Washington cannot delay the resolution of the North Korean nuclear problem any more. During the presidential election campaigning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry constantly criticized that the Bush administration has focused military power on Iraq and neglected the nuclear weapons development of North Korea. The U.S. generally accepts the fact that the North has already succeeded in developing six to nine nuclear weapons. The urgent need to settle the North Korean nuclear issue and the North’s accelerated nuclear weapons development press the Bush administration to resume the six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue at the earliest.

However, the resumption of the six-county meeting depends on Pyongyang’s attitude and Washington has not retreated from its proposal of “first dismantlement, later compensation” made at the third round of the six-party talks. President Bush said he would not accept bilateral meetings with North Korea, which Kerry proposed. Therefore, the six-party talks cannot be resumed in a near future and even if they were restarted, the U.S. would possibly seek other means if the talks make no progress. This is the background to the discussion of other measures like referring the nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council, imposing economic or military sanctions or adopting a "final solution."

It is likely that along with the nuclear issue, the U.S. North Korea Human Right Act will form an axis of Washington’s policies toward Pyongyang. President Bush will carry the act into effect in January of next year and appoint a special envoy in charge of North Korean human rights issues. North Korean defector issues may take a new turn if humanitarian organizations supporting North Koreans receive up to US$24 million a year in financial aid in accordance with the act. With the money, some humanitarian groups are planning to build temporary refugee camps to accommodate North Korean defectors who stay in China.

Along with the nuclear issue, the act may trigger a conflict between Seoul and Washington as well as between Pyongyang and Washington, given that North Korea strongly opposes the act by saying the law is aimed to overthrow its regime, and many South Korean people are concerned about the hidden intention and effects of the act.

Another pending issue is the rearrangement of U.S. troops in Korea according to the U.S. Global Defense Posture Review (GPR). There is little possibility of scaling down or changing the USFK reduction plan to gradually withdraw U.S. troops by 2008. The purpose of the U.S. GPR is to make its troops be in a state of rapid forward deployment to be able to send them to war zones regardless of where they are stationed. Thus, the U.S. wants its troops in Korea to be able to be deployed anytime for missions in other regions. It also hopes Korea, as its ally, collaborates with its war on terrorism. Unless Korea acts in concert with this U.S. plan, the difference in the two countries’ view on the size and role of USFK can be disclosed anytime, shaking the foundation of their military alliance.

Korea’s Kaesong Industrial Complex Project is also a source of conflict between the two nations. The U.S. officially supports the project but in its mind, it has been concerned about funds and social infrastructure provided to Korea. It has kept its eye on the possibility that strategic materials may be taken to North Korea. The recent remark by U.S. ambassador to Korea Christopher Hill that one should not have too much expectation about the Kaesong project is a clear reflection of this U.S. view.

(Hoe Yong-beom, heo@chosun.com )