Urgency required on North Korea.
The Washington Post recently published a superb analytical essay by Brent Scowcroft and Daniel Poneman on the need to deal with the North Korean crisis without delay. (*) (†) (‡) The longer we wait, the worse the situation gets as the Kim Jong Il regime moves to manufacture scores of nuclear weapons. If this is allowed to happen, it would put pressure on the entire region to match North Korea’s new arsenal. Furthermore, the likelihood of proliferation—the illegal and surreptitious transfer of such weapons to other powers, perhaps even terrorist groups like Al Qaeda—becomes extraordinarily high. In my opinion, this is especially so when one considers North Korea’s role in arming Pakistan with cruise missiles. Thus, Scowcroft and Poneman argue that the US and our allies must draw a clear line beyond which North Korea must not cross, or face the prospect of military engagement. This is a tough call because if hostilities break out, North Korean artillery could shell the major South Korean population centers, killing millions within hours. Furthermore, North Korea may already have nuclear weapons that could hit as far as the western continental United States. Nevertheless, I have to agree that the alternatives to risking such a tough stance—backing down or doing nothing—are worse. Once this clear line is established, the Bush Administration must be willing to negotiate with Pyongyang to forestall a disastrous war.
Writing in the conservative Washington Times, one of the newspapers that the President is said to read, Philip H. Gordon lucidly argues that we must be willing to negotiate with North Korea. (§)
Update: 24 February 2003. The Bush Administration’s North Korea policy has suffered another setback. China, Australia and South Korea have refused to help the US to put multilateral pressure on North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons programs. (**) It now appears that the Administration must revise its policy to allow for the possibility of negotiations. They must change course soon to prevent this failure from turning into a disaster.
Update: 4 March 2003. The New York Times has a good article on the subject. (††)
Update: 10 March 2003. Hard-core hawk Charles Krauthammer has now joined the call for negotiations with North Korea, or what he calls “temporary appeasement.” (‡‡) (?:§) The Agonist sees signs that the Bush Administration is indeed, at last, moving in this direction. (***) I hope he’s right. In any case, the US will have more leverage, diplomatic and otherwise, against North Korea once war with Iraq has commenced.
Update: 11 March 2003. An in-depth article in USA Today is informative as to how little US intelligence knows about North Korea, and particularly its nuclear program. (†††) This uncertainty is further evidence of the need to engage in a dialogue with the North Koreans.