Alexander Vershbow, U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, said that if North Korea makes a strategic decision to dismantle its nuclear programs, the United States would start negotiations with the country on a lasting peace regime on the Korean Peninsula before the end of 2007. Negotiations would cover issues such as formally ending the Korean War (1950-53) and reducing troops stationed along the border between North Korea and South Korea, he said. Hill also indicated that the Bush administration would hold discussions on a formal peace accord before the end of the year, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Apart from making a clear promise to abandon its nuclear programs, North Korea is more responsive than it was last year. Shortly after South Korea started to ship the heavy fuel oil, North Korea informed the United States that it had shut down the Yongbyon nuclear facility. On July 13, North Korea's military proposed holding direct talks with its U.S. counterparts and inviting United Nations representatives to attend.

The international community is also stepping up efforts to resolve the North Korea nuclear issue. The South Korean Government is reportedly considering major issues such as holding a south-north summit and a four-way summit of South Korea, North Korea, the United States and China and declaring the end of the Korean War. Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA's Director General, said recently that the international community had lost too much time and it must increase its pace. Regarding North Korea's demand for a light-water reactor, he said that this provision would not be a problem as long as the international community could verify that the country used nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

All these positive aspects are likely to materialize. The meeting of the heads of the delegations explored actions in the next phase, mainly North Korea's declaration of its nuclear programs and the disablement of the Yongbyon nuclear facility. These steps will lead to an irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear programs, a longtime goal of the United States. Against this backdrop, the six-party talks are expected to move into the fast lane.

Despite the positive signs, some problems still call for serious concern. The United States and North Korea have long been at odds over whether the latter has a uranium enrichment plan. Negotiations on this issue are vital to the next phase. But because the two countries will discuss this issue bilaterally, uncertainties will increase. This non-transparency may also cause trouble to the six-party talks.

How to share the costs of demolishing the Yongbyon nuclear facility and what kinds of and how much food and energy assistance will be offered to North Korea, and how the parties concerned should contribute to it are also troublesome questions because the parties' interests vary. Japan, previously a big assistance provider, might adopt a passive attitude because of disputes over North Korea's past abductions of Japanese citizens.

There are three possible outcomes: First, the United States may take a permissive stance toward Japan given the two countries' military alliance, which will hinder the progress of the six-party talks. Second, Japan may be forced to conform. Third, Japan may be left out of the game. This issue will be a major challenge for Japan.

In addition, whether the United States can start the process of removing the designation of North Korea, as a state-sponsor of terrorism and remove the country from its current designation under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as required by the February 13 joint document, is of pivotal importance. The progress of the six-party talks will hinge mainly on U.S. actions.

The author is an associate research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies

(The viewpoint of the article does not necessarily represent

that of Beijing Review)