• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Sharon Squassoni"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Korean Peninsula"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "East Asia",
    "South Korea",
    "Asia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Atoms for Peace


The small steps achieved in the last year and a half through negotiations with North Korea in dismantling its nuclear program prove that, at least in the North Korean case, diplomacy and the path toward normalization should be given a chance.


Link Copied
By Sharon Squassoni
Published on Jun 26, 2008
Program mobile hero image

Program

Nuclear Policy

The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy.

Learn More

Source: The Guardian

When the Yongbyon cooling tower collapses on Friday in a cloud of dust, it will signal a level of commitment by the North Koreans to dismantling their nuclear weapons programme not previously seen. After all, the 1994 Agreed Framework managed only to freeze plutonium production, not disable, dismantle or destroy capabilities. To be sure, there is a long path ahead to actually dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons capabilities. And, the destruction of the cooling tower is akin to destroying a Potemkin village – the guts of the tower had already been dismantled months ago. Yet, it is an important symbolic step for Kim Jong Il, whose survival hangs by the slender threads of the reality he concocts.

The United States has committed to equally symbolic gestures – lifting provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act and removing North Korea from the state department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. The money is not likely to start flowing into North Korea from the United States anytime soon just because these restrictions have been lifted, though. North Koreans have little to sell and even less money to spend. Again, however, the real value of the gesture may lie in what it means to North Korea. Like Libya, North Korea is interested in normalisation of relations with the US after years of labouring under comprehensive sanctions. For North Korea, getting off that terrorism list is an important step toward normalisation, even if the short-term impact is negligible.

Where do these steps leave us? In addition to thousands of pages of documentation about the plutonium program, North Korea has agreed to provide access to the reactor core, to waste sites and to personnel, all of which will facilitate verification. As for the declaration promised last year, it is too soon to tell whether it will meet US expectations. This could be an issue for the next administration to decide. At a minimum, North Korea's uranium enrichment programme and proliferation activities with other states are too important to be swept under the table. The US has a host of other sanctions it can lift to provide further incentives for North Korean cooperation, including foreign aid, agricultural credits and financing and export licenses. But a sceptical US Congress must first be convinced. Its reaction to taking North Korea off the terrorism list could signal its willingness to take further steps.

Does this prove that diplomacy should be given a chance? With North Korea, unquestionably. The small steps achieved in the last year and a half stand in stark contrast to the failure of the earlier action-oriented, take-it-or-leave-it approach of the Bush administration. Some may argue that North Korea will never give up its weapons. The opportunity to question people on the ground will at least provide insight into whether this assumption is true. In the meantime, the world should be able to forestall more North Korean nuclear tests and hopefully continue on the path toward normalisation.

This article was originally published in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/26/nuclear.korea

About the Author

Sharon Squassoni

Former Senior Associate, Nuclear Policy Program

Squassoni came to Carnegie from the Congressional Research Service. She also served for nine years in the executive branch. Her last position at the State Department was director of Policy Coordination in the Nonproliferation Bureau.

    Recent Work

  • Other
    Grading Progress on 13 Steps Toward Nuclear Disarmament

      Sharon Squassoni

  • Report
    Nuclear Energy: Rebirth or Resuscitation?

      Sharon Squassoni

Sharon Squassoni
Former Senior Associate, Nuclear Policy Program
Sharon Squassoni
Nuclear PolicyEast AsiaSouth KoreaAsia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Article
    Leveraging Internal Security Cooperation with Vietnam Offers a Glimpse of Future Chinese Diplomacy with Southeast Asia

    Despite long-standing differences, China and Vietnam are reinforcing common ground for collaboration, especially in public security. This internal security–centered diplomacy offers a strengthened road map for how China moves forward with Southeast Asia.

      Sophie Zhuang

  • A demonstrator holds a tablet displaying a message as they occupy a road in protest against plans by the main opposition Kuomintang (KMT) and the Taiwan People's Party (TPP) to expand the parliamentary powers during the vote for the Parliament reform bill, outside the Parliament in Taipei on May 24, 2024. T
    Article
    Digital Hegemony and the Reification of Taiwan’s “Unification-Independence” Dichotomy

    Governments now deploy online platforms to shape public opinion and influence collective cognition. This is acutely apparent between China and Taiwan.

      • An Asian man with glasses wearing a sky blue collared shirt and black sweater stands in front of a statue of an antelope with a city skyline in the background

      Frank Cheng-Shan Liu

  • Commentary
    China’s Energy Security Doesn’t Run Through Hormuz but Through the Electrification of Everything

    Across Asia, China is better positioned to withstand energy shocks from the fallout of the Iran war. Its abundant coal capacity can ensure stability in the near term. Yet at the same time, the country’s energy transition away from coal will make it even less vulnerable during the next shock.


      • Damien Ma

      Damien Ma

  • Commentary
    Southeast Asia’s Agency Amid the New Oil Crisis

    There is no better time for the countries of Southeast Asia to reconsider their energy security than during this latest crisis.

      Gita Wirjawan

  • Commentary
    Fuel Crisis Forces Politically Perilous Trade-Offs in Indonesia

    As conflict in the Middle East drives up fuel costs across Asia, Indonesia faces difficult policy trade-offs over subsidies, inflation, and fiscal credibility. President Prabowo’s personalized governance style may make these hard choices even harder to navigate.

      Sana Jaffrey

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.