home > by publication type > daily analysis > About Face on North Korea
Email
| Prepared by: | Carin Zissis |
|---|
Inspections of North Korea's nuclear facilities could bring Bush administration allegations into doubt.
As the United States hosted North Korea for talks about normalizing a tempestuous relationship, questions swirled around Washington’s suddenly softer approach to Pyongyang. After years of refusing bilateral talks with the Hermit Kingdom—one of the three members of the “Axis of Evil”—the Bush administration switched tactics. Christopher Hill, the State Department’s senior diplomat for East Asian affairs, sat down in New York this week for direct negotiations with Kim Kye-Gwan to hammer out next steps on an agreement reached during February Six-Party Talks. Under the pact, North Korea will receive fuel oil, economic assistance, and humanitarian aid in return for shutting down and sealing its nuclear facilities within sixty days.
In a new interview with CFR.org's Bernard Gwertzman, North Korea expert Donald Oberdorfer, who made an official visit to Pyongyang in 2002, says negotions represent important progress. Still, he warns, “[L]ike anything with North Korea, nothing is simple. There are a lot of moving parts of this agreement that are going to have to be addressed before reduction or abolition of their nuclear weapons program.” The administration has suggested it may halt financial sanctions against a Macao-based bank where North Korea has laundered counterfeit dollars. This CFR.org Crisis Guide provides a complete look at the issues behind North Korea’s nuclear program.
The return of inspectors to North Korea’s facilities could test the Bush administration’s 2002 assertions that Pyongyang had procured the necessary equipment required for a uranium enrichment program (LAT). The charge led to the suspension of the Agreed Framework negotiated during the Clinton presidency. In an interview with National Public Radio after the bilateral talks in New York, Hill said North Korea will need to come clean on its uranium enrichment program for normalization to move ahead.
In an article for the Nautilus Institute, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), compares the Bush administration’s 2002 intelligence on Pyongyang’s uranium enrichment program to that on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program from the same period. He writes that a large enrichment plant “likely does not exist; perhaps it never did.” In an ISIS report on North Korea’s plutonium stock, Albright says that since the breakdown in the Agreed Framework in 2002, North Korea produced the “vast majority” of its plutonium.
The New York Times reports that inserting doubt about North Korea’s uranium program gives Pyongyang “a face-saving way to surrender its nuclear equipment.” But the reinterpretation of the 2002 data has raised questions in Congress. In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Carl Levin (D-MI), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked for clarification about whether intelligence on the program was reassessed since 2002.
John Negroponte, U.S. deputy secretary of state, insisted during a trip to Seoul this week that he has “no doubt” (Korea Times) Pyongyang has had a highly enriched uranium program. In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton writes there has been no suggestion internally “that the intelligence from 2002 and earlier has been contradicted or discredited.” Bolton also insists the United States should not give in to pressures for compromising on its policy, saying North Korea is a country needing one of “the most transparent, most intrusive, most pervasive verification systems.”
Washington’s suggestion that it may drop North Korea from its state sponsors of terrorism list if negotiations go well has raised concern with Tokyo. Japan had planned to hold bilateral talks with North Korea in Hanoi this week, though the talks were abruptly cancelled (AP), leaving the status of negotiations in question. Japanese officials have urged the United States not to remove North Korea from the list until it provides an explanation for the kidnapping of Japanese citizens by North Korean agents during the 1970s and 1980s. Japan insists it will not participate in the Six-Party Talk aid package to North Korea until the abduction issue is resolved (Japan Times). Axel Berkofsky of the European Policy Center argues in ISN Security Watch that “Japan and North Korea will remain very uneasy neighbors with relations based on mutual distrust and megaphone diplomacy.”
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
In Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President, experts from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution propose a new, nonpartisan Middle East strategy drawing on the lessons of past failures to address both the short-term and long-term challenges to U.S. interests.
This report lays out a thoughtful agenda for U.S. policy toward the Democratic Republic of Congo, arguing that what happens there should matter to the United States--for humanitarian reasons as well as economic and strategic ones.
In this report, CFR Senior Fellow Michael A. Levi analyzes the potential use of deterrence in preventing terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear weapons and recommends a new approach to U.S. declaratory policy, as well as ways to improve U.S. capabilities to determine the sources of terrorist attacks.
Complete list of Council Special Reports.
This report argues that the United States must lead with domestic action on climate change and proposes a U.S. negotiating strategy for a global UN climate agreement that includes commitments from all major economies, while also promoting a less formal Partnership for Climate Cooperation that would focus the world's largest emitters on implementing aggressive emissions reductions.
This Task Force report examines changes in Latin America and in U.S. influence there, while taking account of the region's enduring importance to the United States. The Task Force offers an agenda for U.S. policy toward Latin America and identifies four critical areas that should provide the basis of a new U.S. approach.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR.
A selection of Foreign Affairs pieces by and about the preeminent political scientist of the last half century.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1-212-434-9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
To request permission to reuse Council materials, please email publications@cfr.org or fax +1.212.434.9859.
Please include the complete information of the requested work—author, title, sections/pages to be copied or reprinted, and number of copies to be made—along with a brief description of where and how you would like to reuse the work.
You may also request permission for Council material through Copyright Clearance Center. For more information, please click on the link below.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.
Global Economy 