[Interview] "Denuclearization of N.Korea stretches over 10 years…It's a big deal to permanently shut down Yongbyon"

A world-renowned nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker, a senior fellow at the Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperationa said “the denuclearization of North Korea is a long and difficult task that takes more than 10 years” and suggested a ‘halt-roll back-eliminate’ phased approach as a solution to North Korea nuclear weapons program. He also said that “Yongbyon constitutes the heart of North Korea’s nuclear program. It would be a very big deal to permanently shut it down.”

Hecker is considered the best expert on North Korean nuclear weapons. Since 2004, he has visited several North Korean nuclear facilities and in 2010 he saw more than 1,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment at Yongbyon. The US media refer to ‘the Stanford team’ including Dr. Hecker, as ‘advisors’ to Stephen Biegun, the U.S. Special Representative for North Korea.

Dr. Hecker and his colleagues at the Stanford said in their study published on Feb 11 "North Korea, which has about 30 nuclear weapons in 2017, produced plutonium and highly enriched uranium that may allow it to build 5~7 more nuclear weapons last year, but it also halted nuclear and long-range missile testing, and rolled back part of its nuclear weapons program.” The Korea Economic Daily interviewed Dr. Hecker by email last Thursday and Saturday ahead of the second U.S.-North Korea summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, on Feb 27~28.

At least What should the U.S. obtain from Hanoi summit to claim success?

“What is important is to take steps that continue to decrease the threat that North Korea’s nuclear program poses. In turn, the Washington will have to address Pyongyang’s desire to normalize relations. Denuclearization will have to be matched with corresponding steps for normalization. ”

Last year, N.Korea offered dismantlement of Yongbyon nuclear facilities depending on Washington’s corresponding measures. Do you think it is a ‘big deal’?

“Yongbyon constitutes the heart of North Korea’s nuclear program. It would be a very big deal to permanently shut it down.”

Many experts criticize that there has not been a progress since Singapore summit. Why has progress stalled?

“First, denuclearization is a poorly defined concept. We should focus on the elimination of the North’s nuclear weapons, the means of production and means of delivery. Second, Washington has so far not taken steps toward normalization. It has insisted on maintaining maximum pressure and sanctions, which Pyongyang considers incompatible with normalization.”

What solution do you suggest to completely denuclearize N.Korea?

“A phased approch, ‘halt-roll back-eliminate’ roadmap should be considered as a solution. N.Korea will not give up its weapons and its weapons program until its security can be assured. Such assurance can not be achieved simply by American promise or an agreement on paper, it will require a substantial period of coexistence and interdependence. Therefore the three time horizons will stretch over a decade or so because of the enormity of its nuclear weapon enterprise and the huge trust deficit between Washington and Pyongyang.”

Is there any way we can accelerate the denuclearization timeline?

“In our study, we suggest that N.Korea, S.Korea, and the U.S. explore cooperative efforts to demilitarize N.Korea’s nuclear and missile programs and convert them to civilian nuclear and space program such as nuclear eletricity, nuclear medicine, weather prediction. Both S.Korea and Japan enjoy the benefits of civilian nuclear and space programs. Such cooperation will, in conjunction with IAEA monitoring and safeguards implementation, make adequate verification much more likely and possibly accelerate the denuclearization timeline.”
(In the study, Dr. Hecker argues that if N.Korea’s nuclear and missile programs can be converted for civilian use, the denuclearization timeline may shrink to 5 years, because N.Korean technical staff can help to decommission and clean up the facilities.)

I wonder if the U.S. is in favor of that idea, even if it is a civilian program.

“It will be difficult to convince the U.S. government, but I think it is worth a try. Needless to say, for this to happen, Pyongyang would first have to agree to halt, roll back, and eliminate its existing nuclear weapons and its military nuclear program.”

How strongly do you trust Kim Jong-Un’s promise of denuclearization?

“Is Kim Jong-Un willing to eliminate his nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons program? I don’t know because it will depend on how relations develop. But I do believe it’s time to find out.”

The denuclearization of N.Korea has failed more than 25 years. Why should we believe that this time is different?

“We are at a completely different place. N.Korea has a nuclear arsenal and it has a new leader. The North-South rapprochement and the Singapore Summit have reduced tensions to the lowest level in well over a decade -that buys time and space for diplomacy.”

As you pointed out, N.Korea expanded its nuclear weapons capabilities last year. Isn‘t that a dangerous signal?

“It is unfortunate, but not surprising since formal negotiations have not even begun. However, as we point out in our study, although N.Korea continued to produce fissile materials with which it could build more bombs, it took demonstrable steps to lower the threat it poses.
There are three requisites for a nuclear arsenal-fissile materials, weaponization(that is design, build, and test), and delivery. The North did continue to produce fissile materials. But it halted nuclear testing and long-range missile testing, and rolled back part of its nuclear weapons program.”

N.Korea has refused to declare its whole nuclear weapons programs.

“There is absence of an agreement to do so. And I don’t think asking for a complete declaration up front is a good idea.”
(Dr. Hecker and his collegues, in their Foreign Policy column last June, pointed out that “It will not be possible for inspectors, especially in an adversarial environment, to get unfettered access to all of North Korea’s facilities to verify that it has not secretly kept a few nuclear weapons, a few kilograms of plutonium, or one or more covert uranium centrifuge facilities.” )

There are concerns that the U.S. will lose the leverage to push N.Korea, if sanctions are lifted before complete denuclearization.

“Some sanctions relief will most likely be necessary to get the next big steps on denuclearization. Denuclearization of N.Korea will follow a step-by-step process and so will sanctions relief. All sanctions will likely not be eliminated before all weapons are eliminated. And sanctions are much easier to reverse than denuclearization.”

What’s your overall idea about recent Stephen Biegun’s speech at the Stanford University?

“Very encouraging flexibility shown by Washington.”
(Biegun said in his speech that “We are not seeking to topple the North Korean regime” and he also mentioned “before the process of denuclearization can be final, we must also have a complete understanding of the full extent of the North Korean weapons of mass destruction missile programs. We will get that at some point through a comprehensive declaration”

Washington=Yongseok Ju

hohoboy@hankyung.com