The Fate of U.S.-North Korea’s Tension over the Declaration of Nuclear Facilities

A spokesperson for North Korea’s Foreign Ministry said that there is nothing more that needs to be done, on the 4th, “To be honest, we have done all that we can do. We completed a nuclear declaration in November of last year and sent its contents to the U.S.”

He reiterated the basic position of “groundlessness” regarding the enriched uranium program (EUP) issue and the story of nuclear transfer to Syria. He also emphasized the “action for action” principle and quibbled that the failure of other participating countries to keep their promises is the reason for the delay in disablement.

The U.S. urged a complete and across-the-board nuclear reporting as planned. Gordon Johndroe, the spokesperson for the White House National Security Council, immediately emphasized on January 5th, “Unfortunately, we have not yet received a complete and correct declaration and we urge North Korea to deliver one soon so that we can all get the benefits offered in the six-party process. (MWC News, Canada)”

The participants of the Six Party Talks, through the “October 3rd Agreement,” had agreed to the complete the declaration of all nuclear programs and disablement of the three Yongbyon nuclear facilities (5-MW(e) nuclear reactor, reprocessing plant, that is Radiochemical Laboratory, and fuel rod fabrication facility) within 2007.

The U.S. evaluated that the declaration of nuclear plans has become a standard which can discern the North’s intent to abandon its nuclear weapons. It has emphasized that the Enriched Uranium Program (EUP) issue, the suspicion of a nuclear connection between North Korea and Syria, and the amount of extracted plutonium through the Yongbyon reactor should be included without fail in the declaration contents.

However, the spokesperson for North Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has steadfastly adhered to the position of “groundlessness” in regards to the EUP issue and the suspicions of nuclear proliferation. He revealed the production volume of plutonium as 30kg and showed a significant difference with the value which the U.S. had presumed.

The relatively smooth progress of the disablement, which was evaluated as having brought about an improvement in North Korea’s nuclear negotiations, is still ongoing due to technical issues. Of the 450,000 tons of crude oil, which is supposed to be sent to the North by North Korea’s declaration and the completion of disablement, and the 500,000 corresponding tons with economic and energy support, 150,000 crude oil and 5,010 tons of steel materials has currently been offered.

North Korea’s nuclear issue stood at a standstill with the difference in position with the U.S. regarding whether or not the North would declare nuclear weapons according to the official statement of North Korea’s Foreign Ministry. North Korea has not shown the intent to budge any further and the U.S. seems to lack other means to press the North.

The Washington Post relayed that the observation of U.S. leaders that it will take two more months for the completion of North Korea’s reporting. Until then, the U.S. will exhibit patience and first discuss measures with related nations.

Pressures to the North through the participating nations of the Six-Party Talks can also be predicted. Christopher Hill’s visit to the participating nations, excluding the North, is in the same context. It is highly possible that the energy support to the North by these nations, accompanying the disablement-declaration process, will continue.

The removal of North Korea from the list of terrorism-sponsoring country and the abandonment of the Trading with the Enemies Act has been delayed until after North Korea’s accurate and clear “nuclear declaration.” In the midst of the situation where the U.S. acknowledges the declaration of nuclear plans as the most important issue, means such as removing the terrorism-sponsoring designation is impossible.

In the meantime, the forecast is that the tedious tension between the U.S. and North Korea over the nuclear declaration will continue. The majority of expert opinions surmise that neither countries have clear subsequent polices.