The column was written by James Laney, former U.S. ambassador to South Korea from 1993 to 1997, and Jason Shaplen, a former policy adviser at the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization from 1995 to 1999.

"The (February) nuclear accord is ambiguous on one issue that threatens to derail it: the question of what will happen to North Korea's existing stockpile of fissile material," they wrote. "To break the impasse, we propose that China, North Korea's closest remaining ally, assume physical custody in North Korea of the fissile material."

According to the writers, North Korea has reprocessed approximately 50kg of weapons-grade plutonium -- "enough for as many as 10 nuclear bombs." Although the denuclearization efforts are proceeding at a rapid clip, Kim Jong-il may insist on keeping his stockpile of plutonium as his "last remaining card".

If China were to take custody of the plutonium, it would give Kim room to negotiate and allow him to continue holding the "card", the column suggested. It would also ensure that "the North does not use it to make additional bombs, send it to another country for safekeeping or sell some of it to a terrorist organization for much-needed cash."

Because North Korea distrusts the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, China is a better choice to hold the plutonium, the writers said. China opposes the collapse of the North Korean regime.

"And if the North fails to abide by its commitments, China could use its huge fuel and food subsidies to bring added pressure to bear," the column said. "To be sure, allowing weapons-grade plutonium to remain in the country for any period of time is less than ideal. But no agreement that is practical will be ideal for all parties. Compromise is essential to the accord's success."

(englishnews@chosun.com )