By Jon Fox, Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — North Korea’s announcement that it conducted a nuclear test this week has finally forced China to take a tougher position toward its neighbor, the former U.S. National Security Council director of Asian affairs said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 11). China on Tuesday signaled a change from years of protective support of North Korea. Beijing has backed some level of sanctions in response to North Korea’s reported underground explosion, with the caveat that penalties should be narrowly focused on the regime’s nuclear weapons and missile programs. The debate at the U.N. Security Council, in Washington and in Beijing is not between a U.S. concession to Pyongyang’s demands for bilateral negotiations on one hand and a naval blockade on the other, said Michael Green, the NSC point man on North Korea until fall 2005. “Both of those extremes, I think, are very unlikely at this stage,” he said during a press briefing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The real debate at the Security Council is what kind of sanctions.” Green said he expected a Security Council resolution “that has teeth” to come this week. Yet while Monday’s reported nuclear test in North Korea has precipitated a storm of policy discussions in Washington, Green said the fiercest debates are happening in Beijing. “The Chinese, I think, have come to realize that if they don’t take some action now … they’re going to have a nuclear-armed North Korea and instability,” he said. “So I think the Chinese position is tougher than anyone expected and that they will agree to Security Council sanctions this week — including Chapter 7 — that will be quite tough.” Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter authorizes wide-ranging sanctions or possible military action to compel compliance with council resolutions. Kurt Campbell, former deputy assistant defense secretary for Asia and the Pacific, argued that those who describe the Chinese-North Korean relationship as close, both politically and ideologically, are “just flat wrong.” “I think there’s actually more tension between China and North Korea than in any other relationship North Korea has — probably even greater than the relationship with the United States,” Campbell said, speaking at the same CSIS briefing. Pyongyang believes it has presented the Chinese with a choice between a nuclear North Korea and a destabilized and collapsing North Korea, Campbell said. Given the two, regime of Kim Jong Il believes China will clearly pick the former, he said. After North Korea launched seven missiles in July, China attempted to draw the regime back into the six-party nuclear disarmament talks that have been stalled for more than a year (see GSN, Oct. 2). The Chinese as recently as Sunday also warned North Korea not to test a nuclear device. By Monday, Pyongyang announced it had detonated a device. Such disregard of Chinese diplomatic pressure and China’s failure to influence a nation widely regarded a relatively close ally is significant, Campbell said. “The fact that a small, seemingly allied country with China, North Korea, on its border, has very clearly and publicly thumbed its nose at China is no small feat, he said. “It has significant implications for Chinese power and wherewithal.” At home, Chinese officials faced attacks on their strategy for dealing with North Korea and the failed attempt to pull the regime back toward multilateral disarmament talks. Zhang Liankui, a professor at the Central Party School’s Institute for International Strategic Studies, told the Washington Post that the talks have been “a total failure.” “North Korea’s reaction is a challenge to the whole world,” Zhang said. “If peaceful means can’t stop North Korea from conducting a nuclear test, then there should be other means.” Publicly, China is expressing a willingness for restricted penalties, but behind the curtain of diplomacy Beijing might be considering unilateral actions to make its ire felt, Campbell said. “I think that over the course of the next couple of days or weeks, mysteriously, fuel shipments and pipelines might suddenly not work as well, and that there are problems delivering foodstuffs,” he said. China realizes that its image may be at stake and that there are “larger fish to fry here than simply what’s going on in North Korea.” China, Campbell said, is worried about how the United States and regional neighbors perceive its handling of this, “so they cannot afford to let little North Korea get away with this without any demerits.” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said North Korea’s announced test “will undoubtedly exert negative impact” on the relationship between the two countries, the Post reported. Beijing’s ambassador to the United Nations said “some punitive actions” would be necessary. China’s reputation “has taken a huge hit,” said CSIS fellow Derek Mitchell, a former assistant for Asian affairs in Office of the Defense Secretary. After calls to the United States to be patient with North Korea, the nuclear test has put China in an awkward position, he said. Beijing had said the status of the North Korea nuclear program was ambiguous, “and this test blew it all out of the water, Mitchell said. “There is no ambiguity.” “You have China trying to be a responsible global player, demonstrating that they have interests in upholding the international system, and if they don’t react to this, it’s a huge loss of face,” he said. Chinese officials, he said, are just as frustrated with Kim Jong Il as the United States. “They always say to Americans, ‘These guys are weird, you know; we don’t know how to deal with them,’” Mitchell said.
The U.N. Security Council yesterday continued to seek a set of sanctions acceptable to all members to punish North Korea for its reported nuclear test, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Oct. 11). A U.S. plan circulated late Wednesday would freeze North Korean assets in other nations connected to its weapons and missile programs. The proposal eliminates an earlier call to freeze nonweapons-related assets. Also removed is the proposal to have all states inspect cargo heading to or coming from North Korea to ensure that sanctions are being met. Nations would instead conduct inspections “as necessary.” Japan has also dropped its demand to keep North Korean ships out of all foreign ports and to prevent its aircraft from landing in any nation, AP reported. The new draft maintains its reference to Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which includes military action among the possible measures approved for dealing with international threats. China, which has backed limited sanctions, argues that penalties should be restricted to those allowed under Article 41 of the charter. The article authorizes economic, diplomatic and travel sanctions but not military force. Japan also hopes to set a travel ban on personnel involved in Pyongyang’s WMD programs. “Areas of disagreement” persist on the Security Council, said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. Washington hopes to see “a strong and swift response” this week, he said (Edith Lederer, Associated Press I/ABC News, Oct. 12). “We think the fact that North Korea has conducted a nuclear test does amount to a clear threat to international peace and security and warrants action under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter as well as a variety of strong measures,” Bolton said. “There is not agreement on all of those points so we’re continuing to press ahead” (Nick Wadhams, Associated Press II, Oct. 11). China today indicated seeming opposition to a travel ban and financial sanctions, instead favoring moves that would help return North Korea to the six-nation talks on its nuclear program, AP reported. “Punishment should not be the purpose” of U.N. action, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao. U.N. moves “should be conducive to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula … and the resumption of talks,” he said. “It’s necessary to express clearly to North Korea … that the international community is opposed to this nuclear test” (Alexa Olesen, Associated Press III/Yahoo!News, Oct. 12). U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan yesterday called for direct talks between Pyongyang and Washington and expressed concern over North Korea’s rhetoric since the test. “I have always argued that we should talk to parties whose behavior we want to change, whose behavior we want to influence, and from that point of view I believe that … (the) U.S. and North Korea should talk,” he said. “I would urge the North Korean authorities not to escalate the situation any further,” Annan said. “We already have an extremely difficult situation” (Wadhams, AP). Meanwhile, the international community continued to consider the test blast itself, and whether its apparent small size indicates failure or deception. It has been reported as having a force of no more than one kiloton, far less than the first-generation U.S. bombs used against Japan at the end of World War II. “If this was a nuclear explosion, it would be a case of a failed explosion,” said French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie (Jamey Keaten, Associated Press IV/phillyBurbs.com, Oct. 12). An Italian expert said studies of seismograms and other information led him to suspect the test was a non-nuclear bluff, the Corriere della Sera newspaper reported. “The scientific data have certainly not confirmed to date that it was a nuclear explosion,” said Enzo Boschi, chairman of the National Geophysics and Volcanology Institute. “Let us begin with the magnitude, meaning the size of the earthquake triggered by the underground explosion in North Korea, around four on the Richter scale,” he said. “Translated into explosive power, that is equivalent to 1,000 tons, one kiloton of TNT. … The Koreans’, if an atomic bomb it really was, was tiny indeed” (Franco Foresta Martin, Corriere della Sera/BBC Monitoring, Oct. 11). Increasing questions about the success of the test could push North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to try another one, analysts told AP. “The reaction could be exactly to carry out another explosion, to make sure it succeeds,” said Georges Le Guelte, a nuclear expert at the French Institute for International and Strategic Research (Keaten, AP). Russian President Vladimir Putin called for an “appropriate” response to the test, and for continued diplomacy, AP reported. “No more negotiations have been conducted with North Korea for a year,” he said. “I don’t want to talk about the causes, but we must not break off the process of talks” (Associated Press V/NASDAQ.com, Oct. 11). Pyongyang pledged yesterday to take “strong countermeasures” against tough sanctions planned by Japan, Reuters reported. Japanese officials said Tokyo intends to ban all imports and ships from North Korea. “We will take strong countermeasures,” said Song Il Ho, the North Korean official in charge of diplomatic normalization talks with Japan, according to Kyodo News. “The specific contents will become clear if you keep watching. We never speak empty words” (Jonathan Thatcher, Reuters/Yahoo!News, Oct. 12). North Korea is not yet able to carry out a nuclear attack against Japan, but could obtain that capability in a period of years, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday. “Generally speaking a considerable degree of technology is necessary to miniaturize an atomic bomb” for a missile,” said Japanese defense chief Fumio Kyuma. “At this moment I have not received factual information that North Korea has technology that advanced to do so.” Military analyst Tadasu Kumagai estimated it would take Pyongyang two to three years to shrink atomic weapons to the point where they could be carried by Nodong missiles (Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura, Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Oct. 11). Another threat would be that cash-strapped North Korea would seek to sell bomb technology, AP reported. There would be several drawbacks to such an effort, experts said. North Korea has no more than 132 pounds of separated plutonium, said Alexandre Mansourov, a North Korea expert at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu. “My feeling is that Kim Jong Il is not going to give away or sell something which he has in a very limited quantity,” he said. “How much can he get for it on the illegal black market? Much, much less than he could have gotten if he put it on the negotiation table” in six-party talks. There is also the risk of getting caught. “Everybody is watching closely, and if anything was found, it would be the end of the North Korean regime,” said Kim Choong-nam, a North Korea expert at the East-West Center in Honolulu (Joseph Coleman, Associated Press VI/Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 12).
Senior diplomats from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany yesterday discussed imposing sanctions against Iran, but failed to reach any decision, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 11). There is general agreement that the council must take some action against Tehran, which has refused a council demand to suspend its sensitive nuclear activities, but disagreements persist over exactly what measures should be taken, AP reported. Top negotiators from China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States met yesterday in Vienna — some attended by video connection — where the Russian and Chinese envoys sought lighter first steps than U.S. officials, according to diplomats (George Jahn, Associated Press/Newark Star-Ledger, Oct. 12). “There is broad agreement on the potential sanctions that would be included, but not yet agreement on the specific items that would be in a resolution,” U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told Agence France-Presse. “That has to be worked out.” In June, the six nations developed a set of 15 possible sanctions that could be used. The measures discussed yesterday were from that set, AFP reported. The broader group includes halting any trade of nuclear and missile technologies, freezing financial assets and banning travel for Iranian scientists, according to AFP (David Millikin, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 12). In New York, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said it was important for the Security Council to take action. “We have no alternative now (but) to head back to the Security Council in a couple of days … to begin the process of writing and then passing, we hope, a sanctions resolution that will raise the cost to the Iranians of what they are doing in the nuclear realm,” he said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. “The Iranians have to understand there has to be a price for essentially being a major international outlaw, and … next to North Korea, the greatest international outlaw in the nuclear realm today,” he added (State Department release, Oct. 11).
The United States will continue to seek multilateral diplomatic solutions to the North Korean and Iranian nuclear crises, U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday (see related GSN story, today). He said the United States unsuccessfully tried direct talks with North Korea in the past and therefore a different strategy was needed today. “Bilateral negotiations didn't work. I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work,” he told reporters at a Rose Garden press conference. “I can remember the time when it was said that the Bush administration goes it alone too often in the world, which I always thought was a bogus claim to begin with,” he said. “And now all of a sudden people are saying, the Bush administration ought to be going alone with North Korea. But it didn't work in the past is my point. The strategy did not work. I learned a lesson from that and decided that the best way to convince Kim Jong Il to change his mind on a nuclear weapons program is to have others send the same message.” “I firmly believe that with North Korea and with Iran that it is best to deal with these regimes with more than one voice,” Bush said, arguing that bilateral talks can be used against the United States. “I understand how it works. What ends up happening is, is that we say to a country such as North Korea, ‘Here's a reasonable way forward.’ They try to extract more at the negotiating table, or they've got a different objective, and then they go and say, ‘Wait a minute, the United States is being unreasonable.’ They make a threat. They say the world is about to fall apart because of the United States’ problem. And all of a sudden, we become the issue” (White House release, Oct. 11). The reported North Korean nuclear test this week has produced an unusual amount of agreement among U.N. Security Council members, opening the door for council action on both North Korea and Iran, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said yesterday. Recent talks among Security Council diplomats produced “a surprising degree of unity and strength of unity on the question of North Korea,” Burns said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. There was also recognition in the Security Council that the two nuclear crises were “tied together,” he said (State Department release, Oct. 11).
Experts said new strategies are needed to support the international nuclear nonproliferation regime against the threats posted by nations such as Iran and North Korea, the Christian Science Monitor reported today (see GSN, Oct. 12). The primary basis for the regime is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, with support from export controls devised by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, regional nuclear-free zones and nation-to-nation agreements. It has largely held up. The number of generally recognized nuclear states stands at seven — China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. U.S. intelligence reports in the 1960s estimated a far greater number. There has been no military use of a nuclear weapon since the U.S. bombs that ended World War II. “If I had said [in the 1960s], ‘Oh, come on, nobody is going to use nuclear weapons for the next 40 years,’ everybody would have thought I was out of my mind,” said Nobel Prize winner Thomas Schelling said earlier this year. However, the nuclear efforts of Iran and North Korea are the greatest threat yet to this standard, the Monitor reported. Iran is an NPT state that essentially violated the treaty by hiding nuclear activities from international inspectors. “If Iran can look us in the eyes and say, ‘We’re going ahead,’ what does that say for the system?” said George Perkovich, a nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The international community should form a Global Alliance Against Nuclear Terrorism, said Graham Allison, director of Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. “Establishment of a Global Alliance Against Nuclear Terrorism could help us overcome the psychological barriers to sustained, focused action,” he wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The group could increase controls on trade of nuclear materials and expertise, possibly through an enforcement mechanism of some type, he said. It might also allow for joint exercises on tracking nuclear terrorists. Robert Gallucci, dean of the Georgetown University Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service, argued for what he called “expanded deterrence.” That could include a U.S. program to identify the source of any fissile material, through its identifying characteristics. Washington then could indicate that it might strike against both nuclear terrorists and the nation that supplied the material for an attack (see GSN, July 28). “It may be that, by threatening unacceptable consequences, we can deter that which we cannot physically prevent,” Gallucci wrote in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Peter Grier, Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 12).
South Korean authorities arrested a businessman today for illegally selling chemicals that could be used to enrich uranium, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Oct. 2). The 45-year-old man, identified only as Lee, has been charged with exporting 15 tons of potassium bifluoride to an unspecified Middle Eastern nation. The chemicals could be used as part of a uranium enrichment program, according to AFP. “The material was imported by a company in the Middle East,” said prosecutor Lee Hun-sang. “This company is suspected of involvement in a nuclear program.” The suspect Lee was originally detained last December when he was about to export 25 tons of the chemical, but he avoided prosecution by claiming that he did not know that sales of the material were restricted, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse/Khaleej Times, Oct. 12).
Pakistan should bear no responsibility for North Korea’s reported nuclear test this week, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 26). Former top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan has been held under house arrest since acknowledging his leading role in an international nuclear smuggling network that provided uranium enrichment technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. “This (North Korean) bomb is a plutonium bomb. We do not have a plutonium bomb. That should indicate to you whether we are responsible or not,” Musharraf said at a press conference. Furthermore, Khan acted entirely on his own, without official approval or support, Musharraf said. “The government and the army [were] not involved in proliferation,” he said. “We are not a rogue state” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 11).
| 
Back to top
