The North Korean intention to “unfreeze” a sealed plutonium reactor at Yongbyon sparked off an international crisis involving US, Russia, East Asian countries and the UN. It unfolded at a time when the international community was debating over methods to solve the Iraq issue that is threatening to escalate into yet another conflict in the Persian Gulf region. The December 12 announcement was followed by the expulsion of IAEA inspectors on December 31. North Korea justified its action by arguing that stoppage of heavy oil supply by the US left it with no alternative but to reactivate the small reactor at Yongbyon to meet its power demands; according to the 1994 Agreed Framework, US, Japan and South Korea agreed to supply North Korea with heavy fuel until two light water reactors were built with US assistance, in return for North Korea freezing and ultimately dismantling its nuclear weapons program. The constant delay in US assistance in building the light water reactors gave rise to suspicion in Pyongyang political circles regarding US intentions. US, on the other hand, defended its action of stopping supply of heavy oil citing the North Korean clandestine nuclear program which is breach of 1994 agreement.

The chill in their relationship became apparent after Bush assumed office; the warmth generated during the Clinton era, when the 1994 agreement was signed, and the planned Clinton visit, which according to him could have ended the missile program of North Korea, waned after his tenure. Conversely, the Bush administration has identified North Korea, along with Iraq and Iran, as the axis of evil. New US strategic doctrine allows preemptive strikes against countries that are potential enemies, much to the discomfort of North Korea. Further exacerbating the situation was the seizure of a North Korean ship loaded with Scud missiles for Yemen by Spanish navy under US orders.

Reactivation of the Yongbyon reactor, according to the US, will provide North Korea with sizeable quantities of plutonium to develop nuclear weapons. Precisely to prevent this from happening, the US is carefully considering all possible measures. To stall reprimanding measures in their course, North Korea threatened to revive its missile tests. Further, it has warned that any kind of sanction against it would be considered as an act of war, which would be dealt with in all possible manners. Cutting short North Korean bellicosity, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has retorted that it would be a great miscalculation on the part of North Korea to assume that it could indulge in nuclear belligerence considering American current preoccupation with Iraq.

The situation has substantially eased after the US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a carefully drafted statement, allayed North Korean speculation about any “hostile intent” harbored by the US. This was followed by the US President’s reiteration that the crisis could be averted diplomatically and without resort to military force. Subsequently, North Korea has stepped back from its confrontational posture and insisted that unconditional talks between Washington and Pyongyang are possible if facilitated by third parties and tied down to existing ground realities.

A corollary debate obtaining from the entire crisis is the evaluation of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT); for the second time, North Korea withdrew from the NPT (it first withdrew in 1993) nevertheless reassuring that it had no intention of producing nuclear weapons and that its nuclear activities will be confined to power generation.

This crisis has also brought to light a regional dimension in conflict resolution and conflict management initiatives; South Korea, Japan, China and Russia have emphasized the salience of dialogue in dealing with North Korea; and, South Korea, particularly, has refused the US theory of North Korea being a nuclear threat and opened new channels of contact with North Korea with the help of Beijing and Moscow to avert any signs of war in the Korean peninsula. China and Japan are uncomfortable that proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region will harm their interests; Chinese concerns stem from apprehensions that nuclearization of the region might tempt Taiwan to acquire nuclear weapons to challenge Chinese authority. Russia has traditionally been the power with some amount of influence over North Korean decision makers and had played an important role in bringing North Korea into the ambit of NPT. This clout needs to be taken note of, especially, since the Russians are highly critical of any attempt that might isolate Pyongyang economically as it would be counter-productive and lead to a “new escalation of tensions.”