|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
North Korea: Pyongyang Announces “Immediate” Withdrawal From NPT North Korea will withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty tomorrow, according to U.N. Ambassador Pak Kil Yon who addressed reporters at the United Nations this morning (see GSN, Jan. 9). North Korea would no longer be bound by treaty restrictions after “[we] withdraw effectively from tomorrow,” Pak said, “immediately.” Pak’s remarks echoed an official North Korean statement issued earlier today. “The D.P.R.K. government declares an automatic and immediate effectuation of its withdrawal from the NPT,” the state-owned Korean Central News Agency said in the statement. North Korea also said that is no longer obligated to abide by its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which called for the monitoring of North Korea’s nuclear facilities, because it would no longer be party to the NPT. In it statement, North Korea listed several U.S. actions as its reasons for withdrawing from the treaty, including the labeling of North Korea as part of an “axis of evil” and its rebuke of Pyongyang’s calls for a U.S.-North Korean nonaggression pact (see GSN, Jan. 31, 2002). North Korea also linked its action to the U.S. decision to end fuel oil shipments — a provision of the 1994 Agreed Framework — that reduced the deal to “a dead document,” KCNA said (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2002). “As it has become clear once again that the U.S. persistently seeks to stifle the D.P.R.K. at any cost and the IAEA is used as a tool for executing the U.S. hostile policy towards the D.P.R.K., we can no longer remain bound to the NPT, allowing the country’s security and the dignity of our nation to be infringed upon,” KCNA said. The decision to withdraw from the treaty does not mean North Korea will begin producing nuclear weapons, KCNA said, suggesting that it is willing to work with the United States to verify it does not possess nuclear weapons. “Though we pull out of the NPT, we have no intention to produce nuclear weapons and our nuclear activities at this stage will be confined only to peaceful purposes such as the production of electricity,” KCNA said. “If the U.S. drops its hostile policy to stifle the D.P.R.K. and stops its nuclear threat to the D.P.R.K., the D.P.R.K. may prove through a separate verification between the D.P.R.K. and the U.S. that it does not make any nuclear weapon,” the news agency said. North Korea’s future use of its nuclear program, however, “will depend entirely on the attitudes of the United States,” Pak said (Mike Nartker, GSN, Jan. 10). Soon after the treaty withdrawal announcement, a South Korean television network reported that a North Korean envoy to China said Pyongyang might be willing to remain a party to the NPT if the United States resumed the fuel oil shipments (Peter Goodman, Washington Post, Jan. 10). International Reaction The United States and European and East Asian countries offered varied reactions today to the North Korean announcement. The treaty withdrawal did not surprise one senior U.S. State Department official. “This (withdrawal) is, I must say, not at all unexpected,” U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton said today at a press conference in Bangkok. “The North Koreans were not adhering to the treaty when they were still a party to it,” he added (AFX News, Jan. 10). A French official criticized North Korea’s decision, saying that it demonstrated the need for a multilateral approach to resolve the conflict. “France condemns this decision which underlines the need for continuing the bilateral, regional and multilateral efforts (to solve the crisis),” French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said. “It is a serious decision, heavy with consequences that has to be dealt with by the United Nations Security Council. This major development underscores the necessity and the urgency of international mobilization,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Jan. 10). North Korea’s decision, however, is expected to make it more difficult for the IAEA to call on the Security Council to impose economic sanctions because Pyongyang would no longer be under the treaty’s legal obligations, analysts said (Goodman, Washington Post). Pak warned today that North Korea would see any attempt by the United Nations to impose sanctions as “a declaration of war” (Nartker, GSN). Japan also joined in criticizing North Korea. “The Japanese government finds it is extremely regrettable that North Korea declared to pull itself out of the NPT today,” said Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda. “We strongly urge and demand that North Korea swiftly withdraw the declaration,” Fukuda added. Pyongyang has worsened the situation on the Korean Peninsula by its decision, South Korea said today, calling an emergency meeting of its National Security Council, according to AFP. “The North’s withdrawal from the NPT brought the situation on the Korean Peninsula from bad to worse by one step,” South Korean President Kim Dae-jung said. “But at the same time, thanks to our efforts, the United States is now moving toward dialogue with North Korea. We have to make the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. For this purpose, we have to be patient and persistent in achieving a peaceful solution,” Kim added. Russia, formerly a source of major support for North Korea, said it too was concerned about Pyongyang’s decision. “North Korea’s announcement sparked our concern. Now we are analyzing the situation, and our Foreign Ministry is in close contact with all parties involved,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said (Agence France-Presse). China, North Korea’s other chief ally in the region, echoed Russia’s concerns, according to AFX News. “We are concerned about the North Korean announcement of withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and the possible consequences that could arise from this,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said (AFX News, Jan. 10). North Korea Maintains Informal Discussions Meanwhile, a senior North Korean U.N. diplomat met yesterday with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, former U.S. energy secretary and U.N. ambassador in former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s administration, in an apparent attempt to open an informal channel for discussions between Pyongyang and Washington, according to the New York Times. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell personally approved the visit by Hang Son Ryol, the North Korean senior diplomat, to Santa Fe, New Mexico, to meet with Richardson, according to the Times. North Korean U.N. diplomats must first receive State approval before leaving New York because the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Pyongyang. North Korea, not the United States, set up yesterday’s meetings, according to the White House. State Department Asian experts said they had little expectations for the meetings, which were expected to continue today. Richardson only has the authority to restate the U.S. public position — no negotiations will be held until North Korea has ended its nuclear program, the White House said. “The only message we expect is what America’s position is, that we are ready to talk, and that we will not negotiate,” said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. “That’s the U.S. position. You should not see this as anything beyond that,” he added. Some White House officials said they were surprised at North Korea’s choice of Richardson for the meeting. While North Korea is familiar with him, Richardson has few connections in the Bush administration, the Times reported. A senior administration official described North Korea’s approach as “a bit bizarre, but perhaps more constructive than building nukes.” The White House is divided over Richardson’s involvement in the North Korean issue, with some administration officials opposing the idea, according to the Times. A White House official involved in the debate, however, said “maybe this will break something loose, and let us get out of the macho spiral where we cut off their oil, and they stoke up the nuclear facilities” (David Sanger, New York Times, Jan. 10). For further information, see:
| ||||||||||
Back to top
