http://revista.ieee.es/index.php/ieee 329 Anass Gouyez Ben Allal North Korea´s nuclear programe: the survival of the... However, the exchange of gunfire in 2010 between the two Koreas on Yeompyeong Island near the common border imposed since the armistice of 1953, and the alleged sinking of a South Korean ship by a North Korean torpedo in waters close to the disputed maritime boundary between the two nations (March 26, 2010) are events clearly demonstrating that North Korea can push beyond the limits and resort to weapons -whether conventional or nuclear- to defend its interests63. In the first of these episodes, North Korean forces fired more than 175 shells and rockets over its neighbour, killing two South Korean soldiers and two civilians and leaving more than fifteen wounded64, while 46 crew-members died with the sinking of the South Korean vessel. China’s opposition to the Security Council prevented the Council from taking action, although North Korea’s responsibility was confirmed. But the United States did impose unilateral coercive measures65 that prompted North Korea to declare its intention to continue with its nuclear programme until it equalled the capacity of the great powers. In these new circumstances, one could not rule out the use of nuclear weapons in certain circumstances by the young, inexperienced Kim Jong-Un. In the crisis triggered by the 2013 nuclear test, it is apparent that the tone of threats became increasingly strong and disturbing, as the success of atomic explosives and ballistic missiles tests boosted the confidence of the North Korean regime, and it seems set to further develop its nuclear programme. In the crisis of 2013, North Korea, through the state news agency Uriminzokkiri, stated that “if the United States continues to attempt a hostile policy against North Korea, the country has enough power to wipe out the United States from the planet”66. It did not specify the measures they would take, but this is not the first time that the Government of Pyongyang has announced that it can defeat the American power with its military potential; in October 2012 North Korea declared that it had missiles capable of reaching American territory67. The announcement was considered an exaggeration at the time, but two months later Pyongyang’s government launched a 63 On these events, see GARCÍA SÁNCHEZ, Ignacio José, op.cit. pp. 298-299. The sinking of the South Korean ship was condemned in the Declaration by the President of the United Nations Security Council of July 9, 2010 (S/PRST/2010/13). 64 North Korean officials argued that South Korea had started that exchange of artillery, while the country reported that its units were carrying out military manoeuvres but that at no time did they fire on North Korean territory. CÁNOVAS SÁNCHEZ, Bartolomé, op.cit. Pp.1-2. 65 Presidential Executive Order 13551, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to North Korea”, 75 F.R. 53837, September 1, 2010. See RENNACK, D.E., North Korea: Legislative Basis for U.S. Economic Sanctions, Congressional Research Service, Washington, September 29, 2010, pp. 2-3; y DAVENPORT, Kelsey, Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy, Arms Control Association, March 2016, www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron. 66 Declarations by the spokesman for the DPRK Ministry of Defence, Kim Min-seok, March 30, 2013, cited in CÁNOVAS SÁNCHEZ, Bartolomé, op.cit, p.10. 67 See Declarations of the DPRK of October 9, 2012, www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2012/10/121009_ corea_norte_misiles_ataque_eeuu_jp (consulted on May 14, 2014).
REVISTA_IEEE_10
To see the actual publication please follow the link above