The year 2009 marks the 20th year since the North Korean nuclear problem first became an international issue. French commercial satellite photos of secret nuclear facilities at Yongbyon drew global attention in 1989, and the world has been negotiating with the North ever since. During that period, South Korea has had five administrations. The U.S. is just about to greet the fourth administration in that period. The negotiation framework has changed four times. The initial negotiations were between the two Koreas; then came U.S.-North Korean high-level talks and four-party talks, and finally six-party talks.

A number of agreements have been reached for an eventual resolution of the issue, among them the 1992 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework, and the Sept. 19, 2006 Joint Statement. But the North has yet to give up developing nuclear weapons. It carried out nuclear experiments even while the six-party talks were underway and continues to test ballistic missiles, the device for carrying nuclear warheads.

Frankly, the impression is that the North has steadily proceeded with its nuclear armament through all the agreements. It is clear that the current negotiating process is no use in keeping the North from developing nuclear weapons.

An important milestone lies ahead this year. The Bush administration, preoccupied with the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars in its eight-year tenure, has concentrated on keeping the North Korean issue within bounds and preventing proliferation of nuclear technology. Since the nuclear test in October 2006, the Bush administration has in fact acquiesced to Pyongyang's provisional nuclear armament. The term "nuclear weapons" disappeared from a list of things to be abolished in the Feb. 13, 2007 agreement, and the terms "nuclear weapons" and "uranium enrichment" are gone from the list of things subject to declaration in October 2007. President-elect Barack Obama during his campaign said the North's nuclear weapons have increased four times during the Bush administration. The key, then, is how the Obama administration will deal with the issue.

Obama, while expressing willingness to engage in a person-to-person negotiation with North Korea, stressed the need of harshly sanctioning countries that have breached the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He has promised a "tough and direct" diplomacy. But the Obama administration will be preoccupied with more urgent issues even than the Bush administration. It has to grapple with the financial and economic crisis right away, and as the attack in Mumbai shows, the “war on terror” is not over. Then there is the war in Gaza, which could escalate. The mountain of urgent issues facing the Obama administration could push the North Korea question to the bottom of priorities, and any strong diplomatic initiative for denuclearization could be a long way off.

Something has to change. The more time passes, the more the North's nuclear armament will become a fait accompli. How long are we supposed to live next door to a nuclear-armed North Korea? Already nuclear armament is being discussed in Japan. If the serious nuclear threats faced by U.S. allies are left unattended, there could be a domino effect of nuclear proliferation in East Asia. The Obama administration must not commit the folly of jettisoning security in East Asia because of the Middle East. Washington must end its susceptibility to 20 years of North Korean brinkmanship.

Obama's catchword is “change,” and change in Washington's North Korea policy is urgently needed. Let us hope Obama takes the initiative.

The column was contributed by Yun Duk-min, a professor at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security.