This is the concluding instalment of this piece. The fourth part was published yesterday
By Abdullahi U. Maiyaki
HOWEVER, any critically minded observer can see the greater tension between the IAEA and North Korean State over their nuclear power development programme than is the case with their sister South Korean State.
An attempt shall be made to examine and evaluate some of these contentious issues, in order to situate the dynamics to this crisis for empherical analysis.
1. Fears of possible preemptive military strike by North Korea
The increasing speculation that North Korea has nuclear weapons couple with the asymmetrical relations between the country and her immediate neighbours such as Japan and South Korea and other perceived enemies, may one day, decide to launch a preemptive military strike.
On the other hand, the possibility of a preemptive military action against North Korean nuclear weapon production facilities by a multilateral forces may not be ruled out, in order to forestall whatever perceived danger therein.
A unilateral attack by any country against North Korea may not only violate international law but precipitate an unprecedented security threat to lives not only at the Korean Peninsula but far ahead and also capable of evoking global sympathy in her favour.
2. Sustained the tempo of the six-party negotiation with North Korean team
The on-going negotiation between the international community and North Korea with the six-party team comprising of Russia, South Korea, China, Japan and the United States, requesting North Korea to eliminate its nuclear weapons programme, including halting its uranium enrichment programme be sustained, for an amicable settlement of the dispute.
It must be noted here that the continuous testing/firing of its long-range missiles which are said to be carriers of nuclear weapons, coupled with other arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, are instructive that, psychologically, North Koreans are in precarious state of mind and can strike at any little provocation. Therefore, everything possible must be done to contain their anger and persuade them to embrace peaceful path of dialogue and consensus building.
Countries which are allies of the North Koreans like Russia and China should continue to engage the North Korean political class to chart the course of peaceful coexistence within their region (i.e. the Korean Peninsula) at large. In going about this, the international community must equally demonstrate visible commitment of fairness and justice to all parties within the Korean Peninsula on matters of nuclear armament, especially between the North and South Korean states respectively.
The way and manner the UN-IAEA together with some western countries mounting pressures on the North Korean authorities to shelve their purported nuclear power programme and also uranium enrichment initiatives may backfire. Persuasion may serve the best option in the present circumstance alongside the Six-party team Negotiator’s intervention.
Alternatively, North Korean may be engage in bilateral negotiation by either the United States or any interested stakeholder by making some concessions in return for peaceful resolution of the crisis. Its withdrawal from the six-party negotiation is indicative that another option has to be explored on the matter, by extension the bilateral one-on-one talk where assurances and commitment to peaceful resolution by either party to the crisis are extended in an atmosphere of trust, friendship and cordiality.
The restive posture of the North Korean leadership/elite implies that the UN Security Council should treat with caution its engagement in the politics of the Korean Peninsula in general and North Korea in particular.