North Korea has repeatedly stressed the peaceful use of nuclear energy recently. Starting this month, North Korean media agencies have introduced nuclear power plants under construction and related plans in foreign countries such as Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Brazil, releasing a series of articles justifying peaceful nuclear power development. For example, the North’s Central News Agency said on October 8 that the world is moving toward developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, calling the pursuit a sovereign state’s legitimate right that cannot be deterred. The previous day, the Minju Chosun, an organ of the North Korean Cabinet, emphasized that the abandonment of the peaceful use of nuclear energy would cause the world to face even more serious energy shortages and subsequently create a major obstacle to economic development. Baek Seung-joo, director of the Center for Security and Strategy at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, explains that North Korea is adopting an attitude similar to what it had in the 1990s.

North Korea stressed the peaceful use of nuclear energy in early 1990s. The North Korean nuclear issue can be divided into two stages. The first nuclear crisis occurred in the early 1990s, and the second one, which erupted in the 2000s, is in progress. During the first nuclear crisis period, North Korea claimed that it was pursuing nuclear power development in order to secure energy. In 1994, the North asked the U.S. to build light-water nuclear reactors in return for a halt to its nuclear activities. In the early 2000s, Pyongyang overtly expressed its intention to develop nuclear weapons. But now, the nation is stressing the peaceful use of nuclear energy again, just as it did in the early 1990s.

So, North Korea’s assertion of the right to peaceful nuclear development is not new. But this time, the claim comes as involved countries are actively discussing ways to resume the six-party nuclear talks, as seen in the denuclearization talks between South and North Korea and North Korea-U.S. dialogue. The U.S. will reportedly hold a second round of dialogue with North Korea this year in a third country within the month. At the prospective talks, the two sides are expected to discuss such key issues as North Korea’s suspension of its uranium enrichment program and the nation’s preliminary steps for the resumption of the six-party talks. Diplomatic experts speculate that North Korea mentioned peaceful nuclear development in order to gain the upper hand ahead of negotiations with the U.S.

This speculation sounds quite plausible. In the early 1990s, North Korea stressed the peaceful use of nuclear energy and then, through negotiations with the U.S., Pyongyang secured Washington’s promise to construct light-water nuclear reactors. This time, too, while emphasizing the peaceful use of nuclear energy, North Korea may ask for economic compensation during the negotiations with the U.S. in exchange for offering a moratorium on nuclear testing. The economic compensation here could mean the construction of light-water reactors. In brief, the North is seeking to gain a stronger position at the future talks with the U.S. or at the six-party negotiations.

Behind North Korea’s claim on peaceful nuclear development, some also speculate that the North has hoped to demonstrate its achievement in nuclear energy development both domestically and abroad around October 10, the anniversary of the founding of the Workers’ Party.

The North Korean regime is directed by the Workers’ Party. The party’s foundation day is the most significant political anniversary, which enjoys the same significance as the national foundation day. Five years ago, North Korea conducted a nuclear test one day before the anniversary of the founding of the Workers’ Party. Ahead of the same anniversary this year, the nation shed new light on its keen interest in nuclear energy development. I don’t think North Korea is pressuring South Korea and the international community with its nuclear weapons. Rather, the North is trying to work out a new survival strategy by underlining its right to use nuclear energy peacefully.

Marking the fifth anniversary of North Korea’s first nuclear test on October 9, however, the communist nation said that the 2006 nuclear test was a historic incident to sternly punish the imperialists who attempted to crush its regime. It also said that the nation was able to conduct a nuclear test, an aggregate of modern science, safely and successfully one hundred percent under its own power, wisdom and technology. But Mr. Baek explains such comments are contradictory to the concept of the peaceful use of nuclear energy that North Korea has recently mentioned.

The remarks are a bit contradictory. North Korea claims that it will seek nuclear development and utilize nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, while calling its nuclear test a historic development, which means that North Korea has become a nuclear state. In fact, the first nuclear test represented a major achievement for North Korea in the process of building a powerful military state and gave the nation an advantage in terms of military competition with South Korea. It also played an important role in buying time through the six-party talks to complete the system to possess a nuclear arsenal and strengthen its position at the multilateral negotiations.

North Korea signed the September 19 joint statement at the end of the fourth round of six-party talks in 2005 and agreed to give up its nuclear programs in principle. In 2006, however, Pyongyang conducted a nuclear test as a response to the financial sanctions imposed by the U.S. against North Korea for its alleged money laundering. North Korea went ahead with a second nuclear test in 2009, and the nation invited U.S. nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker last year to show him a uranium enrichment facility at the Yongbyon nuclear complex. Experts predict that North Korea could manufacture weapons using nuclear fusion or try a third nuclear test because the nation has the desire to be recognized as a nuclear state.

A closer examination of the 2006 nuclear test and the developments one year before the second test in 2009 shows that the softened diplomatic atmosphere did not dispel or lower the possibility of a North Korean nuclear test. In this respect, the possibility of a third nuclear test still remains. As a matter of fact, no pragmatic progress has been made on the North Korea nuclear issue. The biggest pending issue is that the international community should share information related to any signs of a third nuclear test and concentrate all North Korea-related policies on preventing it.

A solution to the North Korean nuclear issue is the first and foremost task for the sake of better inter-Korean relations and peace on the Korean Peninsula. Involved countries need to cope with the situation proactively to provide a breakthrough for this problem.


[Interview]KINU Hosts Event Featuring the Theme of Unification
On a Friday afternoon, in the midst of a cool and pleasant autumn breeze, people in small groups of twos and threes moved along to the Convention and Exhibition Center, or COEX, in southeastern Seoul. A special event called “Unification Plaza” featuring the theme of unification took place here on September 23. This is the third such event hosted by the Korea Institute for National Unification and the National Unification Advisory Council. The event showcased presentations and speeches of North Korea specialists and cultural programs organized by North Korean defectors living in South Korea. Here’s Kim Tae-woo, director of the institute, to explain the purpose of the event.

The Korea Institute for National Unification is a state-run research institute that was established 20 years ago with the purpose of exploring unification issues in depth. The “Unification Plaza” event is mostly about a lecture meeting. Through this event, we share our research results with the public and encourage people to discuss them to eventually form a proper public opinion about unification.

The institute regards this event as a starting point for more active communication with the public. So, the event was focused more on appealing speeches and unification-related cultural programs to be easily accessed by ordinary citizens than a serious academic debate. The first and second sessions of the three-part event featured North Korea experts, including Bae Jeong-ho, director of the institute’s International Relations Research Center, who lectured on the importance of preparing for unification and lessons from Germany’s unification.

Previous lecture meetings usually involved dialogue between experts. What they discussed and suggested were used only by government agencies and scholars. But I think new ideas and proposals from such meetings should be known to ordinary people and discussed in public. Only then will the public form a sound opinion about unification. In light of this, the event was designed as an open speech session, not a closed seminar.

Following the presentations and debate, the third session presented cultural events. The dance performance of North Korean newcomer Seo In-sook, who inherited the dancing techniques of legendary dancer Choi Seung-hee that South Koreans have only heard of, caught the attention of the visitors.

In addition, a North Korean defector’s singing, a Korean fiddle performance and a chorus of South and North Korean women were mixed well to express the desire for the reunification of a divided Korea. Thanks to these various programs, citizens were able to approach North Korea-or unification-related issues, which they found difficult in general, in an easier and more interesting way. Mr. Kim stresses the importance of unification once again, saying the institution will not simply conduct research but also expand programs aimed at spreading a proper understanding of unification among the public.

Benefits from unification are much larger than the costs for unification. There are huge economic benefits represented by figures, such as the economic integration of South and North Korea and the combination of North Korea’s labor and resources with South Korea’s technology and capital. Advantages that cannot be calculated by numbers are also enormous. For instance, separated families can be reunited with their long-lost kin. What’s the price of that? North Korean expatriates here can return to their hometowns. How much will that be? Our students can go on a school excursion to Mt. Geumgang or Mt. Myohyang(묘향). The value cannot be converted into money. I’ll work much harder to discuss unification issues with the public. When it comes to the North Korean human rights issue, our discussions are still insufficient, considering South Korea’s status in the international community. I also hope to contribute to promoting discussions related to this humanitarian issue.

No doubt, public interest is most important for unification. We hope this event will be another catalyst in spreading research and interest in unification in South Korean society.