助成

Institute forInternational Policy Studies
・Tokyo・

IIPS International Conference“Building a Regime of Regional Cooperation in
East Asia and the Role which Japan Can Play”

Tokyo
December 2-3, 2003

“Managing Emerging Threats to East Asian Security:
The Case of North Korean Nuclear Threat”
By
Dr. Chung-in Moon
Professor of Political Science,
Yonsei University
South Korea

[Draft]
Managing Emerging Threats to East Asian Security:
The Case of North Korean Nuclear Threat★
Chung-in Moon (Yonsei University)
1. Introduction
North Korea presents an unresolved enigma. Despite its economic stagnation,
chronic food and energy shortage, and worsening quality of life of its citizens, North
Korea has not given up its nuclear ambition. Although the 1994 Geneva Agreed
Framework was instrumental in freezing its nuclear programs, the North Korean nuclear
problem has resurfaced since October 2002, drawing worldwide attention.
The current North Korean nuclear fiasco was triggered by its admission of thehighly enriched uranium (HEU) program in October 2002,
and subsequentdevelopments have precipitated a major confrontation between North and the UnitedStates reminiscent of the 1994 nuclear crisis. Moreover, North Korea’s declaration ofpossession of two nuclear warheads and reprocessing of spent fuel rods for the
manufacturing of plutonium on April 23, 2003 during a three party talk in Beijing has
further aggravated the nuclear standoff. Although a new breakthrough through the six
party talk has opened a new possibility for its peaceful resolution through negotiation,
the North Korean nuclear crisis has remained a precarious flash point, threatening peaceand security in Northeast Asia.
Keeping its grave regional security consequences in mind, the paper attempts toelucidate the nature of the North Korean nuclear problem and to make a criticalassessment of strategies for coping with it. And it will also explore prospects for thepeaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear stand-off. The paper argues that thebest solution to the North Korean nuclear quagmire is through negotiated settlement andsubsequent engagement. Neither containment nor military options would work in

Prepared for presentation at Conference on “Building a Regime of Regional Security Cooperation in
East Asia and the Role which Japan Can Play,” organized by the Institute for the International Policy
Studies, December 2-3, 2003. Comments welcome.
1

resolving the North Korean problem.

2. Understanding the North Korean Nuclear Threat
The North Korean problem essentially consists in its rogue behavior and failingstate functions. Both of these problems have manifested in terms of two inter-related
issues, namely nuclear weapons and missiles. The current quasi-crisis on the Korean
peninsula has resulted primarily from disputes over North Korea’s nuclear weapons
development, which involves three dimensions. The first dimension is the suspicion of
its past possession of nuclear warheads (one or two) before the signing of the Geneva
Agreed Framework (Agreed Framework) in 1994. The second one centers on present
nuclear issues related to the reprocessing of 8,000 spent fuel rods stored in a water pond,
the manufacturing and exporting of plutonium, as well as the production of additional
nuclear warheads which were previously frozen according to the 1994 Agreed
Framework. The third dimension is the future nuclear problem associated with thedevelopment of a highly enriched uranium (HEU) program. The United States claims
that North Korea admitted its existence during the visit of its special envoy, James Kelly,
to Pyongyang in October 2002.
The current North Korean nuclear stand-off started with the problem of HEU
program, a future nuclear issue. James Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State, revealed that
Sokjoo Kang, first vice foreign minister of DPRK, admitted its existence during his visit
to Pyongyang in October 2002. The Korea Energy Development Organization (KEDO)
suspended the supply of heavy oil to North Korea under heavy pressure by the UnitedStates, who argued that the clandestine development of a HEU program was an outrightviolation of the Geneva Agreed Framework. North Korea officially denied its existence
and accused the U.S. of fabricating the fact. According to North Korea, Kang did not
admit the existence of HEU program, but simply emphasized its sovereign entitlement
to nuclear weapons program. The North began to take a sequence of methodical
reciprocal measures by equating the suspension of supply of heavy oil with thenullification of the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework. They included: unsealing thefrozen nuclear facilities in Youngbyon, removing monitoring cameras, expelling three
IAEA inspectors, withdrawing from the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), andreactivating a 5 megawatt nuclear reactor in Youngbyon.

2

The situation has worsened as North Korea admitted the possession of nuclear
weapons and the completion of reprocessing spent fuel rods during a three party talk in
Beijing last April. Although the North Korean claims need verifiable inspection for
their confirmation, disputes over the future nuclear problem (i.e., HEU program)aggravated the situation by touching on the past and present nuclear issues.
If North Korea crosses red-lines (e.g., proven reprocessing of entire spent fuelrods and the manufacturing and transfer of plutonium, possession of additional nuclear
weapons, nuclear testing, test launching of medium and long range missiles, and major
military provocation), devastating conflict escalation in the Korean peninsula cannot be
ruled out. More specifically, North Korea can pose several threats:- North Korean possession of nuclear weapons would not only undermine peaceand stability on the Korean peninsula by diminishing the chance for peacefulco-existence between North and South Korea, but also destabilize the Northeast
Asian region by triggering nuclear domino effects (e.g., a nuclear Japan, SinoJapanese nuclear arms race, and a nuclear South Korea).
- A nuclear North Korea would seriously undermine the balance of power on
the Korean peninsula, facilitating the continuation of its traditional strategy ofcommunizing the South.
- A nuclear North Korea with its enhanced delivery capability (e.g., Nodong andDaepodong missiles) can pose direct threats to Japan and the U.S., especially
American military assets in Japan and South Korea.
- Attempts to punish North Korea (e.g., sanctions) by a coalition of the willing
including the United Nations could trigger North Korean conventional or nonconventional military provocations.
- Allied forces’ attempts to cope with North Korea’s military provocations
through preemptive or counter-attacks are bound to escalate into major military
conflicts on the Korean peninsula. North Korea’s non-asymmetric forces
deployed along the DMZ will pose immediate threats to South Korea andAmerican assets in the South.

33. Managing the North Korean Nuclear Threats: Three Options
Military Option and Catastrophe
The first option is the possibility of using military alternatives in dealing with
North Korea. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld once stated that "We are capable offighting two major regional conflicts. We're capable of winning decisively in one andswiftly defeating in the case of the other, and let there be no doubt about it." 1 Richard
Perle, a leading figure of the neo-conservative camp, has also suggested the utility of
military actions on nuclear facilities in North Korea as recently as June 2003.2 In thisregard, John Bolton’s testimony at Congress draws attention too, as he admitted thepossibility of undertaking the three-stage approach of sanctions, interdiction andconfiscation, and preemptive military attack, in order to cope with WMD threats from
North Korea.3
The United States could deliberate on three possible military options. The firstis a preemptive surgical strike on nuclear facilities in Youngbyon, which was once
considered during the 1994 nuclear crisis. The second is the combination of a surgicalstrike and preemptive all-out attack on North Korea. The final option could involve asequence of surgical attack, North Korea’s retaliation, and counter-attack. Regardlessof optional types, military actions are likely to result in a major catastrophe throughconflict escalation. Even a well planned and conducted surgical strike will eventually
escalate into a major conflict.
None of these military options seem feasible or desirable, with several factors
making military options less attractive.

1"Rumsfeld gets tough on North Korea," Guardian, December 24, 2002,
http://wwwguardina.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,865094.html (accessed date: June 20, 2003).
2
Yonshap News Agency, June 12, 2003.
3
See the testimony of John Bolton, Under Secretary of State, on the House Committee on International
Relations. “US to eliminate WMD in all rogue states, by force if necessary,”. World-AFP, June 5, 2003

4

First is a rather weak rationale for undertaking military actions.4 North Korea iswilling to talk with the U.S. as well as to accept the American request of verifiableinspection and irreversible dismantling. What it does want is a security assurance in theform of termination of hostile intent and normalization with the U.S. There seems to be
no reason why the U.S. should not consider these requests more seriously. It would be
extremely difficult for the U.S. to win international support and legitimacy by taking
military options, while disregarding North Korea’s appeal to dialogue and negotiation,even if the North admitted the existence of nuclear weapons.
Second, geopolitics matters. North Korea is different from Iraq in that China,
Russia, and even Japan may strongly oppose American unilateral military actions. The
United States cannot win the war with North Korea without winning support from theseneighboring countries and utilizing their ground bases. In the worst case, Chinese
military involvement in North Korea cannot be ruled as was the case during the Korean
War. It is so, precisely because toleration of such aggressive American behavior could
bear negative implications for China’s own national security.
Third, it seems doubtful whether the U.S. would be able to achieve its politicaland military objectives. A surgical strike on Youngbyon nuclear facilities cannot satisfy
the American goal of destroying North Korea’s nuclear capabilities completely. For
though it might be able to resolve the present nuclear problem (i.e., reprocessing ofspent fuel rods and manufacturing of plutonium) through surgical strikes over theYoungbyon nuclear facilities, it cannot root out the past nuclear issue (one or two
nuclear bombs) and the future one (highly enriched uranium). Thus, it would achieve avery limited goal, but with the devastating consequences of major conflict escalationand massive radioactive pollution over South Korea and Japan. Preemptive all-out
attack seems questionable too. No matter how backward and ill-equipped, the North
Korean military is still the fifth largest in the world. At the same time, the ideology of‘military first politics’, widespread anti-Americanism deeply embedded in North
Korean people, hostile terrain and fortification of military bases, and asymmetric forces
deployed along the De-militarized Zone would not allow an easy victory to the UnitedStates.

4

Jeremy Brecher, "Terminating the Bush Juggernaut," FPIF Discussion Paper, May 2003,
http://www.fpif.org/papers/juggernaut/index.html (accessed date : June 4, 2003); Leon V. Sigal, "North
Korea is no Iraq: Pyongyang's Negotiating Strategy," Arms Control Today, vol. 32, no. 10 (December

5Fourth, South Korea’s opposition will pose another formidable deterrent.
Catastrophic consequences of military actions will make South Koreans dead opposed
to American military actions. Preemptive military actions without full consultation with
the South Korean government could instantly jeopardize the ROK-US military alliance,
without which the United States cannot undertake effective military operations. In
addition, a large of number of South Korean pacifists would cross the DMZ to form
human shield against American military attacks.
Finally, both rational calculus and normative considerations do not favormilitary options. North Korea possesses neither oil nor other valuable natural resources,and American economic gains in post-war era will be minimal, while the costs of war
and post-war construction will be prohibitively expensive. Moreover, extension of
protracted conflict in Iraq, diminishing domestic support of overseas’ military venture,and the coming presidential election in 2004 will make it extremely for President Bushto undertake another war on the Korean peninsula unless North Korea crosses thegenerally perceived redlines in a provocative manner.

Containment and Protracted Tension
Military options seem less attractive. Cognizant of the constraints and risks
associated with it, attention has been given to the containment option, often referred toas a malign or hostile neglect strategy.5 Even Ashton Carter, who served under William
Perry during the Clinton administration, has suggested it at a congressional hearing on
March 6, 2003. 6 The containment option is predicated on several assumptions andrelated action programs. The most important assumption is “let North Korea go
nuclear.”7 There is no other option but to recognize North Korea as a nuclear power
either because of delayed dialogue and negotiation with the North, or because of North
Korea’s unfailing intention to develop nuclear weapons for both survival and a2002), pp. 11-12.
Sonni Efron, "U.S. Said to be Resigned to a Nuclear Korea," Los Angeles Times, March 5, 2003; “Bush
Shifts Focus to Nuclear Sales by North Korea," The New York Times, May 5, 2003.
6
Ashton B. Carter, "Alternatives to Letting North Korea go Nuclear," Testimony before the Committee on
Foreign Relations, United States Senate, March 6, 2003, http://www.cfr.org (accessed date: May 15,2003).
7
Ashton B. Carter, "Alternatives to Letting North Korea go Nuclear," Testimony before the Committee on
Foreign Relations, United States Senate, March 6, 2003, http://www.cfr.org (accessed date: May 15,2003).
5

6

bargaining leverage. But allowing the North to be a nuclear power would not pose any
immediate nuclear threats to countries in the region since it would require more time toemerge as a full fledged nuclear power.
Another critical assumption underlying this option is that the North Korean
nuclear problem cannot be solved without toppling the evil regime in North Korea. As
long as Kim Jong-il stays in power, North Korea will want both dialogue and nuclear
bomb simultaneously. Removing him from power and creating a new regime in North
Korea is the best and surest way to solve the North Korean nuclear dilemma. Thus, theUnited States and its allies and friends should work together to isolate, contain, andtransform North Korea. If they work together, transformation of North Korea willmaterialize faster than its emergence as a real nuclear power.
The United States has already begun to take a series of actions in this direction.
President Bush has already hinted at it by stating that "America is working with thecountries of the region to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean
government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, andcontinued hardship."8 They include:- the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) that would allow investigation,interdiction, and confiscation of illicit arms transfers.9- Along with this, the United States has been deliberating on extensive
measures to isolate and contain North Korea through a ban on arms-related
exports and sales, controls over the export of dual use items, prohibitions on
economic assistance, and imposition of miscellaneous financial and otherrestrictions.10- the Japan-US summit in May alluded to the possibility of economic sanctions
and a naval blockade if the North Korean nuclear problem further deteriorated.

8

George W. Bush, "State of the Union Address," United States Capitol, Washington, D.C., January 28,
2002, http://www.wihtehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html (accessed date: June 8, 2003).
9
JoongAng Ilbo, June 2, 2003.
10
Counterterrorism Office, U.S. Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002,
http://www/state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/pdf (accessed date: May 30, 2003), p. 77.
7

- On June 4, John Bolton made a congressional testimony that the Bushadministration is considering a sequence of punitive measures comprised of
economic sanctions, naval blockade and confiscation, and preemptive attack, aswith Iraq, if North Korea does not show any signs of improvements in nuclear,
missiles, conventional weapons issues, as well as drug trafficking, human rights,
and terrorism.11- On June 10, the U.S., Japan, and Australia agreed to undertake selective
interdiction of North Korean vessels exporting weapons and drugs.
- On June 12, a G-10 meeting was held in Madrid in order to deliberate on
concrete and realistic measures that could wipe out North Korea’s exports ofarms and drugs.12- Along with this, the United States has called for the suspension of
construction of a light water nuclear reactor in Shinpo, and the UN Security
Council Chairman’s statement denunciating North Korea’s nuclear activities
can be interpreted as a preliminary step toward a UN resolution on economic
sanction on North Korea.
However, the malign neglect and eventual transformation of North Korea do

not appear to offer a viable solution to the current crisis either. It reveals several serious
limits, constraints, and negative backlash.
First, it would worsen rather than improve the current nuclear standoff,
eventually escalating into a major conflict on the Korean peninsula. As Wade Huntley
perceptively points out, the malign or hostile neglect approach has become the primarycause of the current crisis and is likely to aggravate rather than ameliorate it. 13
Moreover, the option seems to rely on faulty assumptions of the effectiveness of
isolation and containment. The option can easily become problematic if the Kim Jongil regime does not quickly collapse, while North Korea becomes a true nuclear power bycrossing critical redlines. It seems important to remember the failure of a wishful
thinking on the early demise of the Kim Jong-il regime, that was implicitly assumed by
11

DongA Ilbo, June 6, 2003.
JoongAng Ilbo, June 12, 2003.
13
Wade L. Huntley, "Coping with North Korea," Foreign Policy in Focus, February 24, 2003,
128

American negotiators during the negotiation over the Geneva Agreed Framework of
1994.
Second, its proponents seem to commit the fallacy of underestimating regime
durability in North Korea. The North Korean people are well accustomed to the marchof hardship under the Juche system. As Lewis Coser aptly suggests, outside pressures
on North Korea will not only strengthen the position of hardliners in the name of‘military first politics,’ but also enhance its internal cohesiveness, weakening thepossibility of transformation from within. American efforts to isolate and contain might
not bring about the desired shift demise of the Kim Jong-il regime. On the contrary,such measures could solidify the regime and elongate its survival. It is more so because
of intense and widespread anti-American sentiments in North Korean society that haveresulted from both its people’s long lasting memory of American air raid during the
Korean War and ruling regime’s systematic and prolonged indoctrination.
Third, no matter how persuasive and forceful the U.S. would be, it would be
extremely difficult to execute effective enforcement of sanctions against North Korea
without the legitimate backing of the UN Security Council. China, Russia, and even
France might be reluctant to adopt any Security Council resolution endorsing sanctions
on North Korea without exhausting all possible means for a peaceful and diplomatic
solution. It is highly unlikely for China and South Korea to join sanctions without
United Nations’ blessing. The fact that China and South Korea have not joined the PSI
can be seen as a reliable predictor of such behavior. Given North Korea’s dependence
on China and South Korea,14 their full cooperation will be vital to the success of thosesanctions.
Finally, judged on North Korea’s traditional behavior, the ultimate destinationof the containment strategy might be a catastrophic conflict escalation rather than a
happy ending through the demise of the Kim Jong-regime, emancipation of North
Korean people, and the permanent removal of its nuclear problem. South Korean cannot
accept such a development because their survival and prosperity are at stake.

http://www.fpif.org/papers/korea2003.html (accessed date : June 4, 2003).
Institute of Political Education for Unification (IPEU), Department of Unification, Understanding
North Korea, 2003 (Seoul: IPEU, 2003), pp. 149-150.

149

Negotiated Settlement and Engagement
The two alternative prescriptions appear problematic. Neither military option
nor containment seem to be feasible and desirable.15 To prevent the Korean peninsulafrom stumbling along a disastrous path to war, both sides ought to consider in earnest,
the negotiated-settlement approach of alternating threat and incentive. A nuclear North
Korea is unthinkable. It would debilitate South Korea and trigger nuclear proliferationin the region, involving Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and of course China. The undoingof a nuclear North Korea may require military action, causing enormous collateral
damage. Needless to say, neither prospect is desirable. A solution should be foundbetween the twin principles of ‘no nuclear North Korea’ and ‘no military conflict’.
Therefore, the sooner a negotiated settlement is given a chance, the better the prospectof avoiding the two worst consequences. Several steps can be considered in pursuingthe negotiated settlement option:
First, utmost attention should be paid to an immediate freeze of North Korea’s
unruly behavior in the direction of becoming a nuclear power, such as verifiableinspection of nuclear facilities, and their irreversible dismantling. Coping with theNorth Korean threat through isolation, containment, and transformation could be moretime consuming and risky.
Second, the six party talk should be continued and effectively utilized. After along deliberation on the modality of dialogue (e.g., bilateral, three party, four party, five
party, six party), the United States and North Korea have finally accepted the six party
formula and held its first meeting in Beijing in early September. The first meeting was
not successful not only because U.S.-DPRK renewed an old pattern of bilateral
confrontation, but also because it failed to produce any agreed principles, objectives,and procedures of the six party talk. But there is no other option but to revive the six
party talk. For the breakdown of the six party talk will eventually lead to either an
American unilateral action or the adoption of UN Security Council resolution on
15

See Jung-Hoon Lee and Chung-in Moon, “The North Korean Nuclear Crisis Revisited: The Case for a NegotiatedSettlement,” Security Dialogue 34:2 (June 2003), pp.135-151.

10

sanctions on North Korea, both of which would entail catastrophic outcomes. Thus, allparties should make every effort to make the six party talk viable.
Third, it should be kept in mind that the six party talk needs to be utilized for
dialogue and negotiation rather than for pressure to foster isolation, containment, andtransformation of North Korea. What is critical at present is an immediate freeze ofNorth Korea’s nuclear activities and their verifiable inspection and dismantling. In sodoing, the United States might have to consider relaxing its precondition of ‘dismantle
first, security assurance later.’ If North Korea does not show any sincere andcooperative attitude in complying with American and international demands of a
nuclear freeze and verifiable dismantling, it will be much easier for South Korea, China,
and Russia to join the U.S. in undertaking collective punitive measures on the North
including sanctions. However, it might be difficult for South Korea, China, and Russia
to join U.S.-led outright multilateral pressures without making any meaningful progressin negotiation with North Korea.
Fourth, in setting the agenda, the North Korean proposal of ‘bold initiative’deserves prudent attention. If North Korea is willing to make a binding public pledge toabandon its nuclear weapons programs through verifiable dismantling and to continue
the moratorium on missile test launching and the export of missile parts andcomponents and technology, its request of a non-aggression document, normalization
with the U.S., non-obstruction of its economic cooperation with Japan and South Korea,
and alleviation of its energy situation including the Shinpo LWR project, needs to beseriously taken into account. A promising sign recently surfaced on this front. On
August 9, 2003, Secretary Powell hinted that U.S. Congress could endorse a resolution
assuring North Korea of its non-aggression intent.16 Although such a resolution is shortof a formal non-aggression treaty or pact, it underscores a major policy shift from theprevious position of ‘dismantle first, negotiation later.’ But opposition from the neoconservative camp is known to abort the gesture, resulting in another round of rigid
confrontation at the six party talk.
Finally, the process of a negotiated settlement should be tied to engagement for
opening and reform in North Korea. Engagement, as opposed to containment or hawk
engagement, should be positively considered for several reasons:

11

16

-

Engagement will entail trust, the most indispensable element for
dialogue and negotiation. Given that the current stand-off has
resulted from mutual distrust (i.e., American accusation of North
Korea as a violator of the Agreed Framework, and North Korea’s fearof American nuclear attack reminiscent of recent developments inIraq), trust-building should be the first step. Engagement will
facilitate the process of trust building between the two.

-Engagement is predicated on the availability of choices for North
Korea. While containment forces North Korean leadership to
continue to rely on status quo and erratic responses of blackmail andbrinkmanship, engagement can induce it to deliberate on morepractical choices such as Deng Xiao-ping’s or Parch Chung-hee’s
path to economic opening and reform. Despite suspicion of deception
on the part of the North, North Korea has usually shown positive
responses to engagement. Thus, engagement can bring about avirtuous, rather than vicious, cycle of interactions in dealing with
North Korea.

-

Engagement might be the least traumatic, most effective, and fasterway of transforming the North, while freezing its risky nuclear
ambition. Korean history demonstrates that regime change by
external forces were always subject to the question of legitimacy.
Outside pressures alone, without corresponding formation ofdomestic civil society, cannot bring about changes in the North.
Changes should come from within. In so doing, the formation andactivation of civil society is essential, which North Korea currently
lacks. Engagement, opening and reforms, and creation and expansionof market interests are vital to the shaping of civil society in North
Korea.

-

Finally, ensuing debates notwithstanding, engagement has so far
worked in inter-Korean relations. Changes in North Korea are by nomeans fictional. A little more push for a genuine, not hawk,
engagement by the United States can produce profound changes in a

Korea Herald, August 10, 2003.

12

rapid manner. Moreover, South Korea does not want a sudden
collapse in the North.

5. Concluding Remarks
Resolving the North Korean nuclear problem through a negotiated settlement
will not be easy. Negotiations with North Korea can always become unruly anduncertain. However, recent developments reveal some optimistic signs for a negotiatedsettlement. Although the three party talk involving the U.S., North Korea, and China,
which was held in Beijing in April 2003, failed, it paved a way to the six party talk in
August, in which the U.S., North Korea, China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia
participated. Its outcome was rather dismal because of uncompromising posture of the
U.S. and North Korea. North Korea called for a simultaneous exchange of American
security assurance and its public pledge to abandon nuclear weapons program. But
American position has been firm: unless North Korea undertakes a verifiabledismantling of its nuclear weapons programs, the United States cannot promise any
measures related to security assurance. Nevertheless, the six parties including North
Korea have agreed to hold another round of negotiation in November.
There is no guarantee that the six party will be successful. A large number ofactors, divergent calculus of interests, complex issue-linkages, and procedural
difficulties could make the six-party negotiation all the more problematic. Moreover,even if the six party talk is able to produce a negotiated settlement, its implementation
involving freeze, verifiable inspection, and enforcement of dismantling will encounterdaunting challenges. Thus, it seems too early to predict any successful outcomes.
Yet there are no other alternatives but the six party talk. The six party talk is
crucial on several accounts. First, it will certainly defuse the crisis escalation and bringnew momentum for the peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear crisis through asequence of standstill, rollback, and cruise cannot be ruled out.
Second, it is promising because all five parties except North Korea have showna convergence in the principle of ‘no nuclear North Korea.’ Joining of China and Russia
to the ‘no nuclear North Korea’ camp will certainly generate fresh pressures on North
Korea to give up its nuclear programs.

13

Third, China, Russia, and South Korea could also exert pressures on the UnitedStates to resolve security concerns of North Korea in a more convincing manner.
Fourth, North Korea is keenly aware that the six party talk is its last option.
Failure to make a major breakthrough through the six party talk will leave North Korea
with no other alternatives but an American unilateral action or a United Nations
Security Council resolution. Thus, it has every reason to actively engage in it.
Fifth, it bears profound historical significance because the six parties aremeeting for the first time in history in dealing with the Korean peninsula security issue,
overcoming the bitter enmity of the past. Their cooperation for common security willbring rays of hope for peace and stability on the Korean peninsula.
Finally, in light of North Korea’s desperate efforts to rebuild its economy, thesix party talk will be the last chance. Its success will lead to engagement and economic
gains for the North, whereas its failure will lead to containment and strangulation.

14