North Korea threatened Saturday to resume ballistic missile tests, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, Jan. 10).
In announcing the potential lifting of its missile test moratorium, North Korea’s ambassador to China said the isolated nation has the right to maintain “devices to save us from a nuclear attack” and that the United States has “hostile policies” (see GSN, Nov. 18, 2002).
“The development, test, deployment and export of our missiles entirely belong to our sovereignty,” Choe Jin Su said during a press conference in Beijing. “Because all agreements have been nullified by the United States’ side, we believe we cannot go along with the self-imposed missile moratorium any longer,” he added (Goodman/Pan, Washington Post, Jan. 12).
Analysts do not know if North Korea has any missiles ready to test, but observers say it is working on a Taepodong 2 missile that could reach the United States (Demick/Richter, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 12).
Choe hinted that a resumption of missile tests is contingent on U.S. actions.
“Whatever we do in the future depends on the United States,” he said. “If the United States fails to change its attitude, this issue may be complicated,” he added (Goodman/Pan, Washington Post, Jan. 12).
North Koreans in New Mexico
North Korean diplomats traveled to Santa Fe last week to meet with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and said they had been seeking dialogue with Bush administration officials for weeks, according to the Post.
Han Song Ryol, North Korea’s deputy U.N. ambassador, asked Richardson to arrange meetings with the White House to discuss the nuclear crisis. Richardson relayed the request for talks to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Post reported (Goodman/Pan, Washington Post).
“They don’t negotiate like others — quid pro quos. They have their standards, and you have to just work (with) that. It’s almost an art form to talk with them,” Richardson said. “This is almost negotiating in a bazaar atmosphere, in a totally different environment,” he added (CNN.com, Jan. 11).
“I think what now needs to happen is that the governments need to talk to each other,” Richardson said. The governor also said that his talks, which were not on behalf of the White House, “eased tensions a bit.”
During the talks, Han said “that North Korea has no intentions of building nuclear weapons,” according to Richardson. He did not say, however, if Han or his colleague Mun Jong Chol had explained why their country threatened to resume missile tests (Weisman/Eckholm, New York Times, Jan. 12).
Richardson said that he expects low-level talks at the United Nations between the two countries (Seth Mydans, New York Times, Jan. 13). U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly said, however, that the New Mexico talks were “a little bit disappointing.”
“We really didn’t hear anything from the North Koreans speaking to him that we hadn’t heard in their public pronouncements,” Kelly said (Peter Goodman, Washington Post, Jan. 13).
Fears of an Arms Race
The missile test announcement fueled fears of weapons proliferation in Northeast Asia, with Japan and South Korea developing missile programs to counter North Korea and China stepping up its development efforts to counter its eastern neighbors, the Post reported.
“The obvious picture here would be a massive arms race,” said Ryoo Kihl-jae, a North Korea expert at Kyungnam University in Seoul.
“It could be a very serious mess,” said Qi Baoliang, a specialist on Korean issues at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations. “We don’t want things to develop as they did in India and Pakistan,” he added (Goodman/Pan, Washington Post).
A North Korean diplomat in Vienna also said that his country might be able to reactivate a nuclear reactor in a matter of weeks, making spent fuel rods available for nuclear weapons sooner than expected, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Assistant Secretary Kelly is in Seoul today to meet with South Korean officials on the issue, but the flurry of North Korean announcements may be hampering a coordinated response, according to a South Korean official.
“It’s shocking how fast they are going. It’s too much, we can’t deal effectively like this,” said the official.
Analysts said that Pyongyang is negotiating with the only assets it has left.
“North Korea is a country which is literally bankrupt, which has lost the capacity to pull itself out of the economic quagmire through normal means. The nuclear card is the only card that North Korea has at its disposal,” said Lee Dong-bok, a former South Korean intelligence official (Demick/Richter, Los Angeles Times).
U.S. Energy Help Possible
Kelly said that after the nuclear issue is solved the United States might be willing to assist with North Korea’s energy problems.
“We know there are energy problems in North Korea. Once we get beyond the nuclear problems, there may be an opportunity with the United States, with private investors, or with other countries to help North Korea in the energy area,” Kelly said (Los Angeles Times, Jan. 13).
Analysts said that the statement reflects an apparent opening in a hard line U.S. stance.
“It is a concession, a change of position,” said Lee Chung-min, a North Korea expert at Yonsei University. “It’s an indication of the Bush administration really wanting to settle this diplomatically and probably under a lot of pressure to do so,” he said (Goodman, Washington Post).
Pyongyang Denies Admitting Nuclear Development
North Korea denied that it admitted a nuclear weapons development program during October talks with Kelly in Pyongyang, the New York Times reported (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2002).
“The claim that we admitted developing nuclear weapons is an invention fabricated by the United States with sinister intentions,” North Korean official newspaper Rodong Sinmun said yesterday. “If the United States evades its responsibility and challenges us, we will turn the citadel of imperialists into a sea of fire,” the newspaper added (Mydans, New York Times).
Powell, however, discounted the North Korean statement. In October, the North Koreans denied the allegations during a first day of talks and then agreed to them on the second day, Powell said (see GSN, Oct. 17, 2002).
“It took them overnight to evaluate the situation and have their principals meeting,” he said. “The next morning, they came back and essentially said to [Assistant Secretary] Jim [Kelly], ‘Yes.’ Now they dissembled a little bit since, but we had three interpreters there, especially at the time because (Korean) is a very different language — a lot of nuances — and there is no doubt in our mind that they acknowledged it, that they were agreeing to it. And that’s what Jim reported,” he added (Goodman, Washington Post).
IAEA Chief Urges Reconsideration
The International Atomic Energy Agency Friday called on North Korea to reconsider its recent decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
“I strongly urge the D.P.R.K. to reverse its decision and to seek instead a diplomatic solution,” said IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. “This is the only way to address the D.P.R.K.’s security and other concerns,” he added.
ElBaradei said the North Korean withdrawl was “a continuation of a policy of defiance and was counterproductive to ongoing efforts to achieve peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula (IAEA release, Jan. 10).”
White House Blames Clinton
Meanwhile, a senior Bush administration official blamed the crisis on the 1994 Agreed Framework, which was signed during the Clinton administration.
That agreement “frontloaded all the benefits and left the difficult things to the end,” the senior official said.
The White House has faced recent accusations that President George W. Bush spurred the North Korean crisis by including that country in his “axis of evil” along with Iraq and Iran, the Post reported.
The “idea that the Agreed Framework was going along just fine,” was incorrect, the senior official said. “We were getting to a crisis very quickly,” the official added.
North Korean officials feel as if the Bush administration began to shut off diplomatic contacts before the crisis began, the Post reported.
“They think the Bush people have closed the door on them just because Clinton had opened it,” said a person involved in the New Mexico talks (DeYoung/Reid, Washington Post, Jan. 12).
Veteran diplomatic correspondent Lee Michael Katz interviewed South Korean Ambassador Yang Sung-chul on Jan. 6 and 8 for the National Journal. The edited excerpts below reflect the ambassador’s caution over inflaming heavily armed and unpredictable neighbor North Korea.
National Journal: How do the South Korean people view the dangers of nuclear tensions with the North?
Yang: To us, it’s a life-and-death matter. Any military flare-up over North Korea having nuclear weapons is a life-and-death scenario. We are not seeing the world or conflict through the TV screens. So the U.S. and my government, as the closest allies in Asia, adopt a strong position on this. First, North Korea must dismantle its nuclear projects. Second, we try to resolve it peacefully and diplomatically, so it’s good for North Korea to come out of this policy of pushing this nuclear weapons program.
NJ: In Washington, North Korea is a secondary issue. Is it getting enough attention from the Bush administration, compared to Iraq?
Yang: This is a different issue. Ever since the Korean division in 1945, it has become a Gordian knot. As much as there is now an urgency and gravity to the problem, we have to have an understanding of the intractability of the issue. It has historical, political, economic, human, regional security, and of course, global power implications. I’m glad President Bush now says that North Korea is different from Iraq or Iran.
I read a very interesting article, comparing Jesse Helms with Strom Thurmond, in the Washington Post. Some people may just lump them as conservatives of the South, or Dixiecrats. But by examining their subtleties, you find the true meaning of how they are different. The same is true with Korea: You have to take a deep breath, looking into the complexity of the regional situations and realities of the inter-Korean situation.
NJ: North Korea has been described as an Orwellian society. Is it?
Yang: We take it for granted; it’s one of the worst extreme kinds of authoritarian Communism. How can we handle them? You didn’t know how repressive the Stalinist regime was? You did know. But during World War II, you collaborated as allies to defeat an even more urgent enemy like Hitler. We engage. Exactly the same way you engaged the former Soviet Union or China, we are engaging North Korea — not because we love them, or we ignore or underestimate their repression and human misery.
But after half a century of dealing with North Korea, we came to the conclusion engagement is the most practical formula to deal with North Korea. We have had phenomenal success for the last nearly five years.
NJ: How can that be a phenomenal success with North Korea violating agreements, and with this nuclear sword hanging over your people and U.S. troops in the region?
Yang: In humanitarian, nonsecurity areas, we have phenomenal progress. More than half a million South Koreans have visited North Korea. They came back with a strong sense of anti-Communism, because they realized what a controlled society North Korea is. The “sunshine policy” is diplomacy and dialogue based on deterrence. We’ve pursued engaging North Korea not because we trust — perhaps we mistrust — and because we have suspicions of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction.
NJ: Are you saying that if there wasn’t this “sunshine-policy” dialogue, it could be a lot worse?
Yang: Yes, because in the early 1990s, we were in a panicky situation. People were buying up things from the supermarkets. Today, it’s calm: no panic situations. North and South Koreans are still talking to each other. Of course, we never forgot the threat, but North Korea is not just a monolithic image threatening neighbors and making bombs. The starving population is another image. The economy is bankrupt.
NJ: Did the International Atomic Energy Agency make a wise decision to give North Korea a second chance to bring back inspectors, or should it have gone immediately to the U.N. Security Council?
Yang: It’s a prudent decision. We should give North Korea time and a chance to go back to the original condition. Virtually the entire world is against North Korea’s nuclear project and is asking North Korea to join the law-abiding international community.
NJ: Doesn’t North Korea’s plan to reprocess fuel rods for nuclear weapons material pose a dire threat?
Yang: Even now it’s a grave situation, because after they expelled the two IAEA inspectors, we don’t have any way to know. That’s why we have to have a creative initiative or breakthrough. Dialogue doesn’t mean yielding to their nuclear brinkmanship. Dialogue is to find out what they have in mind and, as Senator [Carl] Levin [(D-Mich.)] said, it can avoid miscalculations, misunderstanding, or misapprehension. Talk is better than no talk. Talk with substance is far better.
NJ: What do you think is the biggest potential danger from North Korea: using a nuclear weapon against South Korea, or providing nuclear weapons to terrorist groups to use elsewhere?
Yang: I’m not in a position to speculate what is more or less dangerous. There is one consensus: My government, the United States, Japan, and China and Russia, all agree that a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula is a must.
NJ: Is there a legitimate fear that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il could supply nuclear material to others?
Yang: Not only fear, but a grave concern. As President Kim [Dae-jung] has said, under no circumstances will the Republic of Korea tolerate North Korea’s nuclear program, including chemical and biological weapons. He said that when he met Kim Jong Il.
NJ: One idea mentioned by some is a pre-emptive military strike, if need be, to destroy North Korean nuclear facilities. Do you think that would be a good idea for the U.S., rather than being subject to nuclear blackmail by North Korea?
Yang: Look, this is my country. We have 48 million people in the South and 22 million people in the North.... Nobody can experiment with a certain concept.... My country and my government have the final say.
NJ: With the U.S. planning for a war with Iraq, does Kim Jong Il find now an opportune time for his saber-rattling?
Yang: That’s your interpretation. But in general, there’s a dialogue mode and a fighting mode. Fighting mode is, you just say, “You are disgusting.” Then he will be upset and will try to strike at you.
The Korean side must understand the enormous impact of 9/11, that it shook the core of the American psyche. On the other hand, America must understand we are the only country that still has the legacy of the Cold War. A Japanese ambassador or French ambassador here will devote a lot of time on cultural, normal diplomatic activities. But the majority of my time is on this Cold War issue of the last century.
NJ: North Korea just warned that international “sanctions mean a war.” Is that ominous?
Yang: It is a routine propaganda statement.
NJ: But North Korea has kicked the inspectors out and moved to restart its nuclear program.
Yang: We have to think about the consequences of a certain policy, or the reaction.
NJ: Are you saying it’s North Koreans’ reaction to America stopping fuel oil deliveries?
Yang: That’s their official excuse. That’s one contributing factor. They cannot go without [being] punished, but we could have given them some breathing space.
NJ: So you think the United States made a mistake by cutting off the fuel oil?
Yang: Any sound policy must start from self-reflection rather than self-righteousness.
NJ: After this week’s joint U.S., Korea, and Japanese meetings, the Bush administration is now willing to talk to North Korea, but only about its nuclear program. How do you view this approach?
Yang: There is progress in the sense that the United States is willing to talk to North Korea about how it will meet its obligations to the international community.
North Korea has to act visibly and verifiably to dismantle this program. Subsequent to that or simultaneously, we have to give what they’re asking for.
President Bush has assured North Korea repeatedly there is no intention of invading North Korea. But in that context, we have to find some way to talk about the issue if North Korea does dismantle its nuclear program.
NJ: Reports from South Korea suggest a letter from the United States saying it would not attack North Korea would be a way to do this.
Yang: I’m sure that’s one of the options that will be discussed.
NJ: President-Elect Roh Moo-hyun made a startling assertion, in terms of the U.S.-South Korean relationship, that South Korea shouldn’t automatically side with the United States in the dispute over North Korea. Does that pose problems?
Yang: It’s just a normal thing, isn’t it? If it’s close allies, you consult closely. That’s what we are doing today. Not automatically follow the other side. That’s unilateralism — America has a policy and then Korea is just following automatically.
NJ: Do you think the U.S. practices too much unilateralism on Korean issues?
Yang: Korea today is very different: 80 percent of the population now is post-Korean War generation. They are young, highly educated, assertive, independent, and they don’t have the old baggage of ideology. So Korea in 1950 is very different from Korea in 2003.
NJ: So you don’t necessarily take direction from Uncle Sam?
Yang: What I’m saying is, Uncle Sam must know what has changed in Korea. In a Korean saying, in 10 years, even mountains and rivers change.
NJ: After some U.S. troop incidents, they’re burning the American flag in South Korea, a nation that many American soldiers died to protect.
Yang: American forces and 22 other nations under the U.N. flag came to the rescue in 1950 in the nick of time in the face of Communist aggression. So there’s a fundamental gratitude all Korean people have. But now when you get these demonstrations, it’s starting with a specific issue: two young Korean middle-school girls run over by an armed vehicle.
NJ: These demonstrations have apparently left members of Congress very angry. How do you address that?
Yang: I have sympathy with [the members], because my president is the first one who condemns burning American flags. Both the president and president-elect urged restraint in the demonstrations. Like American hippies and yippies during the Vietnam War period, you have all kinds of people doing all kinds of ugly and stupid things. The same is true in Korea. They’re not just like North Koreans, all cowed and regimented. That’s the price you have to pay for democracy.
NJ: Do you think that North and South Korea will be unified in your lifetime?
Yang: I wish, I wish. I am 63 years old. I wish that Korea is unified before I die.
Russia’s largest nuclear research facility opened a new training center Saturday to help former Soviet nuclear weapons scientists learn software programming, according to the Moscow Times (see GSN, Jan. 9).
Moscow’s Kurchatov Institute plans to retrain about 500 former weapons scientists to work in the information technology industry, the Times reported. Optima Program — an IT company created by the institute, Kurchatovsky Tekhnopark, the Optima systems integrator and the U.S. -based CTG Software Inc. — will hire program graduates.
“What we are looking for is transition from exporting brains to exporting products and services,” Kurchatov Institute President Yevgeny Velikhov said.
The Russian software company Luxoft has used the institute to retrain former weapons scientists through the U.S. Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program since November 2001, the Times reported (see GSN, Oct. 5, 2001). The United States is providing more than $22 million for the program this year, with funding going to more than 80 projects in Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine (Larisa Naumenko, Moscow Times, Jan. 13).
Officials in Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces have said at least five ballistic missile tests have been planned for this year, ITAR-Tass reported Thursday (see GSN, Dec. 10, 2002). The Russian Defense Ministry is examining conducting the tests from silos at Russian missile bases, according to ITAR-Tass. Previous missile tests over the past 10 years have occurred at Russian space centers (ITAR-Tass, Jan. 9 in FBIS-SOV, Jan. 9).
| 
Back to top
