The significant part that draws attention from Nuclear Posture Review(NPR), which the Obama administration released on April 6th was that it will maintain the option of nuclear preemptive attacks on North Korea and Iran. NPR declares that ”The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty(NPT) and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.”

According to this standard, North Korea, which has withdrawn from Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and conducted two times of nuclear tests, and Iran, being paid attention as one of the countries that violated NPT, remain as the targets of the US preemptive attacks. In other words, it is possible that the United States will take nuclear retaliation toward these countries even if they attack the US and the US allies or partners with conventional or biological and chemical weapons.

Labeling North Korea and Iran as “outlier” in the interview with New York Times on April 5th, President Obama made it clear that North Korea and Iran in current situation will be excluded in ‘Negative Security Assurance’. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates came up with NPR on the 6th and he also clarified the nuclear preemptive attacks stating that all options are on the table regarding these nations.

The Obama administration with the new nuclear strategy has an intention to warn North Korea and Iran with a serious red card in keeping nuclear preemptive attack, which is inherited from the Cold War era. It means to abandon nuclear development and comply with Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, provided that they want to get out of the nuclear threat. Or else, they need to get prepared with “all options” including the nuclear preemptive attacks from the United States.

North Korea, no more expectations from Obama?

As far as the Obama’s administration policy is concerned, intending to put both North Korea and Iran into the targets of preemptive attack, the upcoming North Korea's nuclear issue is being one of the main concerns. North Korea claims that its nuclear weapons are “nuclear deterrence.” In light of this, North Korea has a great possibility of claiming “nuclear deterrence” under the pretext of nuclear threat from the US. In this sense, North Korea is very likely to justify “nuclear deterrence” and highly criticize maintaining Obama’s key option of preemptive attack. Also, proponents of nuclear armaments as well as military authorities in North Korea are likely to strengthen this position.

The most serious concern is that it is possible for North Korea to give up having expectations on the Obama administration. Having the regime change when President Obama took office, North Korea expected the improvement of the relations between the North and the US, however, the Obama's hard-line policies made it difficult for North Korea to anticipate a better situation. Hard policies include the Obama administration’s public remark on 5029 concept plan(or operation plan), US-South Korea joint military exercise “Key Resolve”, referring North Korea's satellite launch back to UN Security Council, sustaining sanctions on North Korea, and refusing bilateral talks. Moreover, North Korea’s distrust is expected to increase dramatically and even reach the top regarding the option of nuclear preemptive strike of the US.

This whole deteriorated situation is expected to weaken the possibility of the resume of six-party talks since there was an incident regarding the crackdown of South Korean Navy ship disputed by North Korea. With Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) agreement with Russia and the Nuclear Posture Review(NPR), Obama administration believes to have a great diplomatic confidence in nuclear nonproliferation. Based on this, it is needless to say that North Korea and Iran are highly expected to get harsh criticism in ‘Nuclear Security Summit’, which is scheduled to be held on April 12th and 13th, and NPT meeting in May

On the basis of this, Washington is moving towards the hard line policy with regards to North Korea and Iran. ‘Tough and direct diplomacy’ was one of Obama’s commitments in Presidential election to resolve North Korea and Iran’s nuclear issue. However, we can hardly expect his bold diplomatic strategy and now he is focusing on pressures and sanctions. The change of Obama’s action is believed to support strengthening NPT by showing a strong will towards the states that abandoned or violated this treaty.

Isn’t this the violation of 9.19 Joint Statement?

It is possible to say that Obama’s nuclear preemptive strike towards North Korea violates 2005 September Joint Statement. Since North Korea not only abandoned NPT in 2003 but also declared possessing nuclear weapons in February 2005 and operated nuclear tests in May 2009, the United States excluded North Korea from the ‘negative security assurance’, which declares that the US will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

The problem is that the US strategy can be seen as a violation of Joint Statement of the six party talks that requires North Korea to have “complete and thorough implementation”. This Statement includes “The United States affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) with nuclear or conventional weapons”. However, this Joint Statement has been agreed during North Korea’s withdrawal from NPT and the declaration of possessing of nuclear weapons. Therefore, it can be said that the US administration’s maintaining options for nuclear preemptive attack toward North Korea violates this part.

In this context, it could be argued that North Korea has to be carved out an exception for ‘negative security assurance’ since North Korea conducted nuclear weapons tests twice. However, if the US keeps the option of nuclear preemptive attack due to the North’s nuclear tests, it will lead to a huge controversy over the US policy which does not acknowledge North Korea as a nation that possesses nuclear weapons.

It is known that the Obama administration has offered ‘carrots’ along with ‘sticks’ when it comes to preemptive attacks towards North Korea. It implies that the US will offer ‘negative security assurance’ only if North Korea let goes of nuclear weapons and returns to NPT. It is understood to be somewhat unfair for both sides under armistice situation when they are said to be assured security on condition of abandoning nuclear weapons first. From this point of view, it seems to have a strong probability that North Korea will intensify its nuclear arsenal, criticizing that there’s not much difference in Obama’s policy from Bush’s.

Contrary to the global community’s enthusiastic shout for the ‘nuclear-free world’, it is seriously being worried that there will be an outcry over increasing tension of ‘nuclear confrontation’ on the Korean peninsula.

Wooksik Cheong, the Representative of Peace Network. En Hye Lee, Peace Network Intern, contributed to translation Korean into English.