EU Parliamentarians condemn North Korean nuclear test in debate with Solana

MEPs debated the recent nuclear test carried out by North Korea, the House was unanimous in its condemnation as the test had destabilised the entire region. Nevertheless, divergent views were expressed on sanctions and the effectiveness of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Javier SOLANA, High Representative for the EU Common Foreign Security Policy, said that North Korea on Monday morning had "quite possibly or probably" carried out a nuclear test. The North Koreans, he said, had carried out an explosion of a plutonium device from a reactor built in the 1980s and 1990s. "It is most likely that it was a nuclear test", he said.

The test, he said, could have negative consequences for speeding up the arms race in the region. He said that he had spoken to South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the US and countries in the region had reacted "serenely". He recalled that the test had been carried out just after the election of the new Japanese Prime Minister who had visited Beijing and Seoul. Mr Solana stated that Japan and China, so far, had offered constructive comments. He also said that he had consulted the future Secretary-General of the UN.

The test, he said, represented a threat to the whole region and recalled that the North Korea's population was poor. Mr Solana said that the North Korean government was wasting millions of dollar trying to develop nuclear weapons whilst the population suffered. The international community had reacted well to the situation and was considering a possible UIN resolution condemning North Korea. The EU condemned the test on Monday and the EU should now reaffirm its solidarity with the people of North Korea.

External relations Commissioner Benita FERRERO-WALDNER said North Korea's actions were not only a threat to the region but to the entire non-proliferation regime. It was acting "in defiance of the international community", increasing its isolation and worsening the plight of its long-suffering population. Its "deliberate escalation and provocation" was perhaps intended "to test the ability of the international community to remain united". China's quick response was therefore "particularly significant and welcome".

The big question was "What should we do?". The EU was a major donor, having provided €345 million in assistance since 1995. As a global actor it should play a part in any action taken and as a "staunch advocate of multilateralism" the EU must pay attention to what was decided in the United Nations. She called on the EU Member States with seats on the Security Council to "take due account of the EU's views".

Turning to humanitarian assistance, she stressed that the Korean people had already "suffered enormously". She wished "to maintain the humanitarian assistance" provided by the EU in the future. "The people should not be punished even more by their terrible regime", were her concluding words.

Political group speakers

For the EPP-ED group, José Ignacio SALAFRANCA SÁNCHEZ-NEYRA (ES) stressed that it was "important that the international community react quickly and appropriately". He wanted to know the position of the Council on the list of proposed sanctions, which "allows for economic sanctions". At least good news had come with China's decision to contemplate the application of sanctions.

At the same time, the world must not forget Iran and he welcomed Mr Solana's efforts on this front. It was important not to remain "blind, deaf and mute" to these two problem regions. Ultimately "we must respond as people who support peace and democracy, international solidarity and multilateralism, of which the EU is a symbol".

The leader of the Socialists, German MEP Martin SCHULZ, said the EU was "struggling to respond appropriately". The standard reaction was anger at this "moribund regime trying to attract attention" and there would be an urge to "draw a red line" at its actions. However, he went on, we must distinguish between the need to oppose "the decision of a crazy dictatorship and the starvation of its people".

Despite everything, it was important to maintain dialogue, said Mr Schulz. He contrasted the policy of the Clinton administration, with the Kedo programme, which was designed to keep North Korea "linked to the rest of the world" and what he described as the "bankruptcy" of the Bush administration, which had cut off that programme. He concluded by saying that any nuclear enrichment plant could result in material falling into the hands of criminals.

On behalf of the Liberal group, István SZENT-IVÁNYI ( HU) told the House that "North Korea has always tried to negotiate with threats and intimidation". It must be made clear "that it will not work for them this time".

There seemed to be "an unprecedented international consensus" on counter-measures against the regime. This gave "the opportunity to send a signal that we will not tolerate acts that lead to instability and further increase tensions".

He too mentioned Iran, saying that by taking a firm stand on North Korea "we also create incentives for Iran to return to the negotiating table". The aim of the six-party talks must be to ensure that North Korea took part once more in the NPT regime.

Gérard ONESTA (Greens/EFA, FR) said that his country, France, was one that "deals in nuclear technology" which lent an air of "hypocrisy" to the proceedings. However, he stressed that North Korea was not just a dictatorship but the "biggest asylum in the world", with a near-Orwellian character.

Like other speakers he emphasised that the world's response must not result in starving the people of the North Korea. The only card left to play was China, which had created and sustained the regime. But lastly, he repeated, "we must be humble" when we ourselves are "dealers in nuclear technology".

Tobias PFLÜGER (GUE/NGL, DE) said that the North Korean nuclear test deserved to be condemned and would only lead to the destabilisation of the region. It was sad that the North Korea regime was focusing on developing nuclear weapons rather than feeding its people. North Korea, he said, had become the ninth nuclear power in the world despite the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Sanctions would not work as the population would suffer. North Korea was exploiting double standards as the EU also possessed nuclear weapons despite the NPT. "There is no such thing as a good nuclear bomb."

Ģirts Valdis KRISTOVSKIS (UEN, LV) was another speaker to underline that the whole region's stability had been undermined by the nuclear test. He too stressed the double standards regarding non-proliferation as Dr El Baredei from the IAEA had pointed out. Why was it okay for Israel to possess nuclear weapons and North Korea not, he asked.

Bastiaan BELDER (IND/DEM, NL) said that the whole region had been destabilised. Russia and China need to shoulder their responsibility for finding a solution to this crisis. The international community could stop trading with North Korea.

Jan Tadeusz MASIEL (NA, PL) said that North Korea's population had suffered considerably over a long period and that the North Korean regime should concentrate on feeding its people rather than building nuclear weapons. This would be of benefit to the entire region and not only North Korea.

British speaker

James ALLISTER (NA, UK) said it was "chilling" to think of the North Korean regime's nuclear capacity, particularly as it "may now be in the marketplace with crazed terrorist groups for the export of nuclear technology". He argued that "it behoves the EU to be extremely robust and resolute" in the circumstances and said "severe sanctions" might be required.

Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner's response to the debate

Replying for the Commission, Benita Ferrero-Waldner said the need was "to find the right smart response", one which would "focus on the authorities but spare the population". Only diplomacy could achieve this goal and she was adamant that "the six-party talks remain the best hope" for a medium- to long-term solution. The EU was not a participant in these negotiations but "as a responsible global actor, it is profoundly supportive of this framework". In the end, she believed "dialogue will be the answer".

High Representative Solana's response to the debate

Mr Solana said that the debate had shown that all MEPs that had spoken condemned the nuclear test. It was difficult to assess why North Korea had chosen this moment to carry it out. Mr Solana praised the Chinese for their constructive reactions and for leading the six-party talks, however no date had been set for the next meeting and instead a nuclear test had been carried out. He also agreed with those MEPs that had said that the NPT had to revised. North Korea must be condemned for the nuclear test, he said. North Korea had probably examined the international community's reaction to the nuclear test carried out by Pakistan and drawn the conclusion that they too could carry out a test. Finally, he recalled that the North Korean population was suffering both economically and politically.

| Top |

• EU Presidency Declaration on the Six Party Talks (14/2/2007)
• EUHR comments on agreement at six-party talks on DPRK nuclear issue (13/2/2007)
• EU Presidency Statement - Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (23/10/2006)
• North Korean and Iranian delegates meet EU Parliamentarians (19/10/2006)
• "North Korea" - Speech by EU Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner (11/10/2006)
• Corea del Norte: Resumen de la intervención de Solana, Alto Representante de la UE para la PESC, ante el pleno del Parlamento Europeo sobre los últimos acontecimientos  (11/10/2006)
• EUHR Solana welcomes closer links between Japan, China and Republic of Korea, and expresses support in the wake of DPRK nuclear test (10/10/2006)
• North Korean parliamentary delegation challenged on nuclear test by EU Parliamentarians (10/10/2006)
• EU Presidency Statement on the carrying out of a nuclear test by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (9/10/2006)
• EUHR Solana condemns nuclear test by North Korea (9/10/2006)
• Human rights in East Timor, Syria and North Korea (15/6/2006)