Briefings and Information
Briefing on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
(DPRK – North Korea)
July 2003
Click here for
pdf version
Background
Ever since the Korean wars of the 1950s, the relationship between the DPRK
and the US has been difficult. Each side has been deeply suspicious of the
other. However, talks have taken place over the years and agreements have
been reached.
When the US withdrew its nuclear weapons from South Korea in 1991, the
DPRK agreed to fulfil its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) that it had signed in 1985. These included a safeguard agreement
with the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), which was finalised
early in 1992. However, there were problems over the inspection of some
nuclear facilities (including some spent nuclear fuel being removed without
IAEA supervision as required under the NPT) and in June 1994, the DPRK
announced that it would not co-operate with IAEA inspectors.
Talks between the DPRK and the US led to the 1994 Agreed Framework. This
meant that the DPRK agreed to bring a halt to its nuclear programme and
that the US would help develop a nuclear power station to be completed
by 2003. In the meantime, the US would supply around 500,000 tons of heavy
fuel oil as an alternative energy source. The Agreed Framework also meant
that the DPRK had to fulfil all its obligations under the NPT and that
the US would not target the DPRK with nuclear weapons.
The roots of the current situation
During the Clinton administration discussions continued and proposals
were put forward. That all changed when George W Bush became President.
As well as calling for increased inspections and complaining about the
DPRK’s missile programme, the Bush Administration did nothing about
providing the nuclear reactor. It did, however, insist on the DPRK adhering
to the Agreed Framework. The DPRK made it clear that if the US did not
supply alternative energy sources then it would have to re-start its nuclear
power programme and ignore the Agreed Framework.
The DPRK was, of course, one of the countries named in Bush’s ‘Axis
of Evil’ speech in January 2002. It was also one of the countries
named as targets in the Nuclear Posture Review. Towards the end of 2002
the DPRK revealed that it had produced highly enriched uranium and that
it had the right to develop nuclear weapons in response to threats from
the US. After that announcement, the US suspended all of its obligations
under the Agreed Framework until the DPRK’s nuclear programme was
halted. The war of words continued with no attempt to set up any talks
to try to solve the problems.
In January 2003, the DPRK threw out the IAEA inspectors and announced
its withdrawal from the NPT. It then test launched missiles and talked
about pre-emptive strikes. The world was distracted from what was happening
with the DPRK by the war on Iraq - although many did wonder why the response
to the two countries was so different. Later in 2003, the US along with
Japan and Australia looked at changing international law so that they
could stop DPRK ships suspected of carrying missile parts. The DPRK responded
by threatening all out war that would include Japan.
Consequences
The tension in the whole region is escalating almost daily. The DPRK says
that it has reprocessed enough spent fuel rods to produce about six nuclear
weapons. Although this has not been verified it should be taken seriously.
Reports from the US claim that there is a draft plan for a possible war
with the DPRK. Some of the proposed scenarios include surveillance flights
close to DPRK airspace forcing aircraft to scramble and use up valuable,
scarce fuel, and conducting a surprise large military exercise designed
to make people head for bunkers and, again, use up valuable stores of
food and water.
China and Russia are urging talks to begin and, along with many other
countries in the region, are pushing for a nuclear weapon-free Korean
Peninsula. This has to be the way forward. Otherwise, the consequences
for the region are truly terrifying. We are already seeing the possibility
of nuclear weapons being introduced to other countries in response to
the DPRK threat. Not so long ago, any talk of nuclear weapons or an increased,
more assertive military force in Japan would not have been taken seriously.
But things have changed. There is a risk of military competition with
China, a country not on particularly good terms with Japan. The annual
defence budget of Japan is around $47 billion.
Perhaps even more disturbing is the news that there is talk of a nuclear
weapons option for Australia. Reports claim that a former senior government
science adviser says that a new A$600 million reactor will give Australia
the technology to launch a nuclear weapons programme. There is also the
possibility of the US supplying tactical nuclear weapons in the event
of a regional crisis.
Summary
The DPRK may or may not have nuclear weapons. Nobody is absolutely certain.
There are those who think that the poor economic conditions of the country
and the low level of technology make it unlikely. There are also those
who think that it has more than it is saying.
Much of the language coming from the DPRK and South Korea is typical
of what happens when tensions rise between neighbouring states. South
Korea and Japan have joined the United States in saying that they would
not tolerate the DPRK having nuclear weapons. There should be immediate
talks to try to resolve the problems. These talks should include China,
Japan, Australia and the Association of South East Asian Nations as well
as the DPRK and US.
The current situation highlights the ongoing problem that the world cannot
put off dealing with any longer. As long as the possession of nuclear
weapons is justified by the declared nuclear weapon states (UK, US, France,
Russia and China) and they are allowed to spread (India, Pakistan and
Israel), then other states will want them too. The hypocrisy of allowing
some countries to have nuclear weapons and doing everything possible to
stop others joining the club, even going to war, must end. The bottom
line is that no country can justify the possession of nuclear weapons.
Whether it is for ‘defence’ or a response to the action of
another country, there is no good reason at all for any country to research,
develop, test or deploy a nuclear weapon.
| 
