Peter Hayes, Director of the Nautilus Institute and Professor of International Relations at RMIT University, writes, In short, whatever its shortcomings, the critics of the Beijing Deal who denounce it as simply the revival of the logic and scope of the old Agreed Framework have got it completely wrong. We are nowhere near a comprehensive agreement that captures the DPRK nuclear weapons program. Nor did the DPRK achieve a victory over the United States in Beijing. Rather, both sides wrestled the other …to the end.

The Beijing Deal is not the Agreed Framework The Beijing Deal is not the Agreed Framework Policy Forum Online 07-014A: February 14th, 2007 The Beijing Deal is not the Agreed Framework By Peter Hayes CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Article by Peter Hayes III. Nautilus invites your responses I. Introduction Peter Hayes, Director of the Nautilus […]

Young Whan Kihl, Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Iowa State University, Ames, writes, “The Roh Moo-hyun government ‘Peace and Prosperity Policy’ was aimed at the Northeast Asian region as a whole, but it rested on the premise that the North Korean nuclear issue will be resolved peacefully. Roh’s vision of making his country an economic hub, together with playing a ‘balancer role’ in regional dynamics, will go nowhere if North Korea continues to refuse to abandon its nuclear program.”

Jungmin Kang, Nautilus Institute Senior Associate and Science Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) at Stanford University, describes the first steps that can be taken by the DPRK to “irreversibly dismantle its plutonium production programs and move the Six Party Talks forward.” In response, he argues, the other five nations should take corresponding actions that might include, “a significant albeit partial lifting of economic sanctions imposed to North Korea by the US, energy and food assistance to North Korea by the other five countries, and legally binding security assurances to North Korea.”

Read a response to this article.