이번 북경 6자 회담의 대차대조표를 보면 힐의 완승과 김계관의 완패로 요약된다. 힐은 어째서 완승을 거두었는가? 회담 전에 러시아, 중국, 한국은 북한 편을 들었다. 그런데, 회담 과정에서 이 세 나라는 이상하게 생각될 정도로 미국 편을 들었다. 부시와 라이스가 늘 하던 말, “회담국들은 하나의 목소리를 내야 한다”는 목표를 힐이 만들어 낸 것이다. 6자 회담 13일간, 힐은 점심 식사도 거르면서 북한을 제외한 4개국을 접촉하여 하나의 목소리를 내도록 하는 위업을 달성했다. 5개국이 똘똘 뭉쳤다는 것은 북한이 고립됐다는 것을 의미한다. 이번 회담에서 힐은 북한을 설득한다는 것이 불가능하다는 것을 이미 파악하고, 외교의 초점을 한국, 중국, 러시아를 미국 편으로 끌어들이는 데 집중한 것이다. 이것이 바로 힐의 소리 없는 승리였던 것이다. 김계관은 어째서 실패했는가? 핵문제와는 거리가 먼 미.북 간의 평화협정, 주한미군 철수, 미국의 핵우산 포기 등 상투적인 문제를 들고 나와 초점을 흐리게 하면서 중국, 러시아, 한국의 관심을 끌지 못했다. 김계관이 이런 엉뚱한 방향으로 회담의 분위기를 흐리는 동안 힐은 착실하게 북한 편에 섰던 3개국을 미국편으로 끌어들여 “북한은 모든 핵 프로그램을 영구 폐기해야 한다”는 하나의 목소리를 내게 했다. 북한은 이번 6자회담을 자청하여 스스로의 무덤을 파고야 말았다. 이번 미국시간 10.9일 크로포드 목장에서 부시는 북핵 해결에 대해 자신감을 표현했다. “5개국은 북한이 모든 핵프로그램을 포기해야 한다는 목표에 대해 일치된 견해를 갖게 됐다. 목표가 일치하면 그 목표를 향해 매진해야 한다. 물론 군사적인 방법도 배제하지 않고 있지만 5개국이 같은 목표를 가지게 된 이상, 나는 외교적 방법으로 공동의 목표를 달성한 자신을 가지고 있다”. 이번 6자 회담을 통해 북한의 김계관은 자기편에 섰던 3개국을 미국편으로 빼앗겼고, 그래서 북핵 문제에 관한한, 북한은 고립무원의 상태가 됐다. 북한이 5개국들로부터 하나의 목소리로 압력을 받게 됐다는 사실은 북한에겐 숨 막히는 압박인 것이다. 이런 비참한 패배에 대해 김정일이 김계관을 숙청하지 않는다면 이는 이변에 속할 것이다. 김계관이 숙청당하던 아니던  3주 후에 북한은 회담에 나올 수 없을 것이다. 회담에 다시 나온다는 것은 항복의 백기를 들고 나오는 것을 의미한다.   미국의 이 소리 없는 승리, 한국정부, 한국 언론들은 아직도 이를 인식하지 못한 상태에서 국민들만 어지럽게 하고 있다. 외교적 해결의 여지를 남긴 것은 백기를 들 시간을 주겠다는 것이고, 시간표(TIME TABLE)를 정하지 않았다는 부시의 말은, 김정일이 백기냐, 전쟁이냐, 둘 중 하나를 선택하는 데에 그리 많은 시간이 걸리지 않을 것이라는 뜻으로 이해된다. 북핵 해결을 위한 시간표를 정하지 않았다는 부시의 말은 지금부터 언제든지 전쟁을 할 수 있다는 말로 들린다. 미국이 전쟁을 선택해도 러시아. 중국, 한국은 북한 편을 들 수 없도록 사실상의 약속이 돼 있는 것이다.                                         아래는 크로포드 목장, 기자회견의 북핵관련 부분 The first part of your question was about our agreement that Iran should apply for WTO. In other words, we said, fine, if you want to apply for WTO, go ahead and apply. That's -- and we did that to facilitate the EU-3 discussions with Iran. I've always believed that the -- obviously, the best way to solve any difficult issue is through diplomacy. And in this case, France, Great Britain and Germany are handling the negotiations on behalf of the rest of the world, which is those nations which are deeply concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon. Now, our policy is very clear on that, and that is that the Iranians violated the NPT agreement; we found out they violated the agreement, and, therefore, they're not to be trusted when it comes to highly-enriched uranium -- or highly-enriching uranium. And, therefore, our policy is to prevent them from having the capacity to develop enriched uranium to the point where they're able to make a nuclear weapon. Secondly -- and so, therefore, we're working with the EU-3 to hopefully convince the Iranians to abandon their pursuits of such a program. And it appears we're making some progress. So our decision was to allow them to join the WTO -- or to apply to join the WTO -- which is not ascension to the WTO, it's the right to make an application -- seemed like a reasonable decision to make in order to advance the negotiations with our European partners. Secondly, in terms of North Korea, North Korea had a weapons program that they had concealed, as you might recall, prior to 2002. As a matter of fact, it was prior to 2000 -- it was a bilateral -- so-called bilateral agreement between North Korea and the United States. And it turns out that they had violated that agreement because they were enriching uranium, contrary to the agreement. And we caught them on that. And therefore, I decided to change the policy to encourage other nations to be involved with convincing North Korea to abandon its weapons program. And that's where we are. And it's important to have China at the table, for example, saying the same thing that the United States is saying, and that is, is that if you want to be a -- if you want to be a responsible nation, get rid of your weapons programs. It's important to have Japan and South Korea and Russia saying the same thing. We've got a lot of work to do with the North Korean because he -- he tends to ignore what the other five nations are saying at times. But that doesn't mean we're going to stop, and continue to press forward to making it clear that if he expects to be treated as a responsible nation, that he needs to listen to the five nations involved. Thank you. Q Would you acknowledge that the war did not deter Iran and North Korea from continuing to pursue their program? THE PRESIDENT: North Korea had its weapons program before, as you know, as did Iran. And as I also told you, David, that we want diplomacy to work. And it's -- we want diplomacy to be given a chance to work. And that's exactly the position of the government. Hopefully it will work. I think it will. =========================================================== Q Good morning, Mr. President. This morning you reiterated diplomacy as the way to deal with North Korea. With all due respect, some people say that's precisely the wrong approach because diplomacy has produced nothing, while at the same time it has allowed North Korea to progress in its nuclear program. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q How do you -- what do you say to them? THE PRESIDENT: Well, then let's see -- if it's the wrong -- if diplomacy is the wrong approach, I guess that means military. That's how I view it -- it's either diplomacy or military. And I am for the diplomacy approach. And so, for those who say that we ought to be using our military to solve the problem, I would say that, while all options are on the table, we've got -- we've got a ways to go to solve this diplomatically -- Q How long -- THE PRESIDENT: -- well, let me -- let me finish. No, I always get asked that, how long? How long are you going to do this? How long is that going to happen? Why don't you give us a timetable? I'm not giving timetables. I am going to say that we are -- and it's very important for our partners to understand that I believe the six-party talks can and will work. We're constantly in touch with our Chinese counterparts. Sometimes people move a little slower than American society in the world. And sometimes expectations around the world are maybe different from ours. But, fortunately, we've got everybody on the same page that says that the idea of North Korea having a nuclear weapon isn't good. And by the way, that started with, as you know -- might recall, the visit I had with Jiang Zemin in Crawford. And we came out of that visit with a common declaration that said it's in our interests that North Korea not have a nuclear weapon. And that was a positive step forward because once you get a country to commit to that goal, then it makes it -- enables us to work together to achieve that goal in a peaceful way. The other thing is, is that it's clear from the other five parties there -- the other four parties in our five-party coalition dealing with the sixth party, which is North Korea -- is that people do want to solve this issue diplomatically. And so it's a -- it's a matter of continuing to send a message to Mr. Kim Jong-il that if you want to be accepted by the neighborhood and be a part of the -- of those who are viewed with respect in the world, work with us to get rid of your nuclear weapons program.