New Rules of Engagement with North Korea

New York Times ^ | Oct. 19, 2002 | Joel S. Wit

[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.

[DugwayDuke]

Evidently, the NYTimes doesn't realize that they should stop referring to North Korea. North Korea has a new name: "Next".

[NetValue]

President Bush named three countries in the Axis of Evil: Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. The story is emerging showing us how Iraq and North Korea have earned the "Evil" designation.

The third story, Iran's, is yet to be revealed, but I suspect that Iran's perfidy will soon become apparent.

Whatever it is, it will be bad news! Perhaps North Korea has sold nukes to Iraq and Iran, and is now having second thoughts. If so, it was a decision that may change world demographics and the future course of history for several nations.

[Minutemen]

Israel's intelligence is good and they probably did know about 9-11.(They probably informed ours about the plot and we ignored it) They have foiled more attacks on their soil than you would imagine. If only our intelligence was half as good as theirs is.........

[Minutemen]

Iran was (is?) supplying Hezbollah with all kinds of arms.
Remember this summer Israel intercepted a cargo ship load
tracked from Iran?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I know that Israeli intelligence is good, but please don't get carried away! I can think of numerous times where Israel didn't know things were coming or couldn't stop them from coming.

[Minutemen]

Maybe I'm getting carried away, but please observe the adverse conditions Israel exists under...they live and have existed in a sea of towelheads for 55 years. If the roles were reversed, we would have been wiped out on account of our PC ignorance many years ago.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I agree the Israelis have been tough in the past...but that doesn't mean that they have good intelligence on every country in the world! That's all. BTW, our few billion $$ a year probably helps their intelligence agency.

[Minutemen]

Yes, lots of our money, but 100% of their blood, guts and gumption.

[GoMonster]

this is the fellow's e-mail address. Let's thank him for not only his idiotic piece in NY Times, but he was the lead negotiator for the 1994 North Korean deal. jwit@csis.org

[chudogg]

I highly doubt that if Israel warned us the exact plot of 9/11- As in the date, time, people involved, actual description of hijacking a plane and using it to crash a building, that our intelligence would ignore it.

Most likely they warned America of increased "chatter" and the possibility of terrorists crossing into the American border.

[bonesmccoy]

Thank you for posting the retrospective NYT article which demonstrates the poor ability of NYT to opin on anything.

[desertcry]

This is a new low I find it very difficult to see nyt get any lower, than it has been since Time begun.

[chudogg]

Lol freep him good. I just emailed him with this..



I have just read your brilliant editorial in the NYT. I did not think it was possible to spin this situation 180% around and actually make a convincing arguement that the 1994 Peace Treaty with North Korea was actually a success! The whole basis of the treaty was that they would not devolop a nuclear weapons program, and they violated that in every sense.

Not only were you responsible for supplying tremendous amounts of aid to North Korea in a true Neville Chamberlain fashion, but actually went so far as to supply them with materials to build light water Nuclear reactors with enriched uranium. What on Earth were you thinking would happen with a communist despot intent on devoloping Nuclear weapons?

I quote your article "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". Well much good that was now wasn't! They were devoloping nuclear weapons, and we failed to uncover them, and this is hailed as success? What designer drugs are you taking to come up with this logic?

It is also very amusing how the NYT does not notify it's readers that you were a State Department official responsible for implementing the 1994 agreement. As if you were just some completly non-partisan observer reacting to the situation with objectivity.

You have just willingly joined the Liberal Propaganda Machine intent on blaming the situation on President Bush, while hailing your utter failure at appeasement is a success! Some of you need to face the reality that the Clinton Legacy is stained (literally), and appeasment has a long history of failures. Yours is one of them.

I can only imagine the reaction of a New York City upper class socialite (not to be confused with Socialist, though usually they fall in the same category), sitting in an Upper West Side espresso bar gobbling up the Norwellian propaganda you and NYT's editors were feeding to them.

Congrajulations on your misinformation campaign.

[veryconernedamerican]

for the next six months anyway. taliban gone. bin laden dead or running for his life. saddam and few months from
gone. then if north korea wants to step up they could be
next. the idea that these tribesman with ak-47's and a few shoulder fired missiles were going to put up a valant effort and engage us hasn't proven to be true. not in afghanistan, not in iraq in 1991, and it won't happen now.
give it a rest. allah has abandoned them, they wondered to far from the path. and korea is another country that
could be bombed into a new regime very quickly with minimal civilian death toll. people don't like living in fear and repression, and tend to embrace a chance for freedom.

[IDontLikeToPayTaxes]

North Korea is indeed a much greater threat to us than Iraq. I would much rather we confront the North Koreans than engage in Clinton style nation building in the Middle East

I think we will do both. In my amatuer opinion, the list of nations in the Axis of Evil speech was basically a Hit List. Iraq, Iran, and NK will fall. The extreme danger from the fall of the North Korean government is an immediate invasion from Red China, to keep their little puppet state, in my tiny opinion. We are in very very interesting times.

[boris]

"If they had not succeeded, the United States could have worked with South Korea, Japan and even China to craft a tough response."

Ah, yes. The diplomatic 'tough response'.

An Expression of Displeasure, level 4, along with a Condemnation in Severe Terms, level 5, and perhaps a hint of Extreme Disappointment.

Jaime Retief would be proud.

--Boris

[mathurine]

I hope to believe that we have North Korea targetted so completely that with the flick of a switch we can kill every one of them who has not starved to death before nuke day. We need to be able to tell those in charge of that place that our policy is that none of them will survive, not any, if they give any reason to us to act. We need to make it clear just as we did to the Russians that our response will be total in any circumstance, and that no matter how much they spend while starving their people, it will bever be enough to stop us from killing them all if that's where it has to go. I think we have the capability of giving them the message; and I hope we will, I don't happen to care much for the New York Times or the general liberal establishment idea that we should reason with fanatical communists or radical islamics. These are total losers from the get-go and need to be dealt with summarily and violently as early as possible and as often as it takes to simply get rid of them.

[Indie]

I say a few tactical nukes along the "d" line to take out the entire line of N Korean artillery...coupled with a threat for a few 5 megatoners on the rest of the country should cause them to get their pants cleaned and know we mean business. The heroes that diedthere the first time will all stand up and salute.
These commies fear nothing but force. Words are worthless.

[patriciaruth]

the Bush administration should put back on the table a package of economic and political steps to improve relations with Pyongyang.

Pay MORE nuclear BLACKMAIL?

Not a prayer.

Typical liberal NYT, whining for appeasement.

What was that historic rallying cry: "A million for defense but not one cent for tribute!"

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Dear North Korea;

I'm sorry you were late to the party but not every country who signs their name on the list of countries that need a butt kicking moves to the front of the line or even gets added to the list. It's done on a first come, first serve basis. Please inform your friends in Iraq and other countries of our policies. We would ask you to inform your friends in the Democratic Party of this, but we all know they already knew that by the spin they started immediately after you stuck up for Iraq by announcing you have nukes. If you are patient, we will get to you in turn.

Yours truly;

America