• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Article

2004 was a difficult year. Will 2005 be any better?

It is now two years since North Korea withdrew from the Nonproliferation Treaty and since Pyongyang restarted its plutonium production program. The results of efforts by South Korea, China, Japan and particularly the United States have failed to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear program and are now little but an empty shell of a policy. 2005 will be a difficult year.

Link Copied
By Jon Wolfsthal
Published on Dec 29, 2004
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

In foreign affairs, anniversaries are always a good time to reflect on developments and judge whether policies are having the desired effect. It is now two years since the Agreed Framework collapsed, North Korea withdrew from the Nonproliferation Treaty and since Pyongyang restarted its plutonium production program. The results of efforts by South Korea, China, Japan and particularly the United States have failed to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear program and are now little but an empty shell of a policy. 2005 will be a difficult year, when tough decisions will need to be made by all of the affected governments or we will all need to learn how to live with a nuclear North Korea for many years to come.

While North Korea's nuclear program remains well hidden and hard to define, it is reasonable to make some assessments about Pyongyang's nuclear capabilities and intentions. The first is that it is all but certain that Pyongyang has taken the 8000 fuel rods previously stored at Yongbyon under the terms of the Agreed Framework and purified however much plutonium was contained inside. A worst case assessment suggests this could give Pyongyang enough material to produce an addition 5 to 6 nuclear weapons beyond what they may have had before the Agreed Framework went into force.

Harder to define is the extent of North Korea's uranium enrichment capability. It seems unlikely that the original US estimate that North Korea could begin producing enough highly enriched uranium for 2 weapons a year by the end of 2005 was accurate. Nevertheless, it does appear likely that North Korea was acquiring uranium enrichment equipment and will continue its efforts to perfect the technology unless convinced to do otherwise.

While it is true that 2004 also brought to light surprising facts about South Korea's nuclear activities, the world has shown that openness and cooperation can overcome suspicion and history. South Korea's successful fight to prevent the issue of its nuclear experiments and their resolution from being acknowledged by the UN Security Council was a domestic victory for the government, but made it harder to convince Pyongyang about the seriousness of its own activities in the eyes of the international community which have yet to bring North Korea's violations to the UN Security Council.

As for Pyongyang's intentions, they remain as difficult to judge as ever. However, given what has happened over the last two years, Pyongyang will likely feel more secure and more ambitious in 2005 that it did in 2004. North Korea has successfully expanded its nuclear weapons arsenal by some unknown amount, has managed to cause a serious rift between the United States and its regional allies. Moreover, it has successfully held off efforts to impose sanctions or other penalties for its stated withdrawal from all nonproliferation agreements constraining its nuclear program. With the United States military bogged down in Iraq and Washington's attention diverted elsewhere, there is little real pressure coming to bear on North Korea for its past nuclear actions and, knowing this, it would not be surprising to see Pyongyang try to push its advantage in the months to come.

The six party talks remain the focus of diplomatic efforts to shut down North Korea's nuclear program and improve relations between the Washington and Pyongyang. But the lack of seriousness from Washington, and the unwillingness of other regional members to force North Korea to participate and compromise on its demands suggest the talks will be as unsuccessful in 2005 as they have been to date. Washington put forward an unbalanced, but serious proposal in the June talks, but North Korea has not responded in kind, and the other members of the talks have not focused enough effort to make North Korea return to the negotiating table. The fine format of the talks cannot make up for the lack of desire among the two main parties to engage and work out an agreement, and unless the desire increases, the risks from a nuclear North Korea may increase as the months and years roll by.

If North Korea's nuclear program cannot be eliminated, then the other members of the six party talks will have a difficult 2005and beyond. Can South Korea accept a nuclear neighbor to the North and if not, what will it do to respond over the long term? This is the questions that will increasingly occupy the minds of American experts in the years to come unless 2005 surprises many and leads to a negotiated end to North Korea's nuclear program.

This article first appeared in the Munhwa Daily.

About the Author

Jon Wolfsthal

Former Nonresident Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program

Jon Wolfsthal was a nonresident scholar with the Nuclear Policy Program.

    Recent Work

  • Report
    Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security<br>With 2007 Report Card on Progress
      • +2

      George Perkovich, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, Joseph Cirincione, …

  • Article
    10 Plus 10 Doesn’t Add Up

      Jon Wolfsthal

Jon Wolfsthal
Former Nonresident Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program
Jon Wolfsthal
North AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaSouth KoreaNorth KoreaForeign PolicyNuclear PolicyNuclear Energy

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

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Will the Far Right Change Europe’s Russia Policy?

    The European far right might fail to steer EU policy in the direction Russia wants, but they will create enough chaos inside Europe to benefit the Kremlin.

      Dimitar Bechev

  • The nuclear missile formation passes through Tian'anmen Square during a military parade on September 3, 2025 in Beijing, China.
    Paper
    Untangling the Nuclear Knot: A Constructive Agenda for Managing China’s Nuclear Relations with the United States and Its Allies

    The nuclear relationship between China and the United States is increasingly shaped by widening perception gaps rather than deliberate strategic design.

      Tong Zhao

  • .S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright speaks with Venezuela's interim president, Delcy Rodríguez during a press conference regarding the oil agreement reached by the US government and Venezuela on September 2, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela.
    Paper
    Recasting American Power in Latin America

    Washington needs to recognize that influence in the Western Hemisphere comes from presence, delivery, and reliability. It also must recognize that while the United States remains the key external actor, it no longer operates in a permissive environment and cannot presume deference from regional players who have other options, namely China.

      Juan S. Gonzalez

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Have U.S.-Belarusian Negotiations Stalled?

    Minsk clearly expected the dialogue with Washington to yield more results, in particular the lifting of EU sanctions and permission to export potash.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Ukraine Russia Black Sea Food
    Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    A Black Sea Truce Is About Global Food Security, Too

    A summer of escalation in the Black Sea has hurt Ukraine economically and is exacerbating world food security. A truce is needed—as is a broader reframing of Europe’s Ukraine strategy.

      Thomas de Waal

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.