James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction with training & analysis

North Korea Special Collection

CNS Experts Respond to the DPRK's Withdrawal from the NPT

Kim Jong Il	View North Korea's Statement on NPT Withdrawl.
See also: North Korea Special Collection

On January 10, North Korea issued a statement announcing that "The DPRK government declares an automatic and immediate effectuation of its withdrawal from the NPT" and "is totally free from the binding force of the Safeguards Accord with the IAEA." North Korea attributed its action to its belief that the International Atomic Energy Agency "is used as a tool for executing the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK." It stated that despite pulling out from the NPT, it has "no intention to produce nuclear weapons" and will confine its activities to "peaceful purposes."

CNS experts provided the following responses to this announcement:

• Dr. William Potter
  Director, CNS

  "There is an urgent need for a reality check in Washington to realign U.S. policy to dramatically changed nuclear circumstances in North Korea. Although Secretary Colin Powell may decline to characterize the new situation as a crisis, it is difficult to find a more appropriate term for the variety of nuclear threats posed by Pyongyang. North Korea's effort to expand its plutonium-based arsenal of nuclear weapons is probably the least of our worries, notwithstanding the country's potent ballistic missile delivery force.

  A greater nuclear nightmare--and one that is within the realm of the possible--is the export by North Korea of nuclear material, and even nuclear weapons, to terrorists. Certainly, groups such as al-Qaida must be attracted by the prospect of unsafeguarded nuclear material controlled by an impoverished and isolated regime which already has broken many of its international nonproliferation commitments. Pyongyang has shown few qualms in the past about exporting dangerous commodities to anyone for the right price, and Washington can ill afford to discount the possibility of nuclear trade with parties who covet weapons for purposes other than deterrence.

  Almost as worrisome is a scenario in which North Korea's nuclear weapons gambit, including withdrawal from the NPT, is met by U.S. and international acquiescence. Should that occur and North Korea acquire a de facto nuclear weapons status similar to India and Pakistan, it is likely to fuel a regional arms race in which Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan pursue nuclear weapons. It is doubtful that the NPT could withstand such defections, which also would have a domino effect in other regions."

• Leonard S. Spector
  Deputy Director, CNS

  "We are seeing North Korea move up a ladder of escalation, first removing cameras and seals at the Yongbyon facilities, then expelling the IAEA inspectors, and most recently withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The next step, however, is the most fateful: moving spent fuel, containing enough plutonium for perhaps four nuclear weapons, out of the spent fuel pond and into the nearby plutonium separation plant. That could occur at any moment, and judging from the rapidity of recent North Korean escalations, it could easily happen this week -- well before our diplomatic efforts to deal with the problem can have any effect.

  We will probably be able to observe the movement of the spent fuel out of the storage pond to the plutonium separation plant with our satellites and may be able to determine when that plant starts operating. From that point the strategic balance on the Korean Peninsula shifts decidedly for the worse, because we will have to assume that in a matter of months North will have tripled the size of its nuclear arsenal."

• Dr. James Clay Moltz
  Associate Director, CNS
  Editor, The North Korean Nuclear Program: Security, Strategy, and Perspectives from Russia (Routledge, 2000)

  "Pyongyang's move is deplorable, but North Korea's official statement clearly leaves the door open for negotiations. The Bush team needs to pick up where the Clinton Administration left off and put an end to this festering crisis. With the new Roh government in Seoul, the time is ripe for a comprehensive peace settlement on the Korean Peninsula, including the fulfillment of earlier pledges for a nuclear-weapon-free zone encompassing both countries."

• Dr. Phillip C. Saunders
  Director, East Asia Nonproliferation Program

  "Withdrawal from the NPT is intended to improve Pyongyang's negotiating leverage by heightening the crisis atmosphere on the Korean peninsula. The United States has tried to pressure North Korea to comply with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations under the treaty by using international agencies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and by coordinated diplomacy involving both allies (South Korea and Japan) and other major countries in the region (China and Russia). By withdrawing from the NPT, North Korea seeks to remove the legal basis for IAEA inspections of its nuclear program and to force the United States to negotiate a resolution of the nuclear crisis on a bilateral basis. North Korean leaders probably believe that bilateral negotiations strengthen their negotiating position, and that direct negotiations are the only way to obtain meaningful security guarantees from Washington. Despite Pyongyang's efforts to sideline international organizations, the IAEA will likely refer the North Korean action to the United Nations Security Council for action. The permanent members of the Security Council have all individually declared that efforts to acquire nuclear weapons constitute a threat to international peace and security, providing a basis for Security Council action independent of North Korea's membership in the NPT."

• Jean duPreez
  Director, International Organizations Nonproliferation Program

  "The North Korean announcement, although regrettable, comes as no surprise. It does, however, present a clear threat to the nuclear nonproliferation regime, in particular the NPT. To this end the international community, in particular states such as the United States, Japan, and South Korea, should work with the North Korean government to step away from this crisis and to reverse its decision to withdraw from the NPT. The role of the IAEA and the three NPT depository states, in particular the United States and the Russian Federation, would also be of utmost importance. The North Korean tactics are clearly intended to enhance their leverage in negotiations with the United States. This kind of brinkmanship is, however, very dangerous in the current international security climate and could have severe consequences for the nonproliferation regime as a whole. The NPT, the most universal nonproliferation and disarmament agreement, would be under severe pressure if other states parties decide to follow the North Korean approach as a direct response to the threatening policies of the United States. In this regard, it should be recalled that North Korean officials have on several occasions accused the Bush Administration of declaring war against the DPRK given its listing as part of the "axis of evil" and a target of U.S. pre-emptive nuclear strikes. They also stated that "the DPRK was entitled to possess not only nuclear weapons but any type of weapon more powerful than that, so as to defend its sovereignty and right to existence from the ever-growing nuclear threat by the U.S." Significantly, the U.S. administration, in its recently released Nuclear Posture Review and its National Security Strategy clearly threatened North Korea with nuclear weapons.

  The announcement by North Korea underscores the importance of a multilateral approach to nonproliferation and disarmament threats, versus the unilateral coercive approach of the United States in the case of North Korea. It also shows a growing concern among non-nuclear weapons states parties to the NPT that the nuclear weapons states no longer abide by all their obligations under the treaty, specifically their obligations to work toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons. In particular, U.S. policies have made it much easier for states which would like to opt out of their international obligations concerning nuclear weapons to do so for whatever reason."

• Dr. Larry Scheinman
  Distinguished Professor, CNS Washington, D.C. Office

  "The DPRK announcement of withdrawal from the NPT is déjà vu. It reflects a strategy adopted a decade ago in the face of an IAEA demand for a special inspection to reconcile inconsistencies in Pyongyang's declaration of nuclear materials to the IAEA as required by the DPRKs safeguards agreement entered into pursuant to its NPT undertaking. As such it should be seen for what it is--a political step aimed at framing a negotiated outcome that North Korea hopes will give it the security, economic, and diplomatic objectives that it seeks. That being said, the step moves us further down a dangerous path that could acquire a dynamic of its own and lead to outcomes that nobody really wants; and will test the diplomatic skill and political restraint of all parties involved."

• Dr. Daniel Pinkston
  Senior Research Associate, Proliferation Research and Assessment Program

  "The DPRK's withdrawal from the NPT follows a long series of attempts to make the nuclear issue a bilateral one with the United States. Pyongyang's withdrawal statement does not rule out a bilateral arrangement with Washington to verify that North Korea does not produce nuclear weapons, but this will now take extraordinary diplomatic efforts, strong political will, and comprehensive verification measures. The withdrawal from the NPT is unprecedented, and the emerging crisis is a threat to Northeast Asian security and international nonproliferation regimes."