What is your expectation of the IAEA's work in North Korea?

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, recently traveled to the DPRK. Before that, DPRK Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan went on a tour to the United States and met with the head of the U.S. delegation to the six-party talks. These are important steps taken by the parties concerned for improving their relations and for implementing the joint statement of the six-party talks.

The Korean nuclear issue is a complex one. The success of the IAEA's work in the DPRK also relates to other issues, such as the normalization of bilateral relations with the United States, Japan and South Korea. The DPRK has expressed its willingness to achieve a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. In exchange, it wishes to gain diplomatic recognition, security assurance, financial and energy assistance, as well as a guarantee from the United States not to engage in any activities aimed at destabilizing the country. Japan, on the other hand, has its own considerations. It puts the resolution of the kidnapped Japanese citizens on the top of its agenda and is reluctant to discuss the provision of substantive assistance before the settlement of its own concerns.

I would not be surprised if the road toward a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula encounters twists and turns.

The United States threatened to initiate a new resolution in the Security Council with tougher sanctions if Iran fails to fulfill the requirements of UN Resolution 1747. Meanwhile, Iran has adopted a very strong position toward the pressure. How do you view the prospect of this issue?

UN Resolution 1747 urged "a negotiated way forward." However, in reality, the situation is developing in a negative direction.

A number of incidents have further complicated the issue, such as the breaking into the Iranian diplomatic compound and arrest of personnel by the United States and the recent arrest of British soldiers by Iran. There have been reports that war plans have been prepared a long time ago and locked in the drawers of the Pentagon. To prepare for any eventualities, both Iran and the United States have conducted military exercises over the past few months.

Now the United States is now deeply bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq and people generally feel the United States is not in the position to launch a full-scale war against Iran. Nevertheless, the escalation of tension sometimes may take its own course and could spiral to a point out of control of those people in power. If Iran refuses to stop its nuclear enrichment activities and bars the IAEA inspectors from entering the country, then further confrontation will lie ahead and there will be limited room for both sides to back down.

As an expert on nonproliferation, can you tell us how to distinguish the difference between peaceful utilization of nuclear energy and developing nuclear weapons? Is there a clear line between this? Who can tell?

In the foreseeable future, nuclear energy is possibly the only energy we can expect as a substitute for oil. The demand for the peaceful use of nuclear energy is growing rapidly.

Technically, it is not entirely impossible to make a judgment on the actual intention of a country's nuclear activity. The IAEA and the international community have devised a set of methods to detect any transfer of equipment and materials from peaceful use to weapon purpose.

However, nuclear technology for civilian and military purposes is closely linked. Much of the equipment and material used is dual-use in nature. This makes distinguishing between the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the development of nuclear weapons difficult. Many countries have nuclear power plants and have the knowledge and capability to produce and enrich fissile materials that can be used for the production of nuclear weapons.

As I said earlier, there are countries that choose to stay away from the NPT and are immune to IAEA inspections. Moreover, the IAEA cannot go to a member state to launch an inspection mission anytime, anywhere.

In conclusion, the prevention of nuclear proliferation is more a question of political will rather than one of a technical nature.