Talk:Six-party talks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea.
We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B
High
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] To do

  • Pictures - GFDL or public domain
  • SUGGESTED FORMAT OF MAIN PAGE: (anything in double brackets has already been written):-
    • Origins of Six-party Talks
    • ((Content of Six-party talks))
    • Views of the six-party talks process by different parties
      • DPRK -
      • ROK - "No alternative" [1]
      • US - "Best way forward" [2]
      • PRC - "Useful"
      • Japan -
      • Russia -
      • EU -
      • UK/Fr/Ger -
      • Other countries, incl. S. America -
      • May also add two sections - the praise and the criticism.
    • Implications / impact the six-party talks can have on the security of the region.
    • Possible future developments of this, including possibility of regional security forum. Must be esp. careful here not to violate WP:No original research.
    • ((Events during each round of the six-party talks, including objectives achieved))

(This format has been suggested by Jsw663 20:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC) )

[edit] Article namespace

  • Any talks which involve six parties are "six-party talks". "Six party talks" could refer to any diplomatic summit involving six parties. The name of the article needs to be changed to something more specific, making it clear that this is about the Korean talks. News sources almost always qualify the phrase with something like "six-party talks on Korea", "six-party talks regarding the Korean peninsula", "six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear program", etc. —Lowellian (talk) 12:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • In theory, yes, any talks involving six parties could be referred to as six party talks. However, in common news media usage, referring to "the six party talks" means these specific talks. If there are other six party talks in the future that are referred to specifically as "six party talks" then we can just create a disambiguation page. But we should use the most common usage for the article title. No one refers to the talks as the "six-party talks on Korea", "six-party talks regarding the Korean peninsula", "six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear program" regularly or consistently. —thames 13:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You mean, I presume, that in the USA media they are referred to as 6 party talks, in the UK they are generally referred to as North Korean talks & the phrase 6 party talks isn't widely used, except as a descriptive phrase. I'd agree with Lowellian that the phrase 6 party talks is too general a name for an article, it is descriptive rather than naming. I'd suggest renaming it North Korean talks or something similar. AllanHainey 14:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
        • You presume my meaning incorrectly. They are referred to as the six party talks in the U.S. media, the Chinese media, the Korean media (both north and south), and the Japanese media. I can't vouch for the Russian media. Perhaps the BBC doesn't refer to the "six party talks", but the FT does[ [1], as does The Economist [2]. —thames 17:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I will have to agree with Lowellian on this one. Any talks with six parties at the negotiating table may be called "six-party talks". This article should be renamed to North Korea nuclear talks or something like that. KNewman 13:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I would agree with you in theory--yes any talks with six parties could be referred to as six party talks. However, in current widespread common usage, the term "six party talks" refers to the six party talks concerning north korea's nuclear program. I think this is official policy, in fact: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). There are no other prominent talks known as "six party talks". If there are in the future, we can create a disambig page. Until then, this is the most common name, and it should remain in this namespace. —thames 19:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Six party talks is overwhelmingly the most common (and most straightforward) way of referring to these negotiations. It has 425,000 Google hits, the vast majority of which do refer to these negotiations. That's ten times as many as for "North Korean nuclear talks." (By the way, this discussion should be moved to the article talk page once it's done). -- Visviva 04:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
No one is denying that the North Korean talks are six-party talks. But any talks involving six parties are "six-party talks." In the current news media, most references to "six party talks" are to the North Korean talks because they are ongoing and current, just as, for instance, in the time around Hurricane Katrina, most references to "hurricane" in the news media referred to Katrina. That does not mean that the Katrina article should be at "hurricane," which is a general term that can apply to any hurricane, just as "six-party talks" is a general term that can apply to any six-party talks. —Lowellian (reply) 22:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • When there are another set of unrelated six party talks widely referred to as "the six party talks" in the media, we can move the article and create a disambig. Until then, it should stay. —thames 01:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I usually use six-party talks with a hyphen between 'six' and 'party' so as not to confuse it with other similar talks. Since I'm studying this area at the highest level possible pls ask if you have any questions. Jsw663 11:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Since this seems like a proper title name (even though it's not really so), perhaps we should use the name The Six-Party Talks since we always seem to see it refered to in that way (then do dab work if desired). Emax0 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Change article name to something more specific, currently way to vauge and general. Briaboru
  • The term "six-party talks" is overwhelmingly used by the American media, but Wikipedia has to reflect a worldview. Furthermore, the title is not only incredibly vague but also suffers from "recentism" (the phenomenon of giving undue weight to recent events). We refer to these as nothing more than "the six-party talks" now, but is that what we're going to call them next month? Next year? The article needs a title that reflects historical context. Hence, this article should be renamed. (For now, something as simple as "North Korea six-party talks" works, although I'd prefer something like "North Korea nuclear program negotiations".) --Hnsampat 15:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • See #Rename below, where this has been extensively discussed. Rwendland 16:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supply of light water reactors

This issue was known about on the 19th as recorded in the New York Times article:

"The accord finessed what had been the biggest sticking point in the latest round of talks - the light-water nuclear reactor - by leaving it to be resolved in future discussions. North Korea demanded throughout the week-long session that the international community agree to provide it with a light-water reactor before it took steps to dismantle its nuclear program."

The following day's New York Times article records that at the talks it was agreed that each country would issue "separate statements describing their understanding of the deal", so the DPRK statement 24 hours later can hardly be a surprise:

"To break the impasse, Ms. Rice came up with a compromise during meetings on Saturday afternoon with her South Korean and Japanese counterparts. Each country, she suggested, would issue separate statements describing their understanding of the deal, with a specificity that is not in the agreement itself. The South Koreans and Japanese went along with the idea, though South Korea, one official said, complained that it would "sour the atmosphere." Russia and China issued vaguer statements that left unclear the sequence of events."

I have adjusted the article to reflect this. Looks like the South Korean prediction this would "sour the atmosphere" was spot on. -- Rwendland 10:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have modified this slightly. Please read the article (I've tried to keep some of what you've written) and see what you think. To say any country's proposal would 'sour the deal' when it is simply a credible alternative (as supposed to an impossible alternative or deliberate frustration of a deal) sounds too much like opinion. Jsw663 11:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Democratic People's Republic of Korea

The United States of America is not called "The Kingdom of America", nor is Saudi Arabia called "The Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia" (at least they admit they are not a democracy). The "DPRK" is a totalitarian dictatorship, not a democratic republic. Just because the morons that run North Korea declare themselves a democracy, that does not make it so. I wish I could declare myself to be the most handsome man on the planet, but unfortunately most people have eyes and the ability to think, therefore I know it would be useless to give myself such a title.

Perhaps you don't realise that communist countries call themselves democratic PEOPLE'S republics, not democracies or republics on its own, therefore its title is still accurate. One word does make a difference, and you cannot deny a country's official name simply because you do not think it fits with their government style. After all, many people would object if we labelled the USA the Kingdom of the United States of America instead of its official name, the Federal Republic of the United States of America, right? Jsw663 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
it's wikipedia policy to use the most common english names, not "official names." WP:NC(CN) that's why north korea is at North Korea. until the policy changes (and i've been tempted to argue for a change myself), we need to be stylistically consistent. Appleby 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What if I created a republic? (Let’s say in Africa). If I decide to name my republic Penisland, would wikipedia and the United Nations be forced to recognize my republic by that name? "The gentleman from Penisland will adress the assembly."

According to the United Nations, the government of North Korea actually declares itself a democracy. It considers itself to be the purest government that is for and goververned by the ordinary people, hence the title: "The People's Democratic Republic of Korea." The reality is much different than that. It is well known now that if any person in North Korea decided to mouth opposition to Kim Jung-il he would be labeled as an enemy of the state and would be executed. The Soviet Union tried to fool people by their "USSR" title and China, to this day, tries to fool people with their "PRC" title. It is all dumb and selfish politics, which, to an extent, is practiced by nearly every nation on this planet. --Mdriver1981 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mdriver1981: It's the Democratic People's Republic (hence DPRK). According to the UN the DPRK declares itself a PEOPLE'S democracy. It is a brand of democracy, as communism is in the sense that there is representation of the people (note that this is all theoretical, but nevertheless applies here). Thus your P-land republic example is irrelevant, as is your anti-state diatribe above. Just because states are inherently selfish does not make them any less of the system of government they are claiming.

Appleby: OK, granted, but then I'm pretty sure that preposition in the first line you used is incorrect. A meeting can be COMPOSED OF 6 members, or be WITH 6 members, but cannot be OF (preposition by itself) 6 members. Jsw663 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Jsw663: I believe that the United Nations is willing to call a nation whatever name that nation desires. The U.N., unfortunetly, is not an entity that encourages democracy and honesty. It encourages peace and stability, and is willing to do just about anything to appease totalitarian dictatorships for those purposes. They let men like Mao Zedong and Kim il-Sung die natural deaths, and will recognize nations like the "DPRK" as legitimate.

Again, the reason why communist nations call themselves “Democratic People’s Republics" is to imply that they are governments for and by the ordinary people (workers); they do not use that title to insinuate to other nations that they are undemocratic. My point is this: The least we can do is simply recognize nations for what they are, not what they are in theory. There are, in my opinion, two reasons why North Korea should not be called the “DPRK”.: (1) It gives the tyrants that run the North Korean government undeserved legitimacy and pride. (2) The name gives false implications to the ignorant.--Mdriver1981 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mdriver1981: To judge another country's government by applying what others (ie citizens not belonging to that country) think is the most approriate criteria is reaching into controversial, if not dangerous, territory. How would the USA feel being called the Dictatorship of the USA by the growing number of anti-American people on this planet? The UN is respecting each country's sovereignty, hence its name and system of government as well. Although I obviously understand that most people would argue a good case for the DPRK not being very DPR at all (after all they call their own system 'juche', not strictly communism / Marxism per se), that is really more of a judgement call. Your call on Mao and Kim's natural death point seems to be more emotion than fact. After all, the UN allowed Stalin to die a fairly natural death - and the US, UK and the Allies even allied with the country during WWII they were later going to war against in the Cold War!!! As POVs are not tolerated on wiki, it's better we stick with their official, or as Appleby said before, their most-official-name-next-to-their-UN-official name. To call the DPRK not the DPRK or North Korea would be a little far-fetched. Jsw663 10:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The United Nations does not name member nations and does not get a say in renaming nations already a part of the United Nations. Call it either by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or North Korea. People refer to the "United States of America" (official name) as any number of things and it doesn't really matter. It's just a name. One could point out the irony of calling it the "United States" seeing how different some states laws are (ie gay marriage) And I am sure some people around the world do not even know the United States is made up of states or even care because it isn't important to them. A name is just a name and whatever North Korea wants to be called I am sure is the least of the United Nations' worries. People are not flocking to the Democratic People's Republic because it sounds like the happening place for "the people". If the argument is it gives a false impression then, yeah it does, so what? Just don't believe it. Greenland is a misleading name but no one is standing up at the UN to say that. But to be fair it's not its own nation and is not a United Nations member. However if it was I'm sure they could keep their name regardless of how false it is (it's not a green land at all). Ganley894 06:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"To judge another country's government by applying what others (ie citizens not belonging to that country) think is the most approriate criteria is reaching into controversial, if not dangerous, territory." I'm sorry, but we live in a world where people judge other people's governments. I believe the U.S. and the free world must implact judgment on dictatorships, and call them for what they are. North Korea is totalitarian dictatorship.

Unfortunetly, the U.N. respecting North Korea's "soverignty", means it respects the fact that North Korea butchers and enslaves it's own people on a very massive scale. The Government that runs North Korea is as worse as the Third Reich. Read the article on labor camps.--24.59.186.128 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just advocating a non-interventionist approach. Who, or what, gave the US and who they determine to be the 'free world' the right to judge every other country? I'm not defending Kim's actions but I don't see what gives the right for us to judge what goes on in the DPRK. Like I said before, would you allow and/or tolerate countries like Iran to call the US a dictatorship? Jsw663 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I would not tolerate the governments of Iran or North Korea deeming the United States a dictatorship. My reason: The United States is not a dictatorship. I know this, for I have lived here my whole twenty-four years of existance and have voted in numerous elections. As for the peoples of North kKorea and Iran... I would not be offended by their calling the U.S. a "dictatorship" because I know that they do not know any better.--24.59.186.128 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Then this comes back to the original question - who is to decide whether a country is of a government system it claims to be or not? (eg is the DPRK a DPR?) If you were the UN and you had countries calling each other all sorts of differing types of government, you would have confusion. After all, North Koreans may genuinely think that they are living in a Democratic People's Republic. If so, why should we not respect their wishes to call themselves the DPRK even if non-North Koreans do not agree? Jsw663 16:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as the people of North Korea are not allowed to have any contact with the outside world and face imprisonment in labor camps with their families and quite possibly execution if they so much as criticize their government I'd say its impossible to know what they think of their country, but given the situation its pretty clear that, if they were told what a 'democracy' or 'republic' is its certain they'd recognize they don't live in one (seeing as they'd probably be executed for knowing what a real democracy is...) --The Way 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is why Kim's stopped calling his country a communist one... when he says it's "juche" it pretty much allows for a wide interpretation. However, even if many are only told of the evils of democracy like the Soviets before 1991, that does not mean they will readily embrace democracy (like the modern Russians) as some kind of 'ideal government' or even the best form of government in existence. Jsw663 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
IMHO this is all getting OT. It shouldn't concern us here whether or not DPRK is a democractic republic or not (although anyone with any knowledge and experience should know a democractic republic is neither democractic nor a real republic by out understanding of the words). It only concerns us what to call it on this article. I believe this issue was discussed on the nuclear tests article so let's just stick with the consensus there unless there is reason to change it. That reason should have nothing to do with whether or not you think DPRK is a democractic republic IMHO. Nil Einne 22:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In this same vein, is there a reason why there is mention of the Kingdom of China? It links to a namespace that has no page under it when, it really should be Peoples Democratic Republic of China (Long Form) or just China (Accepted usage). Not only is China not a Kingdom, I have never heard it called a Kingdom either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.178.30.17 (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Pictures

I have quite a few pictures specifically for the six-party talks but since I don't know how to find out its copyright / legal status / origin, what do I do (so that this page will look more colorful?) Jsw663 00:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we generally cannot use images that are not released under a free license. Thanks for your interest, though. -- Visviva 09:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The 'foreign translations' of the 'six-party talks' at the beginning of the article

It seems some users have deemed this 'unnecessary' yet I have not read any Wikipedia guideline or policy which discourages such use. After all, the six-party talks is not a uniquely US concept or process, but is a regional concept. Unless Wikipedia in general has gone through a major reformatting of excluding non-English translations on its English Wikipedia of which I am not aware, what is the need for the box with the different flags with their names? It is not as if this isn't clear later on in the article. My suggestion: Either have the full multi-lingual translations for the six-party talks or don't bother having the box at all. What are everyone else's views? Jsw663 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

PS I am happy to be overruled by consensus (Wiki guideline I think puts this at around 60%?) or an admin, or of course willing to compromise if anyone feels strongly against my opinion. Jsw663 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The box is rather pointless, I agree, and may as well be removed entirely. But generally, we have foreign translations copiously on pages about those things - e.g we have the Korean for Republic of Korea at Republic of Korea. We don't randomly include them on articles just because. If there are stock phrases used in Russian, Korean, Chinese and Japanese for the term "six party talks" then that would be appropriate to go here, though.
By the way, I deemed. And check the list. But this doesn't get me any special rights here. People being entrusted to perform certain janitorial functions has nothing to do with a formatting issue. Morwen - Talk 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, sure, didn't notice you were an admin (I should have checked the list) - so what course of action would you suggest? Just eliminating the box? It's only a pity that such a box cannot be suitably replaced by a picture, or something. Also, do you have any recommendations on how to 'improve' this article? // To the person below, it only takes up one-quarter in width of a fraction of the length of the page, so it's really not that much. Jsw663 17:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, hang on, I've just noticed the contents of the box were, in fact, what I suggested. Doh. Are these actual stock-phrases used in the appropriate languages for these talks as invariably as 'six-party talks' is in English? Or are they just literal translations of "six-party talks". I shall ponder its formatting. Also note that the width it takes up on the screen will of course depend upon the width of your screen. It is currently coded to be 250pixels wide, no matter how wide the screen. Morwen - Talk 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, well I'm glad that you think that if they were not just literal translations that you'd agree to keep the box (although the box wasn't written/included by myself). The translations are not exactly literal... for example the Chinese translated into English would be more like, if translated literally "six sides(' opinions) meeting discussion", and the Korean would be "six party meeting discussion", and although I don't know any Japanese it seems more like "six power-countries agreement" (since their Kanji writing system is based on Chinese). The Russian one would, when translated literally, be "six-sided negotiations". Since their meaning is thus not exactly the same in all languages it would be better to have their equivalents included in the box. Hope this has helped. Jsw663 16:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the english language wikipedia, and as such, the translations are meaningless to the majority of readers (and in fact, will show up as "?" because most uses don't have the proper fonts). It is particularly overboard here as it takes up about a 1/3 of the initial page, and includes 5 translations , some with three writing systems. It really doesn't add anything useful to the article. 75.105.178.150 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a rather shortsighted view. While this wikipedia article may be in English, the event is not created or exclusively hosted by English-speaking US (technically all nations present are equally responsible), so having only the English term can have the negative consequence of confusing readers into believing that US is "leading" these talks. The number of writing systems used is completely beside the point anyway. Also, there are differences noticeable to a speaker of multiple languages. For example, the Japanese language-equivalent is actually "Six-country talks" which is more interesting if one is aware that Japanese government does not formally recognize North Korea as a country. --Revth 03:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Revth. Keep the translations. —Nightstallion (?) 10:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Revth's comments are essentially the same as mine just above his... hope the 'literal translations' of the other languages can demonstrate that it is not called (exactly) the 'six-party talks' in languages other than English. Jsw663 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd like to have literal translations of the name in other languages, as well... Anyone up to it? —Nightstallion (?) 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Read my post (16:19, 2 Nov 2006) just after Morwen's and just before 75.105.178.150's where I do give a literal translation of the six nation's 'six-party talks' equivalents. Jsw663 11:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Clearly, this name is nothing near one-to-one and so there needs to be a new one. However, I do not know what would be a proper name. —Centrx→talk • 15:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? What's wrong with the current name? It's certainly the most common name used, and it's neutral. —Nightstallion (?) 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not sufficient descriptive or specific. There have been before and will be again things that are talks between six parties. These six-party talks are specifically about North Korea and it would be better to have some description like "Six-party talks on North Korea" or "Six-party talks concerning North Korea's nuclear program"; it is often introduced in this manner because, standing alone "six-party talks" is not clear and looks to be a generic noun of some sort. Examples: Washington Post introduces it as "six-nation nuclear disarmament talks", likewise CBS News, [Globalsecurity.org introduces it as "The Six-Party Talks concerning the DPRK’s nuclear program"], [BBC introduces it as "Six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programme"], etc., etc. No one expects readers to know what "Six-party talks" means without a proper description of it. Articles belong at the the most common name, not the common abbreviation that is also found with it. For the same reason, the title should be the title that should be used in other articles when it is referred to; those articles should always properly describe what the six-party talks are. Even supposing that the reader today is familiar with the issue and the news surrounding—which is not necessarily be the case—if this is to be an encyclopedia article that will last for five or ten more years, it should be named more accurately. —Centrx→talk • 07:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be opening a discussion for consensus on such a matter rather than make a unilateral decision by one editor? Jsw663 15:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The discussion was opened a month ago; anyone was welcome to discuss it here. —Centrx→talk • 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Surely extending a discussion period when nobody has (properly) talked about it is not unreasonable? I find it objectionable to rename the six-party talks so soon. Maybe in 10 years, when there are other six-party talks, this point should be up for discussion again, but until then it is premature to rename it to say the least! It's not like you hear any officials, be they American, Chinese or Korean, talk about the "Six-party talks concerning the DPRK's nuclear program" now, is there? Jsw663 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If people want to discuss it more, that's fine, but before that discussion actions on Wikipedia cannot be stalled by no one responding. If every action on Wikipedia required a quorum, nothing would get done and it would be a tremendous waste of effort to require that a half-dozen people replied "Okay" to every single proposal; most articles don't even have 1 person actively editing them. —Centrx→talk • 00:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The new title is not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Use common names, and also note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions calls for names to be short and easy to link. We do not practice pre-emptive disambiguation on Wikipedia. -- Visviva 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Added: refer specifically to Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate." There will certainly be other six-party talks in the future, but it is relatively unlikely that they will be primarily known as "the Six Party Talks" rather than by some other name. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and also not paper; if the need to disambiguate does arise (which frankly seems unlikely) we can deal with it at that time. -- Visviva 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"Six-party talks with North Korea", etc. is more common than simply "Six-party talks". I can't find any non-specialized writing that simply states "Six-party talks", and it is not clear what exactly is referred to. This is not disambiguation, it is simply an unclear, uncommon name. —Centrx→talk • 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there any non-specialized article that does not simply state 'six-party talks' then? I'm most interested to read any such sources! Moreover, even if that did exist I would have thought that it would be in the tiny minority. Jsw663 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The only mainstream sources that refer to it simply as "six-party talks" are some news organizations in China, South Korea, and Japan, that is where it is currently a more major immediate well-known issue (this may also be related to translations). Elsewhere, it is always introduced as "six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program", etc. That is, in other countries it is ambiguous to simply have "six-party talks", and even in China and South Korea it would be ambiguous to have that in 10 years. In addition to the several sources mentioned in the above comment, we have today Voice of America ("Six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program officially open Monday..."), Reuters ("...six-party talks seeking to end North Korea's nuclear weapons programs..."), China View ("...in the six-party talks on DPRK nuclear program..."), etc. etc. —Centrx→talk • 00:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually on second thoughts, maybe Centrx's proposal should be supported because technically the Iran de-nuclearization talks are 'six-party' talks too (UNSC's P5 + Germany) (or also known as the EU3 + 3). Jsw663 02:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


But does anyone call them that? -- Visviva 07:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? —Centrx→talk • 09:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The press have used the phrase 'six-party talks' to refer usually to the DPRK nuclear program rather than the Iranian one, admittedly, but then they aren't as hung up on technicalities as an encyclopedia or professional source would (like Wiki is supposed to be). Jsw663 04:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, this isn't really a very important issue IMO, and I won't repeat my previous revert if anyone really wants to preemptively disambiguate the title. Although I will note again that linking to such a title is anything but "easy and second nature," which WP:NC tells us it should be. It's also worth noting that neither the US State Department nor the Heritage Foundation seem to think this is ambiguous. But again, I'm really not invested in this issue, and will neither oppose nor support a rename. -- Visviva 07:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't really have a strong feeling either way on the article name, but I do think that if the article is renamed "Six-party Talks on the North Korean Nuclear Program" or some such, that will help with the current phrasing of the lead. Right now, the purpose of the talks, e.i., the NK nuclear program, is not stated in the first sentence. This needs to be worked on. I'd start fixing it myself, but on such a high profile issue I wanted to elicit consensus and assistance here first. -Fsotrain09 16:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this page again, it may warrant merging into a larger article on the whole issue on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. Most of the page is a timeline and continued restatement of the participants, and other parts like the "Events between the two phases of the 5th round" section repeat things that are already in the other article or belong there. Whenever it is presented in the sources, it is always alongside the broader issue of North Korea's nuclear program. —Centrx→talk • 01:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to object to your above proposal, Centrx. The six-party talks now (5th round 2nd phase) that is ongoing has consisted not just of denuclearization, but also of financial sanctions (the US even sent US Treasury officials, headed by Daniel Glaser, to the six-party talks), the issue of abductees (DPRK-Japan issue), reunification (all parties involved), etc. The six-party talks now have become more like a Northeast Asia regional security forum, which is what it may become in the future, so proposing a merger simply with DPRK's WMDs would be belittling the status of what is likely to become something far bigger than it is at present. Jsw663 04:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. The article does not currently reflect that. —Centrx→talk • 06:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I seriously thought about writing up the section to make it clearer, but it may fall under WP:No original research. I tried to make this clear in the 6-party talks objectives section, but only the main points are highlighted there. A full-scale research would be too professional and as I'm writing up about such a topic myself, I'd rather that my writing be published first before I engage in any full-scale research (referring to sources other than my own) for Wiki. Jsw663 08:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so does anyone object to "Six-party talks on North Korea"? —Centrx→talk • 06:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Still not happy, but I can live with it. -- Visviva 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I object. Wikipedia does not practice pre-emptive disambiguation, we should use "Common name" until we hit a disambiguation problem, then probably "Common name (something to dab)", rather than pre-emptively creating a new name. I've barely noticed "Six-party talks on North Korea" used anywhere for the talks - usually it is simply "Six-party talks" (e.g. both U.S. State Department [3] and DPRK [4] use that suggesting that is the semi-official name - to be exact "Six-Party Talks"). Sometimes I see names like "Six-party talks on the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue" or "Six-Party Talks on North Korea's Nuclear Program". So I think we should stick with the current name until we hit an actual disambiguation problem. Secondly "Six-party talks on North Korea" sounds like western/U.S. POV - I'd have thought a DPRK POV english name would be something like "Six-party talks on U.S. abandonment of the Agreed Framework" or "Six-party talks on U.S. sanctions". I think we should avoid choosing/coining a one-side POV name unless it is clearly the English common name. If we are to rename, the proposer should first present a reasonable (small) survey into the common english name used. Rwendland 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This is already addressed above; please read the comments there. "Six-party talks on North Korea" or "Six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program" is the most common name everywhere outside of the foreign policy community and the Korean peninsula. —Centrx→talk • 04:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced about that. If you use http://scholar.google.com/ to search scholarly/academic literature "Six-Party Talks" alone is the overwhelmingly most popular name. e.g. MIT Press The Washington Quarterly paper Inside Multilateralism: The Six-Party Talks [5], or U.S. Army War College The Six-Party Talks, The Right Solution to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Nuclear Weapons Program [6]. So the foreign policy community and academics seem to use the same name: "Six-Party Talks" - that seems to decide it for me without very convincing evidence to the contrary being presented. Rwendland 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Centrx, it seems Rwedland's argument is a little more convincing due to the official sources he uses... and don't academic sources trump news sources? Besides, if there are any other six-party talks later we can always change the name then. I'm probably reversing my previous reversal of my opinion then by saying this. Jsw663 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The Washington Quarterly is an international affairs journal and the Strategic Studies Institute is also a foreign policy group. If you look at sources intended for a general audience, such as The New Yorker or The Economist[7], they always use "six-party talks on North Korea's bomb-making program" or suchlike explanatory verbiage. The New Yorker never even uses "six-party talks", it simply refers to them as "talks on" or "diplomatic talks with North Korea"[8]. Foreign Affairs or The Washington Quarterly are filled with foreign policy jargon; obviously they are a different sort of source than magazines however high-quality, but is there an non-IR academic journal or book that refers to the talks this way, such as an article about the philosophy of war? Even IR articles have an explicitly stated context of North Korea: the Army War College title specifically mentions DPRK, and U.S. Congressional reports, which are written by people familiar with the lingo but which must be recognizable by the average domestically inclined congressman, are titled, e.g., "Six-Way Talks Regarding Nuclear Weapons in North Korea", [9]. —Centrx→talk • 11:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


(unindent) What a remarkable number of electrons have been spilled over this issue.  :-) I wonder if those preferring a disambiguated title would be somewhat happier if the title of this page was capitalized, i.e. moved to "Six-Party Talks"? That would seem to match common usage, and have even less potential for future ambiguity. -- Visviva 10:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK Just looking at a few sources - I'm sorry if they're covered above already...

US Dept of State (official, government): [10] - just 'six-party talks' People's Daily Online (News): [11] - six-party talks "on the Korean nuclear issue"

I hear they're about to start six-party talks in the Middle East. I Googled "Six-party Talks" because I wanted to learn more about the technical aspects of using six-party talks in negotiations, and not about these specific six-party talks in North Korea. Please change this name to "North Korean Six-Party Talks" and let's start a new page focused specifically on the technical aspects of six-party talks in general. Thanks. 69.111.183.253 07:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Jeannette

[edit] bilateral vs. multilateral

I'd like to see something about the wrangling over whether NK and US will hold direct talks (something Pyongyang keeps insisting on) or engage in multilateral talks (Bush's position). --Uncle Ed 14:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Multilateral talks only take place after bilateral issues are sorted out. However, some issues will never become multilateral in the foreseeable future, such as the financial issue, which is strictly a US-DPRK one. To see more about this 'wrangling' will require in-depth research - something I personally don't have the time for, but will welcome anyone else to do so. Jsw663 18:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

There seems to be minor inconsistency issues with the romanization of names in this article, namely, Kim Gye-gwan and Kim Kye-gwan--even though both seem valid romanizations, they don't match. I'm not sure if these two are different people though (I don't know anything about Korean), so I've left it as is. 128.189.249.138 23:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it is the same person - he's stayed pretty much throughout these talks. I'm not sure which Romanization is the most appropriate though because I am not familiar with Wikipedia's Korean naming conventions. Jsw663 12:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 6th round

The 6th round talk is apparently over as North Korean delgates left Beijing. [12] (in Japanese) I'm not updating yet as it is possible that they could return. Revth 08:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)--

[edit] NPT membership and right to use nuclear power

Regarding the right to use nuclear power, I have reverted the addition of:

(even though North Korea has withdrawn from that treaty, once they rejoin they will be granted the same rights as other NPT members per Article X:1 of the NPT)

as the NPT does not grant such a right, but simply recognises the pre-existing rights of states to do as they will in their own territory (subject to previous treaties the state is a ratified party to). The view that the NPT grants such a right in the edit summary is mistaken:

2nd phase (13 Sep – 19 Sep 2005) - India is not part of the NPT. No international law explicitly gives the state's right to have nuc. energy except the NPT. India developed nukes in violation

If that view is correct than the development of nuclear power prior to the NPT, and setting up the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1957 promoting nuclear power, would have been unlawful. And India, Pakistan, Isreal's current membership of the IAEA would make no sense. [13] Rwendland 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We are talking of the times after the NPT was established. After the treaty's establishment, possessing nuclear power outside the confines of the NPT is not recognized under international law. The treaty was written so that non-P5 states were allowed to pursue civilian nuclear energy projects in exchange for pledging never to develop nuclear weapons. The D3 (India, Pak, Isr) never signed up to the NPT, and are not bound by the same rules. That doesn't make their possession of nukes lawful. After all, since the NPT's creation, no state can give itself the right of nuclear power UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. I'm just saying it's not legal; I'm not saying they cannot do it. There's a difference. Jsw663 16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid you are mistaken. e.g. to quote the D-G of the IAEA "India has never joined the NPT; it has therefore not violated any legal commitment" [14] - he writes about nuclear weapons, but the same is true about nuclear power. Rwendland 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The Director-General of the IAEA is exactly right there! India pursued nuclear weapons outside of the NPT so it hadn't breached any legal commitment towards the NPT simply by not being part of it. But pursuing civilian nuclear power outside the NPT is not legally approved, just like pursuing nuclear weapons outside the NPT. It is thus in breach of international law. Please quote me an international law that explicitly says that states have a right to pursue civilian nuclear power outside of the NPT, please.
Besides, I am specializing in this area and the chances that I am incorrect, despite having also discussed this at length with government officials and specialists in this area, would be very slim. But in the spirit of openness I am still curious as to why you think your stance is so correct... as I am not aware of any legal treaty or international law, statute or norm that explicitly says that states may pursue civilian nuclear power OUTSIDE of the NPT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsw663 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
States can do as they will in their own territory until they enter a treaty limiting their actions, so do not need a "legal treaty" to permit nuclear power (just as India could legally build a nuclear weapon - India has of cource nuclear power stations as well). The onus is on you to show a treaty which limits them. If nuclear power outside the NPT is unlawful, how do you explain the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act? Do you argue the U.S. is co-operating with India's unlawful nuclear power program? Rwendland 10:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to have digested the difference between a legal right and 'might is right'. Just like citizens have a state don't HAVE to obey national laws, states don't HAVE to obey international laws. The difference is in the enforcement. Whilst a citizen will be punished for not obeying national laws, states are not properly punished for disobeying international laws. This is why in the former case citizens are deterred from breaking the law, whereas in the latter situation, they see no reason why they MUST adhere to the law when they don't want to.
The treaty that limits them is the NPT. International law again is different from domestic law in that states have the choice whether to sign up to it or not; citizens don't have a choice whether they want to obey national laws. And to answer your question whether pursuing nuclear power (esp military) outside the NPT is unlawful, yes it is. The US-India legal act takes advantage of a loophole in the NPT, but in some cases can be considered an outright breach of the NPT. If a state pursues a civilian nuclear program and not a military one voluntarily outside the NPT, then why not join the NPT, since they are fulfillig its clauses anyway? But India wanted to go further and pursue nuclear weapons, which is unlawful under the NPT for India. The loophole I mentioned earlier is that the P5 NPT states (UK US France Russia China) are forbidden by the NPT to sell military nuclear material / anything that would help it towards nuclear weapons to any non-P5 state.
So you may ask, what makes the US-India deal both legal and illegal? It's in the dual use of the majority of nuclear programs - to explain this simply, it means a lot of the material used to build a civilian nuclear plant is the same as that used to build a nuclear weapons plant. So whilst Iran currently hasn't strayed outside the NPT in the sense that they are pursuing a civilian nuclear program (but HAVE breached the NPT in the sense they have refined uranium/plutonium past the civilian limit). The US-India pact in theory is only helping out in a civilian nuclear program to a non-NPT state (in itself legal only if India signs up to the NPT, but it hasn't) but due to the dual use nature of most of what it ships, is it illegal? E.g. If you ship something that can be used in both a civilian nuclear energy reactor AND a military nuclear weapons-grade reactor, is it illegal or not? But if this deal is legal, what makes the Russia-Iran one (currently) 'wrong' whereas the US-India one is 'right' to the US??? If all these deals are legal, then what incentive is there for non-P5 states to sign up to the NPT in the first place? There are also other arguments but this should give you a flavor of why the US-India deal is 'controversial' under the NPT.
If you want to read more, I highly recommend a textbook that is used currently by just about every UK university teaching International Relations - Baylis and Smith (various editions, try the most recent one), Introduction to International Relations - and read the chapter on Nuclear stuff (past the halfway point of the book, chapter written by Darryl Howlett). I am not here to argue on a matter of opinion but on a matter of fact. I am not aware of your background or how you gained your knowledge of the NPT, but the complete absence of any articles, laws, norms, statutes or any authoritative source(s) in your arguments makes me wonder. Remember there is a difference between a 'right' that a state gives itself and a 'right' that a LEGAL DOCUMENT, e.g. treaty, gives it. And although Wiki has recently had problems with so-called experts on various subjects, all I can say is, although I know I'm an expert on the subject but if you still don't believe me, read the existing textbooks out there by reputable academics, experts (including international lawyers) and UN personnel. Read the current NPT treaty (the full document is available on the UN's web). So, before you revert again without fully understanding this issue, please, read existing textbooks out there and quote them to boost your arguments. Jsw663 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition to what I said above, this is for Rwedland + NPguy (who just registered) -
Please see the full NPT text on the UN's website here: http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html If you want to dispute the DPRK's right to nuclear energy under a different international law, please state which law or treaty grants this. As far as I'm aware, as the DPRK withdrew from the NPT, they have no such right under the NPT. Remember the key here is the degree of enrichment of uranium - enrich it to several percent, and it's for civilian energy use; enriching it more than that becomes suspicious. Enrichment above 90% will unquestionably have military-only uses. Jsw663 07:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
jsw663 please do some research on international law before editing the article again.
If the NPT "granted" the right to nuclear energy, the text would say something like "States parties to the Treaty have a right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy." Instead, it says "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty." Thus, the NPT restricts only military uses of nuclear energy and does not affect the rights of states parties to peaceful nuclear activities, so long as they act in conformity with the nonproliferation provisions of the Treaty.
Article III.2 of the NPT allows nuclear exports by NPT parties to countries outside the NPT, provided they are subject to IAEA safeguards. If states outside the NPT had no right to nuclear energy, Article III.2 would make no sense.
The basic principle of international law is sovereign autonomy. No state undertakes any obligation or forgoes any right unless it agrees to do so. All states are bound by the UN Charter (save the Vatican, which has not joined the UN). Similarly, only countries that have ratified or acceded to the NPT are bound by its provisions. India is not in violation of the NPT for operating a peaceful nuclear program or a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, North Korea's right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy existed before it joined the NPT and after its declared withdrawal.
There is a real argument about whether a state that withdraws from a treaty remains bound by any of its provisions. If it benefited by being a party, shouldn't it sacrifice those benefits if it withdraws? And there is a persuasive argument that a state that violates a treaty -- as North Korea violated the NPT -- should not be able to escape the consequences of its violation merely by withdrawing from the Treaty.
  • The legal arguments are too complicated to try to encapsulate in a reversion war on this page. But it is simply incorrect to assert that any state's right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy derives from the NPT. NPguy 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
1. You accuse me of not doing any 'research on international law' yet you still have yet to quote the exact UN Charter. Your last paragraph of trying to avoid legal arguments makes me doubly suspicious, because this issue can now only cleared up by that. Sovereign autonomy does not grant the license for states to do anything they want - it merely means their sovereignty will be respected up to a limit. Otherwise, what's the point of having a UNSC in the first place? So that they can take no decisions due to over-respecting every state's sovereignty? So please, bring on the legal arguments. I'll keep an open mind to be 'taught' so long as you have a quality argument to make based on international law. Feel free to quote some cases (after all, I didn't study law for nothing). Otherwise, your argument is extremely weak and will simply not remain valid / hold water.
2. NPT - tell me what was the purpose of the treaty? To ensure nuclear non-proliferation (obvious as hell!). So what could persuade states that had no nuclear weapons not to proliferate then? By giving them, in exchange, the right to civilian nuclear energy plants and pursue 'peaceful' nuclear energy projects. However, this was a conditional exchange. Non-P5 states HAD to sign up to the treaty pledging never to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for being able to ask for civilian nuclear energy help whenever they felt they needed it.
What you have done is to reinterpret the phrase "inalienable right of all Parties to the Treaty". It must be taken as a whole here, without stressing one part over the other (as not one part of it was stressed in the actual Treaty itself). It clearly says that only Parties to the Treaty have such an inalienable right. It never once said that all States have the inalienable right. Otherwise, if your interpretation was true, it would simply say "inalienable right of States to develop....". It doesn't say that though. It says "inalienable right of all PARTIES TO THE TREATY to develop...". I hope this point is clear enough!!!
What states like Iran and the DPRK have done is precisely what you have tried to do, to reinterpret and twist international law out of context for their own benefit. There is no such 'inalienable right' of all states, including non-NPT parties, to develop peaceful nuclear energy. Why? Quite simply because if that was the case, then they would gain nothing by signing on to the NPT (if so, why did over 180 states bother signing and ratifying it?). The purpose of the NPT is to keep states' actions in the field of nuclear non-proliferation bound. However, due to loopholes in the interpretation of 'peaceful purposes' Iran and the DPRK (and India in a sense, but they have never been party to the NPT so are not bound by its provisions) (the US is though) now have been able to exploit this, whilst gaining the benefits that would otherwise be given to fully compliant members of the Treaty. I'll save the discussion on the India deal and Iran's situation for the actual NPT discussion page. After all, this should just be about the DPRK's nuclear program.
So to conclude, your misunderstanding is about which part of the NPT provision Iran and the DPRK was exploiting, as well as the context under which Art IV:1 must be interpreted. And for clarification, we only need look as far as the purpose behind the NPT, as well as the effects of what you are proposing. Such self-given re-interpretations of the international law are inherently dangerous. And please, quote the actual UN law and precedent (case) to support your argument, because after so many years in the field myself, I highly doubt I'd be wrong. But nevertheless, I am still open to other opinions. Jsw663 07:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've replied to some of this on the NPT page. Let me just add a few points here, prefacing those remarks by noting that I am a subject matter expert on nuclear nonproliferation, but not on international law. However, I work with experts on international law and I am reflecting what I have learned from them.
  • Treaties are only binding on their parties. In general, they do not affect non-parties. This is embodied in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: "A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent." [3]
A slight caveat to the previous point: "International agreements create law for the parties of the agreement. They may also lead to the creation of customary international law when they are intended for adherence generally and are in fact widely accepted. Customary law and law made by by international agreement have equal authority as international law." [4] The NPT was intended for adherence generally and is widely accepted, so it may be considered to contribute to international law. However, the NPT itself (Article III.2) allows nuclear cooperation with non-parties, so it cannot be read to deny non-parties a right to nuclear programs.
  • I fully agree with the sentiment of your remarks that countries such as North Korea and Iran that violate the the NPT should suffer serious consequence in terms of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. First, where they are bound by the NPT, their peaceful programs must be in conformity with Articles I and II. This means that they cannot use purportedly peaceful programs (the Yongbyon 5 MWe reactor in North Korea; the Natanz enrichment facilities in Iran) for production of nuclear weapons. Second, neither country can expect to benefit from nuclear cooperation with others. Finally, both countries are subject to the decisions of the UN Security Council. This is significant international leverage, but it falls short of the conclusion that countries that wiithdraw from or violate the NPT sacrifice all rights to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. NPguy 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I've answered the biggest misunderstanding between us about 'granted' rights, etc., so I have no need to repeat this here. Basically, non-NPT states do not have the same NPT rights RECOGNIZED under international LAW (or to the same extent). I go into more detail on the NPT talk page. That's all. After all, I do agree with what you said above here as well. Jsw663 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banco Delta Asia

For what it's worth, I found the description by Baiweilin to be a more concise and objective discussion of the situation with BDA funds than the one by Jsw663, which is filled with POV and ROK press reporting, which is not known for reliability. I'm not going to get into the middle of a reversion war, but I would like to see something closer to the Baiweilin text. NPguy 01:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, considering your income depends on that view. But I do agree that more perspectives are required for a more balanced outlook to the one I very briefly wrote about. Jsw663 12:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update needed (Oct. '07)

An editor more knowledgeable about the subject matter than I am should update this article with the news from yesterday that North Korea has agreed to close down the Yongbyon reactor and give full details of its nuclear programs to international inspectors. I'd try, but I'm afraid that I might misrepresent the careful diplomatic language used in the agreement. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to write a summary, but some key references are a fact sheet at the State Department web site [[15]] and the text of the agreed joint statement [[16]]. NPguy 02:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I hope someone more knowledgeable about this topic matter can take over the updating duties for this page. So far quite a few have been very helpful, judging by the article's history page! Jsw663 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)