Nuclear Deadlock

By+Bai+Shi

The security situation in the Korean Peninsula is perpetually unstable. In August， a landmine blast on a military demarcation line between North Korea and South Korea triggered enormous stress before ending in an agreement between the two governments.

In September， North Korea announced that it had restarted its operation of the Yongbyon nuclear facility. Pyongyang continues its nuclear program despite strict sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council following North Koreas third nuclear test in 2013.

The most recent news out of the country is refueling conversations around the world about what can and should be done to sustain peace in the region.

A provocative announcement

The Yongbyon reactor was shut down in 2009 following six-party talks between North Korea， South Korea， China， the United States， Russia and Japan. In 2009 however， North Korea announced its withdrawal from the negotiation process and vowed to resume their defunct nuclear facilities.

The reactor in Yongbyon is designed to provide weapons-grade plutonium for the states munitions program. North Koreas state news agency KCNA reported that the move to revive it will improve its nuclear weapons “in quality and quantity.”

The timing of the recent announcement did not go unnoticed by the worlds diplomats. September 19 marked the 10th anniversary of the Joint Statement of the Fourth Round of the Six-Party Talks， announced in Beijing in 2005， which was seen as a milestone of the multilateral negotiation to solve the North Korean nuclear issue.

The joint statement laid out a series of steps toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula “in a phased manner in line with the principle of commitment for commitment， action for action.” According to a report by the Arms Control Association， North Korea had committed itself to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing programs， returning to the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty， and accepting international inspections.

In return， the other parties expressed their respect for North Koreas assertion of a right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Both South Korea and the United States affirmed that they would not deploy nuclear weapons on the peninsula. Along with China， Russia， and Japan， they stated their willingness to supply North Korea with energy aid. The United States and Japan also committed themselves to working toward normalizing relations with North Korea. But 10 years later， North Korea demonstrated it has no plans to give up its nuclear weapons program. It is in fact doing quite the opposite. The reversal therefore raises critical questions in regards to the future of the peninsula： What is it that North Korea wants and needs from the international community？ What impact will the recent announcement have on the effort to resume long-suspended talks？ What will it take to get the relevant parties back to the negotiating table？

For what purpose？

Gao Haorong， senior researcher of the Korean Peninsula at the Institute of World Studies said in an interview with Xinhua News Agency that North Korea is restarting the reactor for two reasons. “First， it aims to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the ruling Workers Party on October 10. North Korea needs to display its progress in science and technology. Launching a satellite and restarting its nuclear facility are the best ways to show the governments achievement.”

“Second， the move can be regarded as North Koreas defiance of international sanctions and pressures，” Gao stated.

According to resolutions issued by the UN Security Council， North Korea is prohibited to carry out any rocket launch using ballistic missile technology. Moreover， denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula has been a common goal of the international community.

Although as early as 2013， a U.S. think tank reported satellite imagery indicated the Yongbyon nuclear facility appeared to be op- erating. North Korea did not respond to the allegation. KCNAs report on September 15 was the first official announcement of the nuclear facilitys re-launch. KCNA also reported that North Korea was ready to face U.S. hostility with “nuclear weapons any time.”

According to Gao， “North Korea sometimes acts like this in order to gain international attention.”

“The international community wont sit quietly without responding to North Koreas nuclear activities，” he added. “It might trigger another round of international sanctions.”

Nuclear reaction

South Korea has consulted with the other nations involved in the six-party talks and obvi- ously pays close attention to North Koreas nuclear activity. South Korea has since called on relevant parties to join their efforts in resolving the issue.

Hong Lei， spokesperson of Chinas Foreign Ministry， said at a press conference on September 15 that as a key coordinator in the six-party talks， China has been clear about its commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula， to maintaining peace and stability and to resolving relevant issues through dialogue and consultation.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said North Korea would face “severe consequences” if it continued with its announced decision to restart a nuclear reactor.

“Our position is clear： We will not accept a DPRK—North Korea—as a nuclear weapons state， just as we said that about Iran，” Kerry stated. “There will be severe consequences as we go forward if North Korea does not refrain from its irresponsible provocations that aggravate regional concerns， make the region less safe， and if it refuses to live up to its international obligations.”

U.S. Department of State spokesperson John Kirby amplified this message in a press briefing the next day， saying that if North Korea “stays along the current path，” it will face “increasing diplomatic isolation and economic deprivation.”

Which way out？

With the nuclear threat remaining， the need for six-party talks is often described as the clearest way to deal with the protracted conflict. Following North Koreas decision， Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on relevant parties to stick to the spirit of the six-party talks and to work toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

In his speech to an international seminar to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the joint statement， Wang stressed that“the consensus reached in the joint statement is still the best solution to the Korean nuclear issue and the right way forward for peace and stability on the Peninsula and in Northeast Asia.”

Han Xiandong， a professor at the Institute of Korean Peninsula Studies at China University of Political Science and Law told Beijing Review that “North Koreas nuclear issue is very complicated. There are a chain of problems in the Korean Peninsula.”

Han concluded， “There are three major problems affecting peace in the peninsula： North Koreas nuclear program； bilateral relations between North and South Korea； and relations between North Korea and the United States. And all of these problems can be attributed to the Korean War （1950-53）， which ended in an armistice， not a peace treaty.”

As a result， North Korea is still in state of “belligerency” with South Korea and its ally—the United States. North Korea will continue to face security pressures until a peace treaty is signed， Han said. Thus， developing nuclear weapons， in the eyes of Pyongyang， is a necessary move to safeguard its national security and in the meantime retain bargaining chips in order to dissolve the U.S. military threat. According to Han， only by ending the antagonism with South Korea and the United States， can North Korea make economic development its priority.

Wang Junsheng， a researcher of Korean Peninsula issues at the Institute of AsiaPacific Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences， told Beijing Review that the nuclear negotiation was suspended because relevant parties did not take concrete steps to improve the situation. “Major countries participating in the talks did not have good collaboration. Ultimately， North Korea did not stick to its commitment， and South Korea adopted a hardline policy，” Wang Junsheng said.

A difficult undertaking

China has been expected by its counterparts to continue to play an important role in mediating the regions nuclear dispute. Each time North Korea announces a nuclear test or satellite launch， other parties urge China to pressure its neighbor.

On this question， Wang Junsheng said that China could not do this job alone. He said other countries， especially the United States， must adopt a constructive attitude and respond to the security threat that North Korea senses. South Korea and the United States should not conduct subsequent mili- tary drills to further agitate the North Korean leaders， he argued.

North Korea has long sought direct dialogue with the United States. But the U.S. Government insists that North Koreas nuclear program involves regional security and therefore requires that other regional players are part of the conversation.

Russian Ambassador Alexander Timonin said that the U.S. Government should abort its hostile policy toward North Korea and carry out talks with Pyongyang for the establishment of diplomatic relations in the future. According to Wang Junsheng， all parties should undertake their responsibility to draw North Korea back to the negotiation table. But he admitted. “Currently， North Koreas attitude is unclear—even negative.”

Internal politics in North Korea have experienced a drastic change since Kim Jong Un rose to power in 2011. Pyongyang proclaimed itself a “nuclear state” in its revised constitution， Wang Junsheng said. Under such circumstances， it is hard to make Pyongyang remove this “achievement，” he added.

Furthermore， the turmoil in North Africa that has persisted since 2011 may also make North Korean leaders wary of working with the West， Professor Han observed. Libyas Muammar Gaddafi abandoned its nuclear program and reconciled with the West. However， Gaddafis rule was overthrown in a civil war backed by the West later in 2011. Had speculated that for any North Korean leader， this might imply that only by possessing weapons of mass destruction can the country ensure security protection—which is more valuable than an empty promise made by the United States.