By Kim Jae-kyoung
North Korea demolished its nuclear test site in Punggye-ri, May 24, ahead of a historic summit between its leader Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump.
It was part of Pyongyang's efforts to reaffirm its determination to pursue denuclearization. All six of its nuclear tests were carried out at Punggye-ri.
Experts, however, have shown mixed reactions to the North's destruction of the nuclear test site.
Some argue it should be taken as the first step toward the North's denuclearization, while others claim it should not be taken as a sign that the reclusive regime is willing to give up its nuclear weapons.
Siegfried Hecker, a senior fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford University, is one of the supporters for the dismantlement of the Punggye-ri site.
"It is an important step in the direction of denuclearization," said Hecker, who has visited North Korea several times since 2004 to assess its plutonium program at the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center.
The expert on the North Korean nuclear program believes President Trump should sit down with Kim to discuss denuclearization in order to manage risks associated with the North's nuclear development.
In an analysis of the history of North Korea's nuclear program released May 26, Hecker, together with his colleagues Robert Carlin and Elliot Serbin, stressed the importance of diplomacy to resolve the nuclear crisis.
"As bad as it was in 2017, the situation could get worse. The U.S. has missed several opportunities in the past by not managing the incremental risks," they said.
"The U.S. must approach any denuclearization talks with an awareness of this history and a desire to manage the incremental risks so as to prevent the situation from worsening."
They pointed out that U.S. diplomacy since 2000 has been sporadic, reactive and often motivated by a desire to avoid risk rather than manage it.
On the other hand, some critics downplayed the significance of Punggye-ri's destruction, saying there were no experts to inspect the sites.
"The demolition likely buried any evidence. North Korea is trying to portray it as a major concession, but it's not," said Tara O, an adjunct fellow at the Pacific Forum and author of "The Collapse of North Korea."
"Experts said another test would collapse the mountain and release radiation into the air. So the test site's usability was already in question."
She said, to even have a summit, North Korea needs to be sincere about its denuclearization.
"One way is for Kim to actually say North Korea will denuclearize and announce it through its official media, such as the Korea Central News Agency, to his people using the term North Korea, not the Korean Peninsula, after the word denuclearization," she said.
"There are other steps the U.S. has already laid out, such as sending the nuclear scientists and families out of North Korea."
William Brown, an adjunct professor at Georgetown School of Foreign Service, said closing the site certainly does not indicate it is willing to give up its weapons.
"Of far greater importance would be a willingness to close all of its facilities used to produce fissile material, that is plutonium and highly enriched uranium plants and reactors," he said.
"North Korea wants everyone to think it has completed its development of nuclear weapons and thus there is no need for the test facilities."
