[Editorial] Is The North’s Nuclear Problem To Be Softened and Ignored?

A statement has been issued from the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), where 38 nation’s leaders gathered, in support of peaceful resolutions on North Korea’s nuclear issue. The statement further calls for prompt resumption of six-way talks for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The meeting is significant confirmation of growing concern in the international community over North Korea’s nuclear initiatives.

Despite the summit’s confirmation, however, this is not the time to breathe a sigh of relief. In the wake of the break of an agreement to hold six-way talks before the end of September, Pyongyang’s nuclear-development problem is being treated as a centerpiece of the U.S. presidential election debate. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry even argued that North Korea has about four to seven nuclear weapons. Far from achieving hopeful resolution, we seem now to approach a direction under which we cannot block development of the North’s nuclear activities in peaceful ways.

Despite such volatile circumstances, the government seems to maintain a hands-off attitude. On top of that, President Roh Moo-hyun is delivering words that are quite opposite to what he said at ASEM where, with little ground to back the statement, he said, “I am confident that the North’s nuclear problem will be settled in a peaceful manner.” On his visit to Russia, he said, “There is no reason to hurry up.” Such capricious attitudes make Pyongyang take our warnings lightly. In addition, there are no clear signs that South Korea is attempting to tackle North Korea’s nuclear problems with clear leadership.

The North’s nuclear problem is not a matter for others. We need neither to coddle the North nor treat the issue as low-key. Our government must express its discontent that an effort to settle the problem through talks was crippled. If the President is not in a position to do so, at least the Minister of Unification, who is in charge of the nation’s security, unification, and diplomatic affairs, should express regret and call for the North to attend the six-way talks again.

If the government decides to wait until the winner of the U.S. presidential election sets up a new diplomatic direction on the North, the matter will only become more untenable. If the next President of the U.S. gives up on a peaceful approach, how would the government react? In order to prevent the matter from further deteriorating, our government should continuously stress to the U.S. government the importance of talks for peaceful resolution of the issue.