(Draft Key-note Speech)
by Lee, Soo-hyuck
Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Republic of Korea
At the Third IISS Shangri-la Dialogue (June 4-6, 2004, Singapore)
As of June 4, 2004
(Introduction)
Honorable Dr. Chipman, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great honor for me to have been invited by the IISS to participate in the authoritative Shangri-la Dialogue to convey my thoughts on the "Measures and Prospects on the Resolution of the DPRK Nuclear Issue".
Having participated in the two rounds of the Six-Party Talks as the Head of the ROK Delegation, I would like to make a few remarks regarding the North Korean nuclear issue, based on my experiences. First, I will mention what the causes behind the nuclear issue are and how the involved countries have acted in response to this problem. Then, I would like to elaborate upon what efforts the government of the Republic of Korea has put in to deal with this serious issue, and also touch upon how the nuclear issue is likely to unfold in the months ahead.
(The International State of Affairs and the Korean Peninsula)
In the world we live in today, we have witnessed remarkable progress in the social-economic areas through the rapid developments in science and technology. Political systems based on the universal values of freedom and human rights are also notably increasing in their number. However, despite the great change in the paradigm of international relations as a result of the end of the Cold-War era, instability has rather been on the rise. In addition to traditional security threats, new security concerns such as terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction are endangering the well-being of nations.
In the Northeast Asian region, where the Korean peninsula lies at the heart, there are mixed signs of hope and concern. Investment and trade among the countries of the Northeast Asian region have been steadily increasing. More recently, trade liberalization in this region is also being actively pursued. In spite of such cooperative relations, unstable elements regarding the overall security of the region still remain.
Particularly, the North Korean nuclear issue is a concern for not only those on the Korean peninsula but also for the entire world in terms of its implications on the problem of global nuclear proliferation. The nuclear issue is also a direct threat to the peace and stability of the Northeast Asian region. Therefore, the state of affairs in Northeast Asia will be greatly affected by the outcome of the resolution of the DPRK nuclear issue.
(The Current Status of the DPRK Nuclear Issue)
Back in 1989, the revelations from the photographs, captured by a French commercial satellite, of the Yeonbyun nuclear facilities sparked the North Korean nuclear crisis, which sent shockwaves throughout the international community. In 1993, the DPRK withdrew from the NPT and declared the resumption of their missile development programs. The North Korean nuclear threat emerged as a serious international security issue. Fortunately, following a series of tedious negotiations, the 1994 Agreed Framework between the U.S. and the DPRK was signed in Geneva. At the time, it seemed that the North Korean nuclear crisis of the early 1990s had come to an end.
However, in October of 2002, suspicions over the HEU program of the DPRK re-sparked the flame, and once again, the North Korean nuclear threat became a major security issue. In response to the violations of the Geneva Agreed Framework by the DPRK, the supply of KEDO's heavy oil to the DPRK was put on halt. The DPRK struck back by calling off the nuclear freeze, expelling IAEA inspectors, and withdrawing for the second time from the NPT. Tensions grew, as some were even concerned about a possible military conflict on the Korean peninsula.
Despite the mounting difficulties, the government of the Republic of Korea firmly adhered to three principles:
1) that we will not tolerate the nuclear programs of the DPRK; 2) that the nuclear issue should be resolved peacefully through dialogue; and 3) that the Republic of Korea will actively participate and contribute in the process of resolving the nuclear issue. The ROK government had put in its utmost efforts to build a consensus that the nuclear issue should be resolved through dialogue.
Through the two rounds of Six-Party Talks and one round of the working group meeting, the multilateral framework for talks was institutionalized and the dialogue process was able to continue on. We were able to contain the nuclear issue in this forum, and the peaceful resolution to the North Korean nuclear issue became a firm principle. Reflecting back on the situation of last year, the achievements that we have made so far are worthy of note.
It is true that no substantive agreements on the resolution of the nuclear issue have been attained as of yet.
The working group meeting of last May did not produce a significant breakthrough toward progress in the negotiations. However, through the in-depth discussions on the major issues of interest, a clearer understanding of the positions of each party has been obtained. I believe that this deeper understanding can be the basis in reaching a common ground on the resolution of the nuclear issue.
(The Intentions of the DPRK in Continuing Its Nuclear Threat)
Why is the DPRK pursuing nuclear programs, in spite of the fact that this action is causing an escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula and the Northeast Asian region? I believe that the answer to this question has important implications in seeking a solution to the North Korean nuclear issue. Although it would be difficult to reach a decisive conclusion on the exact intentions of the DPRK to pursue nuclear programs, inferences on the various factors of security, politics, and economy can be made.
First, when we consider the security aspect, the DPRK could be seeking nuclear deterrence as a means to offset the instability of its system.
Having witnessed the collapse of the socialist system throughout the world, and experiencing isolation as a result, the DPRK needed measures to alleviate the threats to its system that it felt. As such a means, the DPRK is accelerating its nuclear development in the hopes of attaining nuclear deterrence capabilities. The DPRK perceives its nuclear programs as an eventual means of assurance in safeguarding its unstable system.
Next, from the perspective of domestic politics, the nuclear programs of the DPRK can be attributed to the characteristics of the Kim Jung Il regime. The foundations of Kim Jung Il's power lies in the military, and this is well attested by the 'pro-military politics' of the DPRK. The military faction has played a leading role in pursuing nuclear programs as a means of assurance for the security of its system. And, the military circle has gone on to strengthen their posture within the domestic ranks. For Kim Jung Il to make the decision to give up nuclear programs, he will need the justification and logic to persuade his internal constituents, particularly the military.
Lastly, from an economic viewpoint, despite the efforts by the DPRK to adopt a new economic system, so far, there have been no visible achievements in economic reforms. It would not be an understatement to say that without external assistance, it would be difficult for the DPRK to achieve economic progress. To secure foreign aid, liberalization is in need. However, this could become a threat to the maintenance of the DPRK regime. Thus, the DPRK would have needed a method of securing aid, one that would be less of a threat to its system. In this regard, the DPRK could be using the nuclear issue as a bargaining chip in securing the much-needed assistance.
(The Basic Direction for the Resolution of the Nuclear Issue)
The North Korean nuclear issue is a cause for grave concern as it could bring about a serious security dilemma situation on the Korean peninsula and the Northeast Asian region. As is widely professed in traditional international relations theories, if one nation escalates military expenditures in response to a security threat from another nation, both countries will end up in a much more confrontational situation. The `action and reaction' of an arms race can be caught in a vicious cycle of recurrence.
The game theory of the `Prisoner's Dilemma' explains the negative outcome that results from the lack of mutual communication and trust. However, even this model sheds light on the fact that as the game is repeated and trust is built, the parties can achieve a mutually beneficial solution. Hence, if the involved parties build confidence and cooperate toward a mutually beneficial solution, then the resolution of the nuclear issue, and in turn, the realization of peace and stability on the Korean peninsula could be attained. In this respect, the Six-Party Talks process bears special significance.
In this process, the most important thing is for the DPRK to make the strategic decision to abandon its nuclear programs. We have to persuade the DPRK to give up its nuclear programs, through its own decision, while (quote) "saving face" (unquote) at the same time. Henceforth, the other participating parties of the Six-Party Talks need to state in concrete terms, what the benefits are for the DPRK, if it gives up its nuclear programs and abides by international norms.
(Measures to Resolve the North Korean Nuclear Issue)
The government of the Republic of Korea has put in its utmost efforts to realize a turning point in the talks.
As a part of such efforts, the ROK proposed a three-stage approach to resolve the nuclear issue. In essence, this approach calls for: (first,) the expression of willingness by the DPRK to dismantle its nuclear programs and the expression of willingness by the other parties to address the security concerns of the DPRK; (second,) the carrying out of nuclear dismantlement on the part of the DPRK and the relevant coordinated steps on the part of the other parties; and (third,) the resolution of other issues of interest and the comprehensive improvement of relations among the parties concerned.
The dismantlement that we seek should: (one,) encompass all nuclear programs of the DPRK, including plutonium-based, uranium-based, and nuclear weapons programs; (two,) be verified through international inspections; and (three,) be in a way that the nuclear issue does not arise again in the future. Furthermore, to alleviate the concerns of the international community, the DPRK should address the suspicions over its highly-enriched uranium program in an expeditious manner. Once the DPRK reveals the truth behind this issue in a more forthcoming manner, then the stage for an early resolution to the nuclear issue can be set.
In addition, to prevent a deterioration of the situation and the undesired continuation of nuclear development by the DPRK, the government of the ROK has made a detailed proposal on "Freeze vs. Corresponding Measures" as a first step toward dismantlement. When a freeze with concrete conditions on scope, verification, and duration is agreed upon, then the measures for interim energy assistance can be arranged.
The government of ROK has expressed its willingness to join other countries in providing energy assistance to the DPRK.
The freeze that the Republic of Korea has proposed should: (first,) include all nuclear programs; (second,) be verified through international inspections; and (third,) be for only a short period of time while the agreement on the dismantlement is being worked out. This freeze is fundamentally different from the freeze of the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework. The freeze is not a goal in itself, but only a first step toward dismantlement.
If I may provide an analogy -- to reverse a running vehicle, first, one would need to halt the vehicle. Similarly, a freeze stage is needed on the way to the final goal of dismantlement. In addition, the freeze is needed to contain the situation as it stands and to prevent it from becoming a more serious crisis. In this serious state, in which the DPRK has withdrawn from the NPT and is not abiding by the Geneva Agreed Framework, there is no regime to regulate the nuclear activities of the DPRK. To prevent a deterioration of the situation, a freeze should be imposed as soon as possible so that we may get a handle on the situation.
