• In pictures: Korea’s day of tension
• FAQ Korean crisis
• North Korea affects US-South Korea relations

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

LISA MULLINS: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World.  The Korean peninsula was heating up again this past weekend.  South Korea was planning to conduct a military exercise near the disputed border with the North.  Today, it made good on that threat.  But, North Korea did not make good on its threat to retaliate.  Not only that, officials in the Communist state told visiting New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson that they have agreed to allow international inspectors to resume monitoring North Korea’s nuclear facilities.  The World’s Mary Kay Magistad in Beijing says the North Korean response comes as a surprise.

MARY KAY MAGISTAD: It sort of begs the question of, is this yet another, very dramatic example of North Korea making big threats, saying, you know, “We can make your lives very difficult.  We have the weapons.  We have the potential to, you know, turn the whole peninsula into an island of fire.  You need to deal with us.”  Bill Richardson comes in, they talk and they agree to move forward in a new direction.  And then it’s really interesting the way the Chinese media are spinning this.  They’re basically saying, “Look, North Korea is emerging as the great statesman here.”  They’re quoting the North Korean high command saying, “We don’t need to respond to South Korea’s provocations.  You know, we’re going to see here who’s the real peacemaker and who’s the provocateur.”

MULLINS: So, as you say, North Korea has sometimes been willing to play ball, sometimes it hasn’t in the past.  So, who’s to say now that even though we’re told that they will allow in U.N. weapons inspectors once again that they will actually do that and give them unfettered access?

MAGISTAD: Excellent question.  North Korea has in the past played ball but it hasn’t always been the same game of ball that those on the other side would like it to play, and it doesn’t always play all the innings.  It might agree to a package of things that it’s going to do in exchange for aid that it’s going to get and it will do some of those things, get a lot of the aid and then, perhaps, the aid doesn’t come in on schedule and so it stops or, perhaps, it just decides it’s going to stop.  It feels that there’s bad faith on the other side or so it says in its official media, and so changes its policy.  You know, at this stage, North Korea has every incentive to … the North Korean government has every incentive to try to get more aid in.  It’s been a bad harvest this year.  The economy is in a shambles and there’s a succession coming up where the father Kim Jong Il is trying to pass on power to his son Kim Jong Un over time, and he would like to, you know, be able to resolve the differences that North Korea has long had with the United States and get North Korea into a sustained position of more power than it has at the moment.

MULLINS: And just to be clear, Kim Jong Il, presumably, is still the one calling the shots, not his son who is going to be taking power?

MAGISTAD: Right. I mean it’s certainly assumed that Kim Jong Il will be the leader of North Korea until he dies.

MULLINS: Mary Kay Magistad, The World’s Beijing Correspondent speaking to us from Beijing, China.  Thanks, Mary Kay.

MAGISTAD: Thank you, Lisa.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Destroyed home on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong (Photo: Jason Strother)

Only about 30 of Yeongpyeong Island’s 1,500 inhabitants have stayed behind. Houses are abandoned and shops are closed. It’s a virtual ghost town with the occasional sound of military helicopters flying overhead. Walking around some of the damaged areas, its easy to see why so many have left. In one alleyway, broken glass is everywhere.

Several buildings have collapsed in on themselves, others have been gutted by fire. Just one block away is the home of Ahn Gwang-hun. He’s lived on the island for 50 years. When I met him, he and his wife were washing cabbage to make kimchi.

Ahn is a fisherman, like many here. But the military has kept him shore-bound. He says that’s no problem for now. Ahn says “we were actually making kimchi when the attack happened. But we are not ready to leave the island, there are still many things we need to do here”

Another fisherman, Kim Young Su, 51, is also keeping busy. Driving by in his flatbed truck, he says .he’s been driving people around the island, but he doesn’t charge anyone. Crews have been stringing new power lines in damaged neighborhoods. One electrician says that the repair work is almost done.

And in what was the playground for Yeonpyeong’s elementary school, construction crews are assembling small shelters. Crew Manager Kim Sam Yeol says they’re building 15 temporary houses for the people whose homes were completely destroyed during the attack. So when they return they will have a place to stay. The government is picking up the tab, but Kim says he doesn’t know when people will start coming back.

Yeonpyeong district director Choi Cheol Young says, this island has a long history and I don’t think it will ever be completely abandoned. But the government will have to encourage people to move back. He says it may take more than a little encouragement. Many are worried that North Korea will strike again.

Ahn Gwang-hun has lived on the island for 50 years (Photo: Jason Strother)

And many headed straight to the ferry dock. On the boat was Park Myung Jae who lives on a nearby island that was also shelled. He says people are used to military skirmishes but after the two civilians were killed, many realized this was more than that. Park says, I don’t know when it will become peaceful enough for me to return to my home. Over the years North Korea has made many attacks near the island. I think the South Korean government should have had more missiles or soldiers stationed here, he says. “They could have prevented this attack.”
Download MP3

• BBC North Korea coverage
• America’s role in South Korea
• More warning signs on Korean peninsula

It is common to use words like “reclusive” and “secretive” when writing about North Korea.

But last Thursday, the North Koreans created a Twitter account – @uriminzok, a shortened version of a Korean word that translates as “our people”.

It already has more than 4,500 followers.

The move to Twitter follows last month’s launch of a North Korean YouTube channel, which now hosts close to 80 videos.

“The North Koreans are technologically literate,” says Hazel Smith, a long-time North Korea researcher at Cranfield University in Britain.

Ms Smith says that the North Koreans have been investing heavily in information technology now for more than 20 years.

“They have a cadre of people who can use modern social networking sites. But the problem for them is the content,” she said.

On the North Korean YouTube channel, that content includes a lot of propaganda laced with bombastic rhetoric; the United States and South Korea are often called “warmongers”.

In a recent Twitter post, the North Koreans said the current administration in South Korea was “a prostitute” of the US.

“As far as content goes, there’s nothing new as far as I can tell,” says Sung-Yoon Lee, professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Boston.

Mr Lee says that the agency responsible for the videos and the tweets is a major arm of the country’s ruling communist party.

“They’ve been putting out stuff like this for years now,” said Mr Lee.

‘Government’s voice’

The irony is that the vast majority of North Korea’s 23 million people have no Internet access, and therefore cannot follow their own government’s social networking sites.

And even if they could follow, they would not be allowed to use social media to criticize the regime, says Gilles Lordet, chief editor of Reporters without Borders in Paris.

“There is absolutely no press freedom at all in North Korea, no independent media,” Mr Lordet said. “There is only the government, the voice of the regime.”

For now, North Korea’s online offerings are only in Korean.

But Professor Lee thinks that they might soon expand their offerings to include video clips and posts in English.

“The North Koreans already produce propaganda material in English, through the Korean Central News Agency,” he said. “They have the wherewithal to do it.”

He added: “It will just take them a little more time and effort.”

• North Korea’s Twitter feed
• North Korea on YouTube
• The World team on Twitter

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

KATY CLARK: North Korea these days seems to be reaching out in a variety of ways. With art, as we just heard. And perhaps shockingly, through the world’s most popular social networking site. North Korea now has a presence on Twitter and its own channel on YouTube. But don’t expect to be trading tweets with Kim Jong-il anytime soon. The World’s technology correspondent Clark Boyd has our story.

CLARK BOYD:  North Korea’s Twitter handle is “uriminzok,” a shortened Korean word that translates at “our people.” More than 4,500 people are now following. Not bad considering it only launched last Thursday. The move to Twitter follows last month’s creation of an official North Korean YouTube channel, now with almost 80 videos to choose from. Hazel Smith is a professor at Cranfield University in Britain. She’s studied North Korea for more than two decades and lived in the country from 1998 to 2001. She’s not at all surprised at the North Korean’s seemingly new-found tech prowess. After all, she says, they’ve been investing heavily in science and IT for the past 20 years.

HAZEL SMITH:  They are technologically literate and they have a big cadre of people who can use information technology in the modern sense and would know fairly easily how to physically use a social networking site. But the problem, of course, with them is content.

BOYD: Yeah, content. No cute videos of cats on the North Korean YouTube channel, that’s for sure. But you do get a fairly excited presenter talking about the recent sinking of a South Korean military vessel.

KOREAN SPEAKING

BOYD: There’s also a series of clips condemning the United States and South Korea as warmongers. And in one video the South Korean Foreign Minister is called a pro-American flunkie who should make his living by “mopping the floors of the Pentagon.” On the Twitter feed this morning, the North Koreans called the South Korean president’s administration a “prostitute of the United States.” In other words, while the media have changed, the message hasn’t.

SUNG-YOON LEE: There’s nothing new as far as I can tell.

BOYD: Sung-Yoon Lee is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

LEE: The government agency that is putting these out is an arm of a major committee of the Korean Workers Party, the North Korean Communist Party. And they have been putting out stuff like this, propaganda denouncing South Korean, criticizing the United States, denouncing Japan, for years now.

‘

BOYD: And there’s a great irony here. The vast majority of North Korea’s 23 million people can’t access the internet. Can’t even follow their government via social networking sites. And certainly wouldn’t be able to criticize or respond. Again, Hazel Smith.

SMITH:  The internet globally is associated with the ability for individuals to engage in freedom of expression. Because that’s not permitted in North Korea, the use the social networking sites to get their message over is really not going to be very productive for them. In fact, obviously it’s going to be counterproductive.

BOYD: One things for sure, the North Korean’s take their propaganda very seriously. For now, it’s all in Korean, but that might change. The Fletcher School’s Sung-Yoon Lee says he wouldn’t be surprised if he started to see some English language videos and Twitter messages in the coming months. For The World, this is Clark Boyd.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Marco Werman speaks with former Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi
• Timeline: Tony Blair on Iraqi WMD
• Tony Blair’s closest aide defends choices on Iraq

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World.  Tony Blair remains unrepentant nearly seven years after ordering British troops to join the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  The former Prime Minister testified for six hours today at an inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq war.  Blair stated that knowing what he knows today he would still have gone to war to remove Saddam Hussein.  That decision is still deeply unpopular in Britain as some outside the courtroom made clear today.  The World’s Laura Lynch reports from London.

LAURA LYNCH: Protesters gathered in the pre-dawn gloom with their verdict.  Tony Blair they shouted is a war criminal.  Among them was American Jennifer Bromlick.  She focused her anger on both Blair and George W. Bush.

JENNIFER BROMLICK: They should do something like this with Bush.  I mean, Bush is ultimately answerable for this, for the Iraq war.

LAURA LYNCH: Blair never saw the demonstration.  He arrived early going in through a side door.  Two hours later he took his seat.  Behind him were relatives of British soldiers who had died in Iraq.  Well rehearsed in defending an unpopular war, Blair’s hands trembled slightly as he readied himself for this round.  Within minutes he was on familiar ground repeating his view that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were reason enough to take a hard look at Saddam Hussein.

TONY BLAIR: That completely changed our assessment of where the risks for security lay.  Just so that we make this absolutely clear, this was not an American position.  This was my position and the British position.  Very, very clearly.

LAURA LYNCH: It’s no surprise Blair wanted to be so clear.  He’s long been accused of doing the bidding of George W. Bush in Iraq.  Today Blair was asked time and again about the former U.S. President, how he reacted to Blair’s promises, what he expected from Britain.  Blair denied any secret deals, but he did tell Bush that he would stand with him.

TONY BLAIR: I think what he took from that was exactly what he should have taken which is that if it came to military action because there was no way of dealing with this diplomatically, we would be with him.  That was absolutely clear because as I had set out publicly, not privately, we had to confront this issue.  It could be confronted by sanctions, framework that’s effective.  For the reasons I’ve given we didn’t have one.  It could be confronted by U.N. inspections framework, we’ll come to that.  Or, alternatively, it would have to be confronted by force.  I was going earlier, but I won’t do it, but I’m very happy to make available.

LAURA LYNCH: The questioning wore on about whether Blair exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam and about whether he had a strong legal case to go to war without explicit U.N. support.  Blair stood firm.  He made the right decision, he said, for the right reasons.

TONY BLAIR: As I sometimes say to people, this isn’t about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception, it’s a decision.  The decision I had to take was given Saddam’s history, given his use of chemical weapons; given the over one million people whose deaths he caused, given ten years of breaking U.N. resolutions, could we take the risk?

LAURA LYNCH: Blair tried to deflect several questions by focusing on the Iraq of today.  Iraqi’s he said, are better off now than they were in 2003.  That prompted inquiry commissioner Lawrence Friedman to recite what he called tragic statistics, Iraqi’s who have died in recent years.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN: 1,042 in January 2005; 1,433 in January 2006; 2,807 in January 2007; these are monthly figures.  These are the documented deaths.  They are not the, goodness knows how many undocumented – - the deaths from the deterioration in services, poverty, poor health and so on.  The striking is they are getting worse each year.

LAURA LYNCH: In the final minutes Blair said he was sorry for the deep divisions the Iraq war caused in Britain, but that seemed to be about as far as he would go with apologies to the evident frustration of those sitting just feet away.

TONY BLAIR: I’ve no regrets.  Responsibility, but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein.  I think he was a monster.  I believed he threatened not just the region, but the world.  His defense complete, Blair left quickly.  His bodyguards close behind.  The families, too, made their way outside.  Many like Reg Keys, upset by what they had just seen and heard.

REG KEYS:  He had an opportunity there to apply some soothing balm to some of the open wounds of grief that are in that room.  I saw a couple of mothers in there break down at the end in tears because the man, all he had to say was to assuage the grief was I do regret the loss of life, but he’s quite remorseless, no regret at all.

LAURA LYNCH: No one really expected Blair to back down, to admit mistakes or reconsider.  Today he said he would do it all again in the name of making Britain safer.  But in the same week British officials raised the country’s threat level to severe, many still believe Blair sent his troops into an illegal war with questionable results.  For The World, I’m Laura Lynch in London.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Timeline: Tony Blair on Iraqi WMD
• Tony Blair’s closest aide defends choices on Iraq

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: Britain’s investigation into it’s involvement in the war in Iraq is heating up.  In two days former British Prime Minister Tony Blair faces a public grilling at the Iraq inquiry.  And today, there was new evidence suggesting Washington played a key role in convincing Blair’s government that the Iraq invasion was legal.  The World’s Laura Lynch reports.

LAURA LYNCH: It’s the question that goes to the heart of the inquiry; was the 2003 invasion of Iraq illegal?  A Dutch inquiry concluded two weeks that it was.  But it’s still a matter of intense debate here in Britain.  Yesterday the Foreign Office’s two top lawyers at the time of the invasion were unequivocal in their testimony.  They said the invasion wasn’t legal without explicit UN support.  Elizabeth Wilmshurst told the inquiry her Minister, Jack Straw, simply swept aside that advice.

ELIZABETH WILMHURST: Well, it’s rather uncomfortable when the Secretary of State of the Department doesn’t agree with the legal advice given to him or her.  So in that sense it was a challenge.

MALE VOICE 1:  Was it unusual in your experience?

ELIZABETH WILMHURST: Yes.

MALE VOICE 2:  Did it make a difference that Jack Straw is himself a qualified lawyer?

ELIZABETH WILMHURST: He is not an international lawyer.

LAURA LYNCH: The uncomfortable laughter was a nod to the tensions simmering throughout government in the months before the war.  Tensions that lead to sharp disagreements among ministers.  Today Tony Blair’s Attorney General took his turn on the stand.  Lord Peter Goldsmith said he, too, got a cool reception when he tried to warn Blair the summer before the invasion not to rush into anything with George W. Bush.

LORD PETER GOLDSMITH: I knew that the Prime Minister was going to see President Bush.  I knew that one of the topics of conversation, at least, was going to be the Iraq issue because that was obviously very much on the international agenda at that stage.  And I didn’t want there to be any doubt that in my view the Prime Minister could not have the view that he could agree with President Bush somehow, well let’s go without going back to the United Nations.  I wasn’t asked for it.  I don’t, frankly, think it was terribly welcome.

LAURA LYNCH: Goldsmith didn’t waiver in his view until February of 2003, just weeks before the troops rolled into Iraq.  For the first time today, Goldsmith admitted it was a trip to the United States that changed his mind.  He visited the White House, met with attorneys and Condoleeza Rice among others.  Goldsmith came back and gave Blair the go ahead.

LORD PETER GOLDSMITH: I was of the view that a reasonable case could be made.  I’m sorry, there was a reasonable case that a second resolution was not necessary and that that was on past precedence, sufficient to constitute a green light.

LAURA LYNCH: Watching all this today was Clare Short.  She was in Blair’s cabinet at the time, but resigned over the decision to invade.  She finds Goldsmith’s conversion on the road back from the White House troubling.

CLARE SHORT: And to say he was influenced by the Americans, we know that the Bush administration had no respect of any kind for the UN or for international law, didn’t think there was any need to go to the Security Council, did so because Britain couldn’t do it without that.  So to say that American opinion influenced him is really not impressive.

LAURA LYNCH: Short herself will testify at the inquiry in the coming weeks, but not before the former Prime Minister himself on Friday.  Tony Blair’s appearance is almost certain to generate protest outside and inside the hearing room.  Relatives of soldiers who died in Iraq will be sitting just feet away from Blair as he testifies.  For many of them, Blair was far too ready to follow Washington’s lead into a war they still believe wasn’t justified.  For The World, I’m Laura Lynch in London.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

North Korea walked away from six-party nuclear talks earlier this year, but then said it could return.
These discussions – involving the US, China, Russia, Japan and the two Koreas – are aimed at getting rid of the North’s nuclear capabilities.

The forum reached deals in 2005 and 2007, under which the North shut down its plants at Yongbyon and began disabling them in return for aid and security guarantees. But the last talks were in December 2008, and in April this year North Korea said the negotiations were over for good, following widespread condemnation of its long-range missile launch. A month later, tensions rose still further when the North conducted an underground nuclear test.

New sanctions

In June, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose tougher sanctions on communist North Korea following the nuclear test carried by Pyongyang in defiance of previous UN resolutions.

The sanctions include the inspection of North Korean ships, a wider ban on arms sales and other financial measures. The U.S. deputy ambassador at the UN, Rosemary DiCarlo, said the new vote was a strong and united response to North Korea’s “unacceptable behavior”.

The Chinese ambassador, Zhang Yesui, said the resolution showed the “firm opposition” of the world to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. “We strongly urge the DPRK (North Korea) to honor its commitment to denuclearization, stop any moves that may further worsen the situation, and return to the six-party talks,” the ambassador said. North Korea carried out a nuclear test – its second – on May 25th. It then launched a number of short-range missiles.

President Barack Obama described the North Korean action in May as a threat to international peace. President Obama on North Korea

On May 27th, North Korea announced it is abandoning the truce that ended the Korean war, amid rising tension in the region. It blamed its decision on South Korea joining a US-led initiative to search ships for nuclear weapons. It said the South’s actions were a “declaration of war”, and pledged to attack if its ships were stopped. The move is part of an increasingly hard line being taken by North Korea, and came two days after it conducted an underground nuclear test.

North Korea abandons international talks

North Korea's "satellite" launch

In April North Korea walked out on international talks to end its nuclear program, and said it would restore its disabled nuclear reactor. The unusually strong statement followed criticism by the UN Security Council of a recent rocket launch, which critics say was a long-range missile test. North Korea said the launch in April was part of a peaceful space program, designed to put a satellite into orbit. China and Russia have appealed for the North to return to negotiations.

Pyongyang also ordered UN nuclear inspectors to leave the country and told the International Atomic Energy Agency to remove seals and equipment from the Yongbyon reactor and said that it would reactivate all its nuclear facilities, the watchdog said.

Pyongyang said it launched a satellite on April 5 but its neighbors said it was testing missile technology. The U.S., South Korea and Japan have all condemned the launch from the Musudan-ri base in the north-east of the communist country. They say it violates a UN Security Council resolution adopted in October 2006 which bans North Korea from carrying out ballistic missile activity. Susan Rice, the American envoy to the UN, called Pyongyang’s move a “clear-cut violation of [resolution] 1718″, while her Japanese counterpart said Tokyo was seeking a “clear, firm and unified” response.

Undated North Korean missile test

When North Korea tested its Taepodong-1 missile in 1998, it claimed to have put a satellite in orbit. In July 2006 it test-fired the three-stage long-range Taepodong-2, but the missile failed shortly after launch. North Korea’s move comes amid heightened tensions with South Korea, and with Pyongyang pushing for a top spot on the agenda of the new U.S. administration.

American nuclear inspector in North Korea

In October 2008, the Washington finally removed North Korea from a terrorism blacklist, and in return Pyongyang agreed to provide full access to its nuclear program. The two sides now differ on the terms of verification that were agreed as part of the deal. North Korea insists it never said samples of atomic material could be taken away for examination, but the U.S. asserts that the North did consent to the procedure.

For years, the North has been locked in discussions over its nuclear ambitions with five other nations – the U.S., South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan. In June 2008 the regime blew up the cooling tower of its Yongbyon facility in a symbolic gesture of its commitment to the process.
Video: Demolition of Yongbyon cooling tower

Also in June 2008 North Korea handed over a long-awaited account of its nuclear program to China. President George W Bush cautiously welcomed the move at the time but said the U.S. still had “serious concerns” about Pyongyang. North Korea had previoulsy blamed the deadlocked nuclear talks on the U.S., accusing it of raising “unjust demands”.

North Korea successfully tested a nuclear device on October 9th, 2006, and analysts believe it may have any a number of atomic bombs ranging from one to eight or more. However, it is not believed that the country has yet succeeded in building a nuclear weapon that could be fitted on to a missile.

North Korean missiles

Despite the nuclear agreement Pyongyang tested another ballistic missile in June 2007. The White House said it was “deeply troubled” by the move, which happened at a “delicate time” in international negotiations over North Korea’s nuclear decommissioning.

In May 2007 North Korea conducted a series of missile test after previously having test-fired missiles in July 2006. World powers have condemned the North Korean tests – the test in 2006 is believed to have included a long-range Taepodong-2, but according to U.S. assessments at the time, that missile failed shortly after take-off.

North Korea’s nuclear weapons program along with its missile development, has been a major source of concern in the region. North Korea is estimated to have more than 800 ballistic missiles. The communist regime first obtained tactical missiles from the Soviet Union, as early as 1969, but its first Scuds reportedly came via Egypt in 1976.

These are the key weapons of its missile program:

Taepodong-2 (long range)

Taepodong 2

Taepodong-1 (intermediate range)

The Taepodong-1 is a two-stage missile comprising Nodong and Scud parts and has a estimated range of 1,300 miles (2,200km). It could reach US bases in Okinawa, Japan. North Korea tested a Taepodong-1 in August 1998, firing a missile over northern Japan. But it is said to be even less accurate than the Nodong (see below) and it must be fired from a fixed location and has a long preparation time. That means potential launches could be detected relatively early on.

Another Taepodong missile, the Taepodong-X, is also said to be under development but has not yet been tested. Based on a Soviet submarine-launched ballistic missile, it is a land-based missile, thought to have a range of up to 2,400 miles (4,000km), able to reach US bases on Guam. Unlike the Taepodong-1, it could be fired from mobile launch systems hidden from view.

Nodong Missile (medium range)

The Nodong missile is thought to have a range of around 600 miles (1,000km) and could potentially carry a nuclear warhead. But it too is not very accurate. The Nodong could strike most of Japan but not with any accuracy. If it were fired on a military target, its inaccuracy could lead to high levels of civilian casualties. The missile was test fired in May 1993.

Short Range Missiles

North Korea has a variety of short-range missiles. The KN-02 is thought to be the most accurate, but its range – around 60 miles – is the shortest. The Scud-B and C have ranges of 200 and 300 miles respectively, while the Scud-D is believed to have a range of over 400 miles. It is thought that these missiles could deliver conventional warheads. The Scud-B, C and D have all been tested and deployed. These missiles would enable North Korea to strike any area in South Korea. The KN-02 missile, currently in the testing stage, could be aimed at key targets in South Korea such as military installations south of the border.

Musudan-ri launch site

Musudan-ri is the main launch site in the country’s North Hamgyong province, on the country’s northeastern coast. The area was formerly known as Taepodong, which gave the Taepodong rockets their name. Since 1984 Hwasong, Nodong and Taepodong rockets have been launched from the site. The facilities at Musudan-ri are reported to be modest, consisting of a launch pad, an engine test stand, a missile assembly building, and a missile control center. In 1998, North Korean media reported the successful launch of a satellite by a Taepodong rocket from Musudan-ri. North Korea says the satellite successfully reached orbit, but no independent sources have confirmed this.

• BBC coverage
• Laura Lynch on day 2 of the inquiry
• FAQ Britain’s Iraq inquiry
• US investigation of Iraq war

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  This is the World.  I’m Marco Werman.  Americans still have questions about the decision to go to war in Iraq.  Some wonder what intelligence the Bush Administration had on the regime in Baghdad and whether it was entirely truthful in what it told the public about that information.  Still, there have been no high level government investigations of the process.  There have been in Britain though, including one that started this week.  Today’s star witness was Christopher Meyer, Britain’s Ambassador to the United States at the time.  The World’s Laura Lynch reports from London.

LAURA LYNCH:  In often colorful language, Meyer revisited the dramatic days between September 11, 2001 and the March, 2003 invasion of Iraq.  He told the inquiry former Prime Minister Tony Blair set the tone.  Within hours of the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, he vowed to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States.  Working the diplomatic circuit in the U.S. capitol, Meyer noticed an immediate impact.

CHRISTOPHER MEYER:  To be Ambassador to the United States of America was, make no bones about it, a heady and exhilarating experience because wherever you went, people would rise to their feet and give you a storming round of applause.  So you had to be careful not to be swept away by this stuff.

LYNCH:  Meyer was as close to the center of power in Washington as any foreign diplomat could be.  On the evening of September 11, he says he spoke to George W. Bush’s national security advisor, Condoleeza Rice.  Until that day, Iraq was low on the list of priorities for the White House.  But he says Rice’s comments showed the attacks had moved it and Saddam Hussein all the way up to the top.

MEYER:  And she said well there’s no doubt this has been an Al Quaida operation but at the end of the conversation, as we’re just looking to see whether there could possibly be any connection to Saddam Hussein.  And that was the very first time, on the day itself, that I heard the name of the Iraqi leader mentioned in the context of 9/11.

LYNCH:  Other British officials testified yesterday they weren’t convinced of any link but Bush and Blair were developing a close working relationship and Meyer says that he began to sense a change after Blair visited Bush at his ranch in Texas in April of 2002.

MEYER:  The two men were alone in the ranch until dinner on Saturday night where all the advisors, including myself, turned up.  So I’m not entirely clear, to this day, I know what the cabinet often says for what were the results of the meeting but to this day, I’m not entirely clear what degree of convergence was, if you like, signed in blood at the Crawford Ranch.

LYNCH:  The next day the former ambassador noticed that Blair spoke about regime change for the first time, in a key foreign policy speech that touched on terrorism and the situation in Iraq.

TONY BLAIR:  If necessary, the action should be military and again if necessary and justified, it should involve regime change.

LYNCH:  From then on, Meyer says the UK/US alliance was tighter and the march to war seemed inevitable.  In fact, he told the inquiry that the military timetable meant there wasn’t enough time to do a proper hunt for evidence of any stockpile of chemical or biological weapons.

MEYER:  We found ourselves scrambling for the smoking gun, which is another way of saying it’s not like Saddam now has to prove he’s innocent.   We’ve now bloody well got to try and prove he’s guilty.

LYNCH:  Meyer’s ringside seat in Washington gave him what he believes was a pretty good view of the in-fighting in the Bush Administration.  But over time, the drum beats of war grew ever louder and he criticizes his own government, saying Britain didn’t push the White House nearly enough to draw up post-invasion plans.  He says it was like a black hole.  Meyer recalled sitting with then-Vice President, Dick Cheney, on the day the British Parliament was debating whether to support the invasion.  Meyer says he tried to explain to Cheney the political difficulties Blair was facing.

MEYER:  And his reaction was quite dismissive.  Well, you know, once you get by your political problem and we get to Baghdad, then we’ll be greeted with cheers and flowers or whatever by the population and all this will be history.

LYNCH:  Blair himself isn’t saying anything about the revelations that have come out at the inquiry in the first three days.  But one of his closest allies in the cabinet back then, Lord Charles Falconer, is defending Blair.  He says there’s no chance he made a pact with Bush to remove Saddam as early as the spring of 2002.

LORD CHARLES FALCONER:  No, I didn’t and that’s right.  And I think the evidence that Christopher Meyer gave this morning made it clear that one of the things that the British government and Tony Blair had been influential in doing was ensuring that America did go down the United Nations route and indeed as a result of today’s persuasion, on the fourteenth of September, 2002, President Bush made a very impressive speech to the UN, making it clear that he was looking to the UN to deal with the issue.  So I think far from it being fixed in advance, it was clear the matter was to be decided by the UN.

LYNCH:  Tony Blair paid a heavy price back home for his support of both Bush and the war.  In three days of hearings, Blair’s decisions back then have come under fresh scrutiny, guaranteeing he’ll have much to answer to when he testifies early next year.  For The World, I’m Laura Lynch in London.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Iran’s decision to build a secret facility represented a “direct challenge to the basic compact” of the global non-proliferation regime, President Barack Obama said, making a statement in Pittsburgh, where he is hosting a G20 summit. Despite Iran’s assertions that the facility was for peaceful purposes, the new plant was “not consistent” with that goal, the President said. Katy Clark reports.

• BBC coverage
• Iran’s key nuclear sites
• BBC Special Report: Iran crisis
• Background Brief: Nuclear Standoff with Iran

• BBC coverage of today’s UN resolution
• FAQ: Nuclear disarmament

• FAQ nuclear disarmament
• Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons