hankyoreh

June 13.

In a Foreign Ministry statement released immediately after the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 1874, North Korea announced it would weaponize all newly extracted plutonium, begin uranium enrichment and react militarily to a blockade. All three of these threatening measures fell within a range already predicted. Since the Foreign Ministry statement did not fully advocate the “retreat is defeat and death” and “desperate will” communicated in the North Korean news outlet Rodong Sinmun’s June 9 editorial, some experts are analyzing the statement as relatively mild.

First, the statement regarding the weaponizing of plutonium is not surprising because North Korea began reprocessing in late April. As pointed out by Jang Yong-seok, the head of the Institute for Peace Affairs, from a technology or substance perspective this is not a new threat. Second, the statement said that North Korea’s enrichment of uranium is at the experimental stage, however, this too, was forewarned in an April 29 Foreign Ministry statement. At the time, North Korea said that it would begin technical development without delay to guarantee autonomous production of nuclear fuel. This latest statement reaffirms its position, and in the end, reiterates the same rhetoric. Lastly, there is the threat of a military response, but this rearticulates North Korea’s existing position, which is that it considers sanctions to be a declaration of war and a blockade an act of war.

Accordingly, what North Korea did not say in this statement is more important than what it did say. North Korea did not hint at or threaten a third nuclear test. In particular, it lacked any mention of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch, which had been warned of in the April 29 statement and signs of which had been detected since late May.

Since last April, North Korea has expressed these threats in its statements and announcements as “self-defense measures.” This time, however, it distinguished them as “response measures.” Professor Izumi Hajime of the University of Shizuoka in Japan said Saturday that North Korea has made provocative statements and taken actions since April, but the statement it made this time was moderate and less provocative. Surprisingly, this squares exactly with Russia’s predictions. A Russian Foreign Ministry source said Thursday that North Korea would not react sensitively to the UNSC resolution, and that Russia did not see North Korea following up with any actions. The source added that the UNSC resolution was meant to serve as a way of resolving the situation and not to make it worse.

The Choson Sinbo, the newspaper of the pro-Pyongyang General Association of Korean Residents in Japan, was in accord with this position. The paper posted an article Saturday concerning sanctions and the response of self-defense measures that the one would not stop as long as the other did not yield. The Choson Sinbo suggested it was up to the side providing cause to put the breaks on the gradual intensification of tensions. This appears to carry the meaning that if the U.S. does not pursue applying independent financial sanctions, North Korea, too, would not escalate things further. While U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed “deep regret” on Saturday over the North Korean Foreign Ministry statement, emphasis was placed on the execution of the latest UNSC resolution.

Does this mean now the vicious circle of provocations and sanctions can stop? Some observers are saying within the structure of confrontation of the U.S. seeking a UNSC resolution and North Korea’s efforts to seek nuclear armament, there exists space for North Korea and the U.S. to engage in dialogue on North Korea’s postponement of its long-range missile launch and freeing of the two U.S. women journalists.

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