Many people on both sides of the Pacific are waiting to see where denuclearization talks between the U.S. and North Korea will go in the early Kim Jong Eun era.

After two rounds of talks about North Korea’s Uranium Enrichment Program (UEP) did not arrive at common ground, just last month an agreement on the direction of talks was reached involving humanitarian assistance and the suspension of the UEP program.

The U.S., striving to maintain the atmosphere, reaffirmed the food aid agreement via the ‘New York channel’ the day after Kim Jong Il’s death, while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly stated that she hopes for a stable succession.

The ball, as Glyn Davis, the U.S. point man on North Korea policy, put it in December, is in North Korea’s court. Kim Jong Eun has been asked to show something positive to the international community, and to refrain from doing anything untoward. Neither has yet happened, but it is assumed that Kim will follow the foreign policy prescription penned by his father, which is itself being seen by some as cause for optimism.

Partly, this is because Kim could use some financial support to buttress the corners of his new regime. Suspending uranium enrichment and inviting in the IAEA would be one of the quickest ways of promoting that outcome.

Interestingly, North Korea did not talk about anything pertaining to denuclearization in this year’s Joint New Year’s Editorial, whereas in 2009, 10 and 11 they did speak of realizing the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Indeed, all that they did this year was mention was the withdrawal of the U.S. military from South Korea.

Choi Jin Wook, a research fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification discussed this particular aspect with Daily NK yesterday, commenting, “North Korea not mentioning denuclearization in the New Year’s editorial basically means that they do not care; however, due to the unstable atmosphere caused by Kim Jong Il’s death, North Korea will continue dialogue with the U.S. in order to get food with which to appease the people.”

“Kim Jong Eun will not aggressively try to improve relations with the U.S. or try to resume the Six-Party Talks, but rather will stay with the current momentum,” he added.

However, elements in the U.S. media interpreted the non-mentioning of denuclearization as positive. The Washington Post asserted that no criticism of the U.S. meant a higher possibility of U.S.-DPRK talks. Also, CNN interpreted North Korea’s non-mentioning of nuclear weapons programs as indicative of U.S. pressure for denuclearization in exchange for food aid.

Chosun Sinbo, the pro-DPRK publication put out by Chongryon, the organization for North Korean residents in Japan, released a similar analysis, saying that calls for U.S. withdrawal from South Korea were “setting the direction of denuclearization negotiations to be launched by Chosun and the U.S.”

Based on past history, we can assume that North Korea will not have wanted to miss the chance to establish the withdrawal of U.S. forces in South Korea as a card to be played during the next round of denuclearization talks.

However, on a practical basis, some observers say that it is simply not likely that U.S.-DPRK talks will happen any time soon. As much as it needs food support, they point out that North Korea needs to stabilize Kim Jong Eun’s system more, and so for the time being they will go into passive retreat.

Moon Soon Bo, a research fellow with the Sejong Institute, went further, saying, “North Korea’s non-mentioning of denuclearization in the New Year’s address represents an unwillingness to denuclearize and the intent to become a nuclear state. Kim Jong Eun feels the instability in his system, and we have no idea whether he will come to denuclearization talks.”

In addition, he went on, “China is in fear of North Korean instability so is expected to send large-scale support. If this occurs, North Korea would not need foreign assistance and this would lead to a lower chance of denuclearization talks in the near future.”