A SATELLITE OR A WARHEAD?

The story with the launch of the North Korean satellite or missile has had quite an expected continuation. It became ano-ther serious argument raising the issue of nuclear nonproliferation to a new level of discussion which is free from political insinuations and meets the real interests of global security.

A satellite or not

On 5 April 2009, Pyongyang stated that North Korea had launched an Unha-2 (Milky Way) carrier rocket with an experimental communications satellite Kvanmenson-2 (Bright Star) from a test site near Musudan on the country's northeastern coast. The communications satellite was reported to be transmitting songs about the leaders of North Korea, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, to the whole world, which proves the success of its delivery to orbit.

This launch was preceded by a real propaganda battle. The USA, Japan and South Korea said that under the pretext of peaceful space development, Pyongyang is planning to test a longer-range ballistic missile. During the talks at the G20 summit in London, US President Barack Obama and his South Korean counterpart Lee Myung-bak expressed their readiness to give a "firm and single" response to North Korea's actions. Japan, which sees Pyongyang's missile programme as a direct threat to its security, even mentioned its intention to shoot down the North Korean missile if it was launched.

In turn, the North Korean authorities warned that an attempt to intercept the missile will be considered to be an act of aggression and will lead to a retaliatory strike by Pyongyang. They even threatened to down US spy planes which will try to infiltrate into the area of the missile site at the time of the launch (Pyongyang earlier accused the USA and South Korea of carrying out almost 200 reconnaissance flights near the Musudan test site over the past month).

Luckily, the Asian powers did not start a military conflict. The Japanese did not risk downing the North Korean missile, especially as there were heated debates as to whether a North Korean satellite was actually delivered to near-earth orbit. The command of the US aerospace defence system said that "the first stage of the rocket fell into the Sea of Japan. The remaining stages and the cargo (satellite) landed in the Pacific Ocean. Nothing was delivered to orbit and the wreckage did not fall on Japan."

Japanese, South Korean and Russian experts came to a similar conclusion. However, what matters is not whether Pyongyang managed the ill-fated launch or not. The most important thing was to identify what the North Korean regime launched or tried to launch. Referring to the results of an analysis of pictures from space, American specialists came to the conclusion that the rocket was really carrying a satellite, not a warhead. However, in any case, critiques of Pyongyang accused it of developing a nuclear space programme and violating UN Security Council resolutions and expressed their intention to toughen international sanctions against North Korea.

Meanwhile, the North Korean authorities are exulting. Success in space development became new "convincing evidence" of the sustainability of the North Korean state which is governed by a communist regime. The North Korean communists showed all their power to their people, which is proved by the fact that, three days after the launch of the missile, Kim Jong-il was re-elected by the Supreme People's Assembly to the highest post in the country - the post of chairman of the National Defence Committee. As for foreign enemies, i.e. South Korea, Japan, the USA and the rest of the West saw once again North Korea's firm aspiration to achieve its goals despite all threats and obstacles. By way of confirmation, Pyongyang warned that North Korea will quit the talks on nuclear disarmament and resume the production of weapons-grade plutonium if the UN increases pressure.

Interpretations at the UN

Meanwhile, the UN is not exerting real pressure on Pyongyang yet, though the USA, Japan and South Korea insist on the adoption of a new resolution with additional sanctions against North Korea. The US president openly said that "North Korea had violated its international obligations and aggravated its isolation from the community of nations". The USA expressed its intention to ensure the adoption of a resolution that would condemn the missile launches, demand stricter observation of the ban on the entry of some North Korean officials and expand the existing sanctions, extending the embargo which the UN imposed after nuclear tests in 2006 to new North Korean companies and new categories of luxury items. The US administration even mentioned the need for UN member countries to carry out compulsory checks (with possible confiscation) of "certain" North Korean cargo.

The NATO council demonstrated the West's common approach to this problem. In a special statement, it called Pyongyang's actions "irresponsible and provocative". The North Atlantic alliance demanded that North Korea "give up all programmes aimed at creating ballistic missiles, totally implement all the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council, destroy its nuclear weapons and stop developing related programmes".

Japan also expressed its decisive protest at Pyongyang's actions, demanding 30 minutes after the launch of the missile from the Musudan test site that the UN Security Council convene an emergency session. However, the Security Council members failed to develop a single position. Though veto-holding China and Russia did not welcome Pyongyang's actions, they spoke out against new sanctions.

China confidently said that this was a test launch without a warhead, which is why there can be no condemnation of North Korea. From Beijing's point of view, Pyongyang has the full right to peaceful space development. For this reason, the Chinese Foreign Ministry warned against fomenting the situation surrounding Pyongyang's space programme and urged "a restrained approach to this issue in order to guarantee stability in the region".

Russia also spoke about the need to avoid hasty decisions. Commenting on the calls of some countries to "punish" North Korea, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that threats to impose sanctions are counter-productive. According to an official spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, Andrey Nesterenko, the toughening of the sanctions "might backfire, isolate and anger North Korea even more and provoke it to take appropriate action".

The main contradiction during the discussions on the issue at the UN was caused by the different attitude of interested sides in the Security Council resolution adopted after the nuclear tests in North Korea in October 2006. Opponents of Pyongyang claim that rocket technologies can also be used for launching military missiles, which is a violation of Resolution 1718 which orders North Korea to "suspend all activities linked to the programme of ballistic missile tests". On the other hand, and Beijing and Moscow draw attention to this, the resolution requires Pyongyang to halt any work to create ballistic missiles to deliver military cargo, but does not say anything about peaceful satellites.

As a result of such different interpretations of the same document, consultations between the permanent members of the UN Security Council dragged on for a week, failing to yield a specific result. Desperate Japan unilaterally decided to extend its economic sanctions against North Korea and introduced a number of additional measures, banning the export of some goods to North Korea and reducing the sum of money transfers to that country.

In any case, the deadlock in which the Security Council members ended up while discussing the North Korean problem was linked not so much to the different interpretation of the 2006 resolutions as to reasons of much greater strategic importance.

The Korean problem and the Prague appeal

It is the different political goals of the interested powers that prevent the world community from developing a single approach to Pyongyang. For example, the US strategy is to promote the process of Korea's unification under its protection and to create an allied state which, together with Japan, could prevent Russia and China from strengthening their positions in the Asia-Pacific region. Besides that, Washington itself often provokes Pyongyang to take sharp actions, trying, on the one hand, to lure it into the trap of an "arms race", which economically exhausted North Korea would be unable to overcome, and on the other, using the missile activity of this country as another argument in favour of deploying new American missile defence systems in Europe and Asia.

For Russia and China, North Korea is a good barrier against the hegemonic ambitions of the United States. For this reason, Moscow and Beijing, which in principle have no interest in Pyongyang developing its nuclear programme, are still using all diplomatic opportunities, including their right of veto at the UN, not to let North Korea be finally "put in the pillory" installed by its rivals. For this reason, Russia and China insist on the resumption of the dialogue within the framework of the working group which has been going on since August 2003 with the participation of the USA, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea. The aim of the "six" is to create a mechanism of maintaining peace and security in Northeast Asia. It must be remembered that it was exactly owing to talks with the "six" that Pyongyang agreed to freeze its nuclear programme several years ago and started dismantling a reactor at the Yonben experimental centre. However, the dialogue reached a deadlock last year after the USA and North Korea failed to agree on ways of checking Pyongyang's list of nuclear programmes, while Japan and South Korea refused to supply the North Koreans with fuel for ordinary power stations in exchange for its decision to give up its nuclear programme.

Currently, the resumption of the activity of the "six" seems extremely important to the interests of global security, and not only Russia and China, but also other members of the working group, including the USA, realize this. The latest missile incident showed that it is necessary to look for new possibilities of fruitful dialogue with North Korea whose nuclear programme is turning into the same acute problem as Iran's nuclear programme despite its real nature (the one North Korea itself insists on or the one the USA and its allies suspect it of). The fact that 5 April passed off without missile strikes and interceptions is not a reason to be confident that this will always be the case. Peace in the Korean Peninsula is hanging by a thread, and to a much greater extent than before.

It is notable that the North Koreans launched the missile on the same day as Barack Obama addressed the USA-EU summit in Prague calling for a nuclear-free world. "Working in this direction is the moral duty of the United States as the only nuclear power that used atomic weapons in reality," he stressed.

Though it is difficult to imagine that the whole world will give up nuclear weapons, such a statement by the leader of the most powerful state inspires hope that this task may be quite feasible. The story with the launch of the North Korean missile convinced us again that it is of vital importance to mankind.