[Editorial] Let’s not let assessments hinder denuclearization

Posted on : 2009-02-07 10:20 KST Modified on : 2009-02-07 10:20 KST

Leon Panetta, the nominee for director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, said in a Senate confirmation hearing the day before yesterday that “North Korea detonated a nuclear weapon in 2006.” This is a different expression from the “detonation of a nuclear device” that the U.S. government has been talking about thus far. In a separate report published late last year by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the U.S. Defense Department and the National Intelligence Council, North Korea was designated for the first time as a nuclear weapon state, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates subsequently wrote a contribution to Foreign Affairs stating, “North Korea has built several bombs.”

It does not appear that this assessment by U.S. military and intelligence organizations is connected with changes in government-level policy toward North Korea’s nuclear program. This is because the framework for U.S. nuclear policy must change completely if North Korea is formally acknowledged as a nuclear weapon state, shaking the foundation of the six-party talks. The currently operating Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty system recognizes only five countries as nuclear weapon states -- the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France -- and gives them privileges such as exemption from inspection. The Barack Obama administration, more than any other that came before, has been clearly aimed at a world without nuclear weapons. It is difficult to imagine the Obama administration accepting North Korea’s nuclear weapons and changing the goals of its policy on North Korea’s nuclear program to something like preventing proliferation.

But there are two possible explanations for this change in terminology regarding the reality of North Korea’s nuclear program. One is that it was done for security reasons, stating that a readiness posture is necessary under the assumption that North Korea has nuclear weapons. The other is that assessments of North Korea’s nuclear capabilities have become gradually more realistic since the latter half of last year. The George W. Bush administration tended to downplay the possibilities of North Korea possessing nuclear weapons in order to avoid acknowledging the failure of its North Korea policy.

At this point, only North Korea knows the precise reality of its nuclear capabilities. What is clear is that Pyongyang has the intention and ability to develop nuclear weapons and has realized this to a considerable extent, and that this ability will grow as time passes. As such, efforts to abolish nuclear weapons are far more important than making an assessment in which truth and falsehood are difficult to distinguish. Mistaken assessments must not become the justification for unilateral actions, as occurred with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but even if the information is insufficient, that should not lead to wavering in the ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament.

Efforts toward the real denuclearization of North Korea could effectively be said to start now. The Obama administration must quickly finish reexamining the U.S. policy toward North Korea and proceed into action with a sense of urgency. It goes without saying that our government as well must strengthen its activities so that the six-party talks and North Korea-U.S. negotiations proceed effectively.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]