The fourth round of the six-party talks pertaining to the North Korean nuclear crisis drags on without anything to show for a first week of frenzied negotiations. One is thus forced to grapple with the possibility that despite best intentions, this round of talks too is destined to end in a deadlock. This round did begin on a promising note with no particular timeframe to resolve the issue and the determination to draw up a written document of obligations. However, the lack of consensus over the draft of the Statement of Principles and constant haggling over concessions and provisions is wearing the patience of negotiators. The second draft proposed by China seems acceptable to all parties other than North Korea. The prospect of dissolution of talks for a week or two before resumption looms large.

In order to understand what is retarding the talks, it is imperative to understand the stance of each party. China's overtly proactive role in this round is a departure from its earlier policy of behind-the-scenes negotiations. China's new role can perhaps be understood also in terms of its attempt to position itself as a responsible global power. The resolution of this crisis is important for China because further sanctions would induce a deluge of refugees along it borders - a difficult situation for China to tackle.

Russia's role in the talks could be limited. It would not wish to jeopardize its historic ties with N Korea. Russia's inability to extend financial assistance greatly curtails its influence over N Korea. Japan is clearly threatened by N Korea's nuclear ambitions. Its tough stand is related to its concern with human rights violations and the abductions issue. North Korea has repeatedly refused to hold bilateral talks with Japan on the abductions issue and even contested Japan's participation in the talks. Although Japan has been forced to put discussions on abduction of Japanese citizens on the backburner due to pressure from other participants, this issue is very much alive in Japanese domestic politics. How Japan explains the lack of discussion on the abductions issue (which it has often claims as important as the nuclear issue) domestically remains to be seen. The abductions issue could limit Japan's participation and commitment in a lasting accord.

The S Koreans have always opposed North Korea's nuclear programme since it signifies a clear military threat. Their stance however, has been more conciliatory than either the United States or Japan as it is wary of escalating the situation. The prospect of economic and energy aid from South Korea has already been used to bring N Korea to the negotiating table. Without linking aid and eventual reunification to the nuclear issue, Seoul has little bargaining power left.

The US wants N Korea to give up its nuclear programme - military or otherwise - and rejoin the NPT. This despite the ambiguity that surrounds the North Korean nuclear programme for the existence of nuclear weapons in N Korea has not been categorically verified. In return, the US is willing to grant North Korea a guarantee of non-aggression and extend food and fuel supplies.

North Korea's bargaining power lies in its contention that it possesses nuclear weapons and is building an arsenal aimed primarily at deterring hostile moves by the US. It is willing to give up its military nuclear programme only in return of substantial economic and energy aid as well as a security guarantee in the form of a formal treaty with the United States. From demanding mutual disarmament (an idea dismissed as polemical and unrealistic by the US), North Korea has now called for a denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as a whole. What this 'nuclear-free zone' would effectively entail is a ban on testing, manufacturing, receiving, possessing, storing or deploying nuclear weapons on the peninsula. Reprocessing or enrichment of uranium would not be permitted, though nuclear energy could be utilised for peaceful purposes.

The most contentious aspect of this call for a 'nuclear-free zone' is the ban on foreign nuclear bases. US aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines could then not be permitted to dock in South Korea. This would hamper the deployment of tactical weapons by the United States in the entire region and could substantially threaten the security needs of the US and its allies. North Korean protest against perceived attempts to curtail its peaceful use of nuclear energy is the ostensible reason for the deadlock at this point. It would help to recognise the complex expectations of the various parties while trying to ascertain the causes for this deadlock. The causes may not be found in the intentions of those negotiating, but lie in the inability to understand why such basic differences in perception exist. The reasons may extend from the unwillingness of key players to compromise to the hypocrisy of the NPT regime.

This round of talks represents the last chance for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. As the talks continue and the intention to find a solution is reaffirmed, the hope in the creation of a Statement of Principles from which to move forward may find justification yet.