Posted on 10/19/2002 3:19:28 PM PDT by mondonico
Just as the crisis with Iraq is heating up, the United States is on the verge of a serious confrontation with another member of the "axis of evil," North Korea. The recent visit of James A. Kelley, an assistant secretary of state, to Pyongyang ended with North Korea admitting that it is conducting a secret program to produce nuclear bomb-making material. As a result, the stage could be set for a repeat of the 1994 crisis with North Korea over a previous effort to build such weapons, a crisis that brought us close to a second Korean War.
A nuclear-armed North Korea would pose a serious threat to the 37,000 American troops in Korea and to the security of South Korea and Japan. It would undermine the global nonproliferation regime, creating pressure on Seoul and Tokyo to acquire their own nuclear weapons. Finally, it violates the 1994 Agreed Framework between America and North Korea that froze Pyongyang's nuclear program.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policy toward Pyongyang has left it with very few options to solve this problem. The Clinton administration succeeded in negotiating access to a suspected nuclear production site in 1999 because it had an ongoing dialogue for putting that arrangement in place. Such a dialogue does not exist today. Moreover, this administration has never been enthusiastic about talking with North Korea or carrying out the 1994 Agreed Framework. Discovery of a new secret nuclear program will only reinforce that distaste.
The access negotiations also took place in a strong multilateral context. If they had not succeeded, the United States could have worked with South Korea, Japan and even China to craft a tough response. The United States was in a good position since it had demonstrated a willingness to pursue dialogue with Pyongyang.
The Bush administration is in a comparatively weak position because it has not demonstrated a serious interest in dialogue. Also, Pyongyang's recent initiatives to improve relations with South Korea and Japan may make both hesitant to confront the North. Even without these disadvantages, seeking tough multilateral measures against North Korea and Iraq at the same time may be more than the diplomatic traffic can bear.
If the Bush administration's recently published security strategy is truly a guide to White House thinking, a third option is to launch a pre-emptive attack against North Korea's nuclear program. However, the rhetoric of a pre-emptive strike may have little to do with reality, and the administration has so far been very reluctant to discuss a military option. There are good reasons for hesitation: Seoul, with a population of 10 million, is so close to the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas that it is in range of thousands of North Korean artillery pieces. The possible chain reaction set off by an attack could have catastrophic consequences. Once again, risking military action in Korea as war with Iraq looms over the horizon seems more than even the world's sole superpower could handle.
Of course, it is possible that North Korea may do whatever the United States asks it to do. There is a view in Washington that Pyongyang is on the run as a result of the Bush administration's tough approach. However, North Korea has surprised us before. This latest development itself seems to have come as a surprise. "Don't let the United States turn us into another Iraq," have been words to live and die by in the North Korean leadership. Giving in to American demands now could do precisely that, perhaps fatally undermining the stability of a regime that needs the fiction of proud self-reliance to keep any legitimacy with its people.
In 1993, North Korea became the first country to announce its intention to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, leading to a terrifying crisis. That happened after the United States refused to talk to Pyongyang until it had acceded to demands for international inspections of its nuclear program.
If the Bush administration seeks to isolate North Korea or declares the Agreed Framework to be null, Pyongyang may produce a large nuclear arsenal. It could use existing facilities and plutonium already in its possession but frozen and under international supervision as a result of the 1994 agreement.
However, rather than abrogate the Agreed Framework, Washington — in close consultation with Seoul and Tokyo — should suspend its implementation for the time being. Pyongyang has admitted violating the spirit if not the precise terms of the agreement and Washington must respond. That will mean halting two critical programs agreed to in 1994: construction of two reactors and monthly shipments of heavy fuel oil.
But any suspension must be coupled with a sustained, serious diplomatic dialogue with North Korea. One objective would be to secure international inspections to ensure that all North Korea's nuclear activities end. Such inspections are provided for in the 1994 agreement, though with later deadlines than the Bush administration would like. These deadlines, combined with White House indecision, have been a major stumbling block. The new developments provide the perfect context for pushing forward right away.
North Korea may be open to such a suggestion. Leaving Pyongyang's defiant rhetoric aside, the fact that it confessed to a secret nuclear program is a sign that North Korea may be looking for a way out of a potential crisis. In the context of agreement to that approach, the Bush administration should put back on the table a package of economic and political steps to improve relations with Pyongyang.
In the end, diplomacy may fail. But it must be seen by our allies and the international community as failing because of North Korean, not American, intransigence. Only then will the United States be on a firm footing to seek international action and, if necessary, to use force.
No, it doesn't....and thank God for that. Bush isn't going for the "we give them our money and they build nukes with the money" framework. The new framework, I'd imagine, will be probably more of the "disarm immediately or be crushed" variety.
Usually I look at the source before reading an article but for whatever reason I didn't with this one. As soon as I got to the above line, I said to myself, "I'll bet this is from the New York Times.
Well, I'll be dag burned!
New rules? Nope, there aren't any now. Clinton has left the building................
And a fat lot of good it did! This is (or will be) more blood on Xlinton's hands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.