Asia-Pacific, Development & Aid, Europe, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Weapons, Peace | Analysis

NORTH KOREA: ‘Back at Square One on Nuclear Issue’

Analysis by Peter Dhondt

BRUSSELS, Mar 21 2007 (IPS) - Is the Korean peninsula really heading for de-nuclearisation after last month’s surprising deal? Experts like Han Sung-Joo, former South Korean foreign minister, remain sceptical and say it is ”unlikely that the North Korean regime will ever give up its nuclear weapons”.

On Feb. 13 North Korea agreed to “shut down and seal” within 60 days its Yongbyon reactor, the most important nuclear facility in the country. In return, the agreement hammered out at the six-party talks in Beijing says that North Korea will receive 50,000 tons of fuel or economic aid of equal value. Much more fuel or economic aid will follow when North Korea permanently disables all of its nuclear facilities, capable of producing material for nuclear weapons.

The six countries engaged in the talks are the United States, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea.

The agreement was hailed as a major breakthrough after months of tension that followed North Korean missile and nuclear bomb tests last year. Now, one month after the signing of the agreement, most things seem to be going to plan. Bilateral talks between North Korea and the U.S. and with South Korea are taking place, aimed at normalisation of relations and implementation of the agreement.

Recent bilateral talks with Japan were discontinued because North Korea does not want to discuss the abduction of Japanese citizens in the 1970s and 80s. But on Mar. 19, the U.S. removed another major obstacle to the closure of the Yongbyon reactor by allowing 25 million dollars of frozen North Korean funds lying in the Banco Delta Asia in Macau to be transferred to a Bank of China account in Beijing.

But does that mean real progress? “Basically, we are back at square one. We are not in a better situation than in 1994, after the signing of the Agreed Framework “, Han argued, speaking on Monday in Brussels at a panel discussion organised by the European Policy Centre and the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.

On Oct. 21, 1994, the U.S. and North Korea signed an agreement obliging Pyongyang to freeze operation and construction of nuclear reactors suspected of being part of a covert nuclear weapons programme, in return for the building of two new reactors that could not be used to produce material for nuclear weapons. The agreement was only partially implemented and the building of the new reactors was halted.

“It has to be said that the new deal will likely freeze the production of plutonium by North Korea and that it opens the possibility of further talks, which might be the beginning of a real solution,” said Han. “But on the negative side, we now have the fact that North Korea has nuclear arms and has even tested them. They do not have to do away with them. Neither does the deal stop the enrichment of uranium. Maybe, the agreement only causes unjustified optimism, which will take away the pressure on Pyongyang. And it is possible that we are heading in the direction of an implicit recognition of the nuclear status of North Korea.”

Other experts are more optimistic. “A poor peace is better than a good war, a Russian saying goes”, said Leonid Petrov, another participant at the panel discussion in Brussels. Petrov is chair of Korean Studies at the Asia Centre of the Institut d’Etudes Politiques in Paris. “It is the best deal that we could get at the moment. We now have to maintain the positive momentum. Obviously, both North Korea and the U.S. have to keep their promises. But there is also a need for enhanced engagement, starting from a positive vision for the Korean peninsula and for East Asia. Parties have to seek common grounds with Pyongyang and have to improve communication.”

Will North Korea ever be willing to let go of its nuclear arsenal? “We will still live with the North Korean nuclear weapons for a long time,” Patrick Cronin, director of studies at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said in Brussels. “The proliferation crisis is not over, and we have to realise that we are dealing with a weak state that seems willing to trade some of the nuclear material it produces.”

Han also thought it “very unlikely” that North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons. “No compensation is big enough for that. Nuclear weapons and the nuclear programme are seen by the regime in Pyongyang as a key to survival and as the most powerful bargaining tool it has. They will slowly dole out slices of concessions in fields like freeze, inspection and reporting before actually starting to dismantle facilities or weapons – if it ever comes to that.”

For now, the deal only wants North Korea to “disable” facilities – beginning with the Yongbyon reactor. Han did not foresee any immediate problems with that. “North Korea will be playing the good boy in 2007. It is an election year in South Korea, and North Korea does not want to strengthen parties that are critical about the deal. Besides, North Korea does not have to do much to please the others, not even the U.S. If you are planning to buy any South Korean stocks, this is a good year to do so.”