While it is certainly not always the case in the delicate world of diplomacy, sometimes actions speak louder than even silence. Chief American delegate James Kelly's performance during the last 36 hours of the six-party talks in Beijing is perhaps a case in point. Having spent the last hours of the public hoopla over the conclusion of the six-party talks at the Chinese broadcast news nerve-center, CCTV, as a guest commentator, I became privy to a piece of news--and reported it to an audience of hundreds of millions across Asia--that will probably not be reported in the American press, but should be.
It was well-reported that Mr. Kelly kept his silence publicly throughout the talks; unlike the other parties, he made no comments to any of the some 600 journalists from around the world covering the event. There is certainly nothing wrong with that; in many respects, it is commendable, since most comments by diplomats during a period of negotiations are pure pablum and not having to listen to it, much less report it, is a relief to most journalists. What was not reported was that allegedly Mr. Kelly had his bags packed and sent to the airport well before that day's talks began. According to Chinese sources this reporter trusts, Kelly did not do this quietly, as a simple matter of efficiency for a busy man. He did it in such a fashion that it was an unspoken diplomatic statement to his fellow negotiators--but not so that it would fly into the radar of the press corps--something on the order of: This is crap, I'm outa here. [I must make this caveat very clear: This reporter has no first-hand knowledge of this happening--i.e., I did not witness any of it personally. I do trust my sources, however, and am reporting it as such.]
America is already woefully short on friendly diplomatic capital in much of the world due to the Bush administration's profoundly undiplomatic words, gestures and actions dating from the very beginning of his presidency. In that light, if true, the behavior of Mr. Kelly was misguided at least, and deliberately insulting at worst. Let us hope there were circumstances unknown to me and the news brain-trust at CCTV which would explain why this departure gambit was necessary. It could have a completely innocent explanation. If so, however, it was lost on the other parties--certainly the Chinese hosts--involved in attempting to resolve one of the most dangerous flashpoints in our world, nuclear proliferation in northeast Asia.
Below you will find two pretty good journalistic wrap-ups of the six-party talks, first by Reuters, and below that, Joseph Kahn's reportage of the talks in The New York Times; nowhere will you find any mention of Mr. Kelly's "baggage," that which he came with, and that which he left with:
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing closed the four-day session saying all sides had agreed to set up a working group and hold the next set of talks in Beijing before the end of June.
"Differences, even serious differences, still exist," Li said at the closing ceremony, without specifying what gaps remained
China's chief negotiator, Wang Yi, cited an "extreme lack of trust" between the U.S. and North Koreans and said further discussions were needed on the scope of both the North's proposal to freeze its nuclear programs and the U.S. demand for dismantling all atomic arms schemes.
But a senior U.S. official declared the talks, which also involved South Korea, Japan and Russia "very successful," saying all but Pyongyang had agreed to the goal of a nuclear-free North.
"The event has exceeded my expectations in a very important respect. It's been very successful in moving the agenda toward our goal of complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling (CVID) of DPRK nuclear programs," the U.S. official said. "CVID is now more on the table than ever."
In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was also upbeat despite acknowledging that "key differences remain." He said in a statement the United States welcomed the results of "very serious discussions" and cited as progress the agreements to make the talks more regular.
After the first inconclusive round in August, it took six months of intense shuttle diplomacy to organize new talks, something the United States wanted to avoid repeating. It had proposed a formal schedule for fresh negotiations and establishing groups that would meet in between the rounds.
Russia's chief delegate, Alexander Losyukov, said the talks achieved "modest" results. But he called the working groups "a reasonable base for the continuation of discussions of those problems arising from the different positions."
Analysts said, however, that Washington and Pyongyang could both dig in their heels in this U.S. presidential election year.
"North Korea does not have to strike any agreement now, ahead of the November election in the United States," said Yu Suk-ryul of Seoul's Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security. "The United States has a need to avoid collapse of the talks before the election."
There is much more to this wrap-up and analysis at Reuters.com
And there is this report and analysis from Joseph Kahn in The New York Times:
Senior Bush administration officials and Kim Kye Kwan, North Korea's top negotiator at the six-nation talks here, said that while their main differences remained unresolved, the talks had proved useful. They pledged to meet in smaller working groups soon and hold another formal session before the end of June.
"We had substantive discussions about the nuclear issue with the goal being the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," Mr. Kim said, in a rare news conference at the North Korean Embassy here. "My delegation has adopted a businesslike attitude with the intention of resolving the issue peacefully through dialogue and negotiations."
He accused the United States of maintaining a "hostile policy" and blamed it for the lack of a breakthrough. Still, his criticism was not as sharp as the message North Korea sent after sessions in April and August, when its negotiators said they planned to abandon talks and expand the nuclear program.
