| |
COMMENT
Bigger menace: North Korea or
Iraq?
By Ralph A Cossa
The
big debate raging in Washington these days is over which
country poses the greatest threat: North Korea or Iraq?
The answer is simple: North Korea.
North
Korea poses the greatest potential and actual threat
today. It possesses chemical and biological weapons and
worst-case analysis credits Pyongyang with up to two
nuclear devices as well. Even without these weapons of
mass destruction (WMD), North Korea still poses the
greatest threat, given its ability to inflict great
damage on Seoul - the South Korean capital is within
range of thousands of North Korean conventional
missiles, rockets, and long-range artillery pieces.
But this does not mean Washington should stop
putting pressure on Iraq and start waving a reinforced
big stick in North Korea's direction. Nor should the
lack of saber-rattling by Washington lead one to the
conclusion that the North Korean "crisis" is being
ignored.
Constant accusations to the contrary,
Washington appears to be actively pursuing a diplomatic
approach toward both Iraq and North Korea. President
George (Mr Unilateralism) W Bush is looking for the
United Nations Security Council to take an active role
in both instances, while many of its members seem to be
hoping that Washington will revert to form and do things
unilaterally so they won't have to make politically
uncomfortable decisions.
Few would argue with
Bush's assertion that the use of force in Iraq is the
last and least desirable option. But it is hard to
imagine that, absent the threat of US force, there would
be intrusive inspections going on in Iraq today. What
the French (among others) can't seem to understand is
that the best way to avoid the use of force is to
demonstrate a willingness to use it. Saddam specializes
in brinkmanship. Until he believes he is at the brink,
he is unlikely to cooperate fully. The more he withholds
full cooperation, the more likely war becomes.
Unless you believe that the use of force is a
far greater evil than allowing Saddam to develop WMD
(not to mention flouting numerous UN resolutions), the
time has come to announce, convincingly, that the brink
has been reached. If the United States (and its
"coalition of the willing") go to war without the UN,
the first sure casualty will be the multilateral process
that many UN Security Council members profess to endorse
... except, of course, when they are called upon
actually to do something. While Bush's watch may be
running a bit faster than many of us are comfortable
with, it is clear that "time is running out". Waiting
until Iraq can pose as great a threat to its neighbors
as North Korea already does only makes matters worse.
Meanwhile, not to be ignored, North Korea has
also thrown down a gauntlet toward the Security Council.
After being branded in material breach of International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safeguards, it is now
threatening to withdraw from the 1953 Armistice that
ended the Korean War - a conflict that pitted North
Korea and Chinese "volunteers" against the United
Nations, under whose flag the war was fought and in
whose name the armistice is currently being maintained.
Threatening the use of force against North Korea
does not yet seem appropriate, although Washington is
wise to keep all options on the table. But if shouting
back at North Korea achieves little, neither does
sitting quietly by as Pyongyang threatens "World War
III". One reason North Korean rhetoric keeps escalating
is because the international community has failed to
take Pyongyang to task for the completely irresponsible,
inflammatory remarks it has made thus far. Instead of
ignoring its threats (which makes Pyongyang feel
compelled to act even more outrageously), it's time to
say "enough is enough!"
What's needed is a
statement from the UN Security Council explaining that a
withdrawal from the 1953 Armistice will mean that a
state of war once again exists between North Korea and
the United Nations, not because of any action or desire
on the UN's (or Washington's) part, but because of North
Korea's deliberate action. Should this occur, all UN
member states will be instructed to stop providing aid
and assistance to North Korea. This includes South
Korea, which continues (with China) to keep Pyongyang on
life support.
As one of his final acts before
turning the leadership reins over to Roh Moo-hyun next
Tuesday, outgoing South Korean President Kim Dae-jung
should announce that a North Korean withdrawal from the
armistice will leave Seoul with no option other than
temporarily to suspend its Sunshine Policy of engagement
and to halt all North-South contacts and commerce.
I agree with Kim when he says war on the
peninsula is unlikely, even if Pyongyang walks away from
the armistice. But that does not mean we should sit idly
by as Pyongyang continues deliberately to ratchet up the
crisis. Pyongyang must understand that it can't be
business as usual if it walks away from the armistice.
It's also time for China to stop acting like an
uninvolved spectator. Instead of merely echoing its
mantra about the need for dialogue, Beijing should
openly praise Washington's willingness, at long last, to
enter into negotiations (albeit with a multilateral fig
leaf attached) while reminding Pyongyang that if it
walks away from the armistice, this time it will have to
go it alone. And, if its support for multilateralism in
general and the UN Security Council in particular is
real rather than rhetorical, Beijing should also speak
up about the need for both Baghdad and Pyongyang to
abandon their WMD programs verifiably.
Ralph A Cossa is president of the
Pacific Forum CSIS (e-mail pacforum@hawaii.rr.com),
a Honolulu-based non-profit research institute
affiliated with the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington, and senior editor
of Comparative Connections, a quarterly electronic
journal (http://www.csis.org/pacfor/).
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
