Round The World

New Delhi, 22 April 2009

World Sans N-Weapons

OBAMA’S NORTH KOREAN CHALLENGE

By Monish Tourangbam

(School of International Studies, JNU)

Only a little more than three months into the Oval Office, President Barack Obama faces foreign policy challenges that have the potential to either make or mar his presidential career. Two unfinished wars, an economy in crisis and a largely battered American image worldwide has been bequeathed to him.

On the issue of non-proliferation, he faces the challenge of bringing an adamant Iran to the negotiating table and bringing to book a belligerent North Korea, also Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) under Kim Jong-Il. The latter recently created ripples in the East Asian security order by giving a U-turn to the delicate nuclear balance in the region.

In a speech delivered at the Czech capital, Prague, early this month, Obama chose to amplify his idea of a world free of nuclear threat. Speaking to a 20,000-strong crowd in front of Prague's historic castle, he said the US, being the only nuclear power to have actually used a nuclear weapon, had a moral responsibility to act in ridding the world of such weapons. This apart, the end of cold war has not erased the availability of nuclear weapons.

Worse, the risk of a nuclear attack has actually increased with more nations acquiring them and continuing to test. The menace of black market in nuclear technology and spread of the technical knowhow to make a bomb, particularly with terrorists “determined to buy, build or steal one” was emphasized. Thus, Obama announced a new effort to secure sensitive nuclear material within four years and break down the black market in the trade in illicit weapons.

Exuding his belief in multilateralism, Obama said the challenge of achieving a world free of nuclear threat could not be met by the US alone. However, it was always ready to lead and initiate it. Not taking away the importance of nuclear weapons towards the guarantee of America’s safety and its allies, he opined there is always a possibility and room for reduction of the arsenals. “Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the US will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defence to our allies. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.”

In pursuit of this aim, Obama has outlined a number of measures and means, which at the outset, look quite “pragmatic”. These include: reduce warheads and stockpiles by negotiating a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (expires in year-end) with the Russians, to pursue US ratification of the CTBT, strengthen the NPT as a basis of cooperation but at the same time not depriving countries in legitimate need of peaceful nuclear energy.

Obama also touched upon his intention to pressure countries like North Korea and Iran, which have been a constant source of policy migraine for the US. While he wanted the former to know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons, to Tehran he presented a choice between getting access to peaceful nuclear energy and risking isolation with its current nuclear strategy, which posed a clear threat.

Though Obama should be given the credit for giving initial touches to a new direction of American foreign policy and emphasizing its humanitarian side, recent activities by North Korea drive home the point that nuclear politics is beyond the realm of mere rhetoric and grand “idealistic” visions. The severity of the problem of nuclear ambitions, especially under dictatorial regimes has been amplified with things going back to square one in North Korea.

In recent times, under the six-party talks, the US has tried to win the confidence of the Pyongyang regime to abandon its nuclear programme. But, the latter is only interested in using it as a bargaining chip. In other words, it should not be easy for a dictatorial regime to forego such an effective tool for overshadowing domestic failures and stirring up military nationalism. After all Pyongyang did turn its back on the six-party talks, jeopardizing the all-too-uncertain challenge of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula.

Following the controversy over North Korea reportedly “launching a satellite”, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors left the DPRK on April 16 after being expelled from the nuclear complex at Yongbyon. They US inspectors followed a day later under similar orders. These experts in two independent teams, were under an accord in the relevant process of six-party talks, comprising the US, the DPRK, China (Chair), South Korea, Japan and Russia, with  the agenda to denuclearize the Korean peninsula.

In fact, as a prelude to ordering the expulsion of IAEA and US experts, North Korea had, on April 14 announced its exit from the talks. Recall that it had under a 2007 six-party deal, agreed to disable its main nuclear complex-a step toward its ultimate dismantlement-in return for 1 million tonnes of fuel oil and other concessions.

On April 14, North Korea also vowed to restore the nuclear facilities it has been disabling and boycott international talks on its atomic weapons programme to protest the UN Security Council’s condemnation of North Korea’s April 5 controversial “satellite launch”. While Pyongyang maintains that it had sent a satellite in orbit around the earth, others including the US say that a long-range missile technology had been tested.

A statement from North Korea’s Foreign Ministry condemned the UN action saying: “We have no choice but to further strengthen our nuclear deterrence to cope with additional military threats by hostile forces.” It also hinted that North Korea would conduct more such launches by saying it will “continue to exercise its sovereign rights to use space.”

The UN Security Council had duly taken into consideration the North Korean claim that they had sent a satellite. But, neighbours like Japan and South Korea, which monitored the launch, detected no signs of a satellite-entry into the orbit. While the US concurs with this view, other veto-powers like China and Russia beg to differ. With a divided opinion in hand, the Security Council went along with the general view that the satellite launch required a dual-use rocket, which has known military-related applications.

Moreover, North Korea’s failure to show demonstrable evidence of a satellite in the orbit only reinforces the point that all is not what it says. In the face of this, the Obama administration, in trying to achieve a world free of nuclear threat should not compromise on the mechanism to deal with nuclear blackmailers. For one, the likes of North Korea, which has been using its nuclear programme and the negotiating processes as tools to prolong its dictatorial regime and extract  concessions that it doesn’t deserve. --INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)