measured by the decisions reached during the talks but by the fact that a consultative process has been put in place accessible to both sides and perceived to be fair by both sides. The desire to avoid a military conflict on the Korean peninsula binds the six nations together. This, indeed, is a strong foundation and solutions to the current crisis can be negotiated within this multilateral framework.