October 25, 2002 'DIPLOMATIC ENGAGEMENT' BEST RESPONSE TO DPRK 'NUCLEAR CONFESSION'

U.S. response allows opportunity for 'peaceful dialogue,' but solution to DPRK nuclear 'problem' requires multilateral cooperation, 'world pressure'-- The consensus worldwide was that regardless of where negotiations with Pyongyang went, North Korea must accept international inspections of its nuclear and missile facilities. The call for a concerted multilateral response was especially strong in Asia where editorials insisted that it was "imperative" for the region's major players--Japan, South Korea, China, Russia--to cooperate with the U.S. and "persuade North Korea to abandon the nuclear option." Many shared Seoul's independent Chungang Ilbo's claim that the "cooperation ball was now in Kim Jong-il's court," which, the paper warned, he'd "better pick up promptly...or face complete isolation and neglect from the rest of the world."

Kim Jong-il must be treated with caution-- Asian writers were incensed that Pyongyang had set back normalization talks and voiced outright distrust of President Kim Jong-il. Many demanded the suspension of economic aid to the DPRK. Some writers outside the region, however, considered the possibility that his "nuclear confession" was either a "perverse cry for help" or an offer to "make a deal: disarmament in return for recognition." Most nevertheless suggested that North Korea was not "fully trustworthy" and any message it delivered should be "treated with caution." In the words of Hamburg's Financial Times Deutschland: "The West must talk with North Korea, but it cannot let itself be blackmailed." The nationalist Ottawa Citizen minced no words, declaring President Kim Jong-il's "treachery is a steep price to pay for learning the limits of diplomacy, namely, that the signature of a dictator is usually worthless."

Detractors find 'flawed reasoning' and 'double standards' in U.S. 'preventive war doctrine'-- From the left to the right, some criticized the U.S. for the perceived inconsistencies in threatening the "sword" against Iraq while applying "wise diplomacy" to North Korea. They echoed a Mexican writer's contention that this "ambiguity" "undermines the casus belli...against Iraq." Airing a typical charge, London's centrist Independent asserted that "the logic of Bush's campaign against the axis of evil, never persuasive, is coming apart in his hands."

EDITOR: Irene Marr

EDITOR'S NOTE: This analysis is based on 67 reports from 25 countries, Oct. 17-24. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

JAPAN: "DPRK Can No Longer Use Nuclear Card"

An editorial in the liberal Mainichi observed (10/23): "President Bush said that the U.S. would deal diplomatically with the DPRK's nuclear development in cooperation with Japan, South Korea, China and Russia. The President has yet to clarify the U.S. position toward the 1994 Agreed Framework that the North has unilaterally called null and void. Despite this, both Deputy Secretary of State Armitage and A/S Kelly have suggested that the U.S. will not jump to a conclusion that it will scrap the framework. Despite North Korea's earlier scrapping of the accord, Radio Pyongyang later suggested that the North would continue to honor the pact. We praise the U.S. bid to resolve the North's nuke dispute diplomatically. The resumption of Japan-DPRK normalization talks in Kuala Lumpur on Oct. 29 will become an important occasion for Japan to learn about the North's sincerity in discussing nuke, abduction and other security issues. Japan must tell the North Koreans that they can no longer resort to brinkmanship or use nuclear development as a diplomatic card."

"Bush, Jiang Should Discuss Measures To End North's Nuclear Program"

The conservative Sankei editorialized (10/22): "Chinese President Jiang leaves for the U.S. today to discuss Iraq, the DPRK and other issues with President Bush. A focal point at the Bush-Jiang meeting will be whether these two leaders will be able to come up with concrete measures to prevent the DPRK from posing a "nuclear threat" to world security. The Bush administration needs to build up confidence with China, while applying pressure on Pyongyang. The U.S. and China must urge the North, which violated international accords on nuclear issues, to accept international inspections of its nuclear and missile facilities. Given the North's repeated violations of these accords, thorough inspections are mandatory."

"DPRK Must End Nuclear Development"

Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri editorialized (10/22): "North Korea's breach of trust in developing nuclear arms development has collapsed the foundation of the 1994 Agreed Framework reached between the U.S. and DPRK. Assistant Secretary of State Kelly conveyed Washington's sense of crisis to the GOJ during his visit to Tokyo Sunday through Monday. The world community needs to maximize pressure on North Korea to halt its nuclear program immediately and unconditionally. The U.S., Japan, South Korea and EU nations should review the KEDO project of constructing two light-water reactors for the North. Japan, which will resume normalization talks with the North in Kuala Lumpur on October 29, bears a heavy world responsibility for eliminating nuclear threats from the North."

"World Needs To Apply Pressure On DPRK To Scrap Nuclear Program"

An editorial in the business-oriented Nihon Keizai observed (10/22): "What must be done to have the DPRK end its nuclear (arms) development program? It is not just the U.S., Japan and South Korea but the entire world community that needs to apply effective pressure on the North to halt the program. Like Iraq's development of WMDs, the North's nuclear development poses a serious threat to world security. The North must give up on both adventurism and nuclear development or face grave consequences. Viewing the North's nuclear development as a violation of the 1953 Korean War Armistice Treaty, the U.S. can launch a military strike against North Korea irrespective of a UN resolution."

"Problem Calls For a Concert of Powers"

Ahn Byung Joon wrote in the English-language Japan Times (10/21): The stunning revelation that North Korea has a clandestine nuclear-weapons program casts a dark cloud over the future of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It also dampens prospects for Japanese-North Korean normalization talks, not to mention the resumption of U.S.-North Korean dialogue. To achieve a peaceful and nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, it is imperative that the major players in the region -- the United States, Japan, China and Russia -- foster an ad hoc 'concert of powers,' just as they have done in the war on terrorism. If these East Asian powers truly recognize the urgency of deterring war, halting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ending instability on the Korean Peninsula, they should make concerted efforts to persuade North Korea to abandon the nuclear option as a means of survival."

"North Korea Played The Diplomatic Card"

Ruriko Kubota opined in conservative Sankei Shimbun (10/19): "Why did the DPRK make the revelation? While some people think of this as a diplomatic strategy to draw the United States into negotiations, military analysts lean toward the scenario of terror of the DPRK actually 'succeeding in possessing nuclear arms.'... In any case, it seems safe to assume that with the revelation on its nuclear arms program, North Korea has acquired a new card. This may not only mean the possession of nuclear arms, but also the development of other powerful weapons of mass destruction, such as biological and chemical weapons."

"DPRK Must End Nuclear Program Immediately"

The liberal Asahi opined (10/18): "The DPRK's acknowledgment of its nuclear arms development is outrageous. The North must immediately end its nuclear program that runs counter to the 1994 Agreed Framework and NPT. It must also scrap its entire nuclear program under thorough international supervision. Pyongyang's previous denial of nuclear development has turned out to be a treacherous act to the world community. But the North's admission of nuclear development may be taken as an attempt to resume talks with the U.S. over the issue. Its description of the Agreed Framework as null and void may be an expression of dissatisfaction with the delay in the construction of two light-water nuclear reactors."

"Don't Play Into The Hands Of Pyongyang!"

An editorial in the conservative Sankei observed (10/18): "The DPRK may be exercising a strategy of 'divide' and 'rule' toward the U.S.-Japan-South Korean alliance formed in dealing with the North. While demonstrating moves to improve relations with Japan and South Korea, the North is venturing to create a critical situation with the U.S. Calling the Agreed Framework null and void, the North has decided to play a 'game of extreme risk' with the U.S., which is considering removing Iraq's Saddam Hussein from office. Against such a backdrop, Japan must act in full concert with the U.S. and South Korea to tell the North Koreans at the upcoming normalization talks that Japan cannot give economic aid if the North does not end its nuclear program."

"North Korea Must Accept International Inspections"

The moderate Tokyo Shimbun held (10/18): "The DPRK's development of nuclear weapons is a serious violation of international accords.... The North must accept international nuclear inspections immediately and unconditionally to extricate itself out of international isolation. Nuclear, missile and other security issues will likely be high on the agenda at the upcoming Japan-DPRK normalization talks in Kuala Lumpur. Considering the stalemate in U.S.-DPRK talks, the Kuala Lumpur talks will become a venue for the North to clarify its nuclear program. Japan needs to play a major role in removing unstable (security) factors in Northeast Asia."

SOUTH KOREA: "ROKG Offers 'Carrots' Despite North's Nuclear Development"

The conservative Chosun Ilbo noted (10/24): "Looking at the joint statement issued following recent inter-Korean ministerial talks and President Kim's meeting with presidential candidates, we cannot help but ask if Mr. Kim and his government think economic aid to the North should continue despite the North's nuclear weapons development, and that the U.S., rather than the North, should offer concessions to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue.... Nevertheless, the ROK's economic aid to the North is showing signs of gathering momentum. The current situation seems like the ROK is awarding the North a prize for developing nuclear weapons, or surrendering to the North's nuclear threats, not punishing the North."

"A Flawed Agreement"

The independent Joong-Ang Ilbo editorialized (10/24): "The recent inter-Korean joint statement has many flaws regarding Pyongyang's nuclear development program.... In particular, the issue of the North's highly-enriched uranium program is included among other issues in the statement, thus forcing us to virtually accept the North's demand that all issues be comprehensively resolved. We should not have agreed to that demand. Furthermore, our delegation failed to obtain the North's promise to honor the Geneva Accord.... Given the U.S. position that the North's nuclear program must be dismantled before any dialogue is held to resolve any issues, it is doubtful whether the U.S. will accept our 'messy' approach to the North Korean issue."

"No Aid without North's Giving Up Nuclear Weapons"

Choi Dong-jin, Emeritus Professor at Inje University and Former Chief for Planning on the Light-water Reactor Project, wrote in the independent Dong-a Ilbo (10/24): "Washington has called for the North to immediately and visibly dismantle its nuclear program if it wants dialogue with the U.S. This U.S. position is quite convincing given that the North has been conducting a secret nuclear program in violation of all nuclear-related agreements. Accordingly, the ROK should build on the U.S. position to strengthen its faltering cooperation with the U.S. and to establish an international coalition in order to exert diplomatic pressure on the North, which is the best way to resolve the issue peacefully.... The consensus among major international media outlets is that any aid to the North should be immediately suspended in order to get the North not to breach any nuclear-related agreements."

"A Step Forward Toward Peacefully Resolving the North's Nuclear Issue"

The moderate Hankook Ilbo editorialized (10/24): "It is fortunate that the U.S.'s and the North's declarations of willingness for dialogue seem to have defused the crisis created by the North's admission of a nuclear program.. It is a positive sign that the two countries have left a door open for a peaceful solution, even though they may differ internally.... If the past eight years are any guide, dialogue and negotiations are not an easy task. Now is the time for neighboring countries, including the ROK and the U.S., to cooperate closely on North Korea."

"What Happens After Geneva Accord Is Declared Nullified"

The moderate Hankook Ilbo stressed (10/22): "Washington's assertion of the need to scrap the Geneva Accord appears to be a tactic to pressure the North to voluntarily give up its nuclear program. The U.S. has yet to state whether it will continue to provide the North with heavy fuel oil and keep KEDO's light-water reactor project in place after its abandonment of the Accord. In our view, the two projects should be continued at least until a final decision is made on the issue.. In addition, we need to work out a new framework to replace or complement the Accord."

"Geneva Accord In Crisis And Tough Talk By Hardliners"

The pro-government Hankyoreh Shinmun editorialized (10/22): "Both the U.S. and North Korea are to blame for the situation, given that the North has developed nuclear weapons in violation of the [Geneva] Accord and that the Bush administration has strengthened its containment and deterrence policy toward the North, rather than exerting efforts to ease economic sanctions and normalize bilateral ties.... U.S. hawks are suggesting going to war with the North, arguing that the communist country is more dangerous than Iraq, and South Korean conservatives continue to utter hard-line remarks inciting crisis and confrontation. Such hard-line voices will increase U.S. influence in addressing the North Korean nuclear issue, putting a Korean issue into the hands of the U.S.... In order to independently resolve the North Korean issue, the ROK should further strengthen, rather than abrogate, its 'Sunshine Policy' of engaging the North."

"A Final Chance to Join The World"

Victor Cha wrote in independent Chungang Ilbo (10/21): "North Korea's surprise announcement of a secret nuclear weapons program has thrown cold water on a recent warming of relations with South Korea and Japan.... Some have argued that this new nuclear revelation is the North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's perverse but typical way of creating a crisis to pull a reluctant Bush administration into serious dialogue. Before the world accepts the confession as a perverse cry for help, we must see this for what it is--a serious violation of a standing agreement that will in effect be North Korea's last gambit at peaceful engagement with the United States and its allies. We are not, however, at crisis yet on the Korean peninsula. Such an outcome awaits one more round of diplomacy in which the United States and its allies in Asia and Europe must impress upon Pyongyang in the strongest terms its need to address this violation.... Until now, the burden of proof was on the United States and its allies. Now the cooperation ball is in Kim Jong-Il's court. He had better pick it up promptly and without ambiguity, or face complete isolation and neglect from the rest of the world.

"North's Admission And Korean Peninsula's Future"

The pro-government Hankyoreh Shinmun editorialized (10/18): "The most important task at hand is to ascertain the facts of the North Korean nuclear program and to exert efforts to resolve the issue peacefully through dialogue and negotiations, and not with bullying or threats. In this respect, it is reassuring that the ROK, Japanese and U.S. governments have announced their willingness to seek a peaceful resolution to the current situation."

"North Korean Blow To Sunshine Policy"

The independent Joong-Ang Ilbo observed (10/18): "We cannot help but express anger at the North's deceptive act of concealing its nuclear development while outwardly making conciliatory moves to the South. Now that the North's nuclear issue has become a serious and direct threat to our national security, we can no longer leave it to the U.S. or the IAEA.... However, to our dismay, our government is showing a lukewarm and easy-going attitude.... Despite the U.S.'s expression of intent to resolve the current situation peacefully, it seems unlikely that the U.S. will live up to Pyongyang's expectations without thoroughly verifying all its suspicions concerning the North's nuclear activities."

CHINA (HONG KONG AND MACAU SARS): "A Time For Level Heads"

The independent English-language South China Morning Post said (10/20): "The hermit state that is the world's last Stalinist regime defies accurate scrutiny, clouded by rumor and propaganda on all sides.... Just as the region fears the hawks of the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush turning Kim Jong-il into the next Saddam Hussein, neither does Pyongyang want to be the next target in the sights. Significantly, the Bush team has so far taken a relatively mild stance even as they put the international pressure on. The 'dead or alive' and 'heads on platter' sound bites reserved for other enemies have thankfully been kept off the agenda. Senior State Department envoy James Kelly--...not the most hawkish Bush official--has encouragingly pledged U.S. commitment to dialogue rather than unilateralism. It must be said, however, that he is less than keen to subscribe to the view that Pyongyang is doing everyone a favor.... The rays of sunshine may have been threatened by some nasty new clouds but they are not completely extinguished yet. The sense of considered calm, caution and dialogue that have proliferated over the last week must continue. Handled correctly, this particular crisis could provide an opportunity."

"DPRK Admission To Nuclear Weapons Program Is Risky Business"

The pro-PRC Chinese-language Macau Daily News commented (10/20): "U.S. government officials disclosed the day before yesterday that during U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kelly's recent to Pyongyang, the DPRK admitted it had been secretly developing nuclear weapons. This incident shocked the world. Washington immediately sent senior officials to China, South Korea and Japan to discuss the impact caused by the DPRK's admitted nuclear weapons program. This issue is also expected to be included on the agenda of the upcoming Jiang-Bush summit.... Washington's political arena is feeling anxious of late as they explore how the U.S. could deal simultaneously with the Iraq and DPRK crises. At present, there are three choices: Use of military force, maintaining the status quo, or pursuit of peaceful dialogue. The latter is preferred by many U.S. senior officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell stated clearly, 'We have no plans for military action against DPRK.' This indicates that the U.S. does not have the military might to launch two large-scale wars in different regions."

AUSTRALIA: "The Curious Case Of North Korea"

An editorial in the liberal Age observed (10/23): "Startling, for its contrast to U.S. policy on Iraq, was the low-key response [by the U.S. to North Korea's nuclear weapons program announcement]: Mr Bush said this was 'a troubling discovery' but diplomacy could resolve the problem.... The conciliatory tone seems extraordinary in view of the grave dangers and Pyongyang's reputation as the last haven of Stalinist crackpots. It may be, however, that both countries' leaders have made rational assessments that diplomatic engagement now offers hope of not only disarmament by North Korea but an end to its crippling isolation.... There is no guarantee it will disarm, or can even be trusted to negotiate in good faith, but the opportunity cannot be ignored; not while concerted diplomacy, backed by a vigorous arms inspections regime, could unexpectedly deliver the peace and security that has eluded north-east Asia for half a century."

"The Korean Contradiction"

The liberal Sydney Morning Herald (10/22) noted: "About the last thing Washington was expecting from the secretive North Korean regime was the truth. Now, the United States and its allies in the 'war on terrorism' are scrambling for an appropriate response to Pyongyang's astonishing confession that it is, indeed, running a covert nuclear weapons program, and more. That Washington chose to delay revealing this while it pushed for a new United Nations resolution on Iraq, highlights the complications a suddenly co-operative North Korea throws up for the US-led anti-terrorism campaign.... U.S. officials have been quick to point out the differences between North Korea and Iraq. Iraq is an aggressive state which would be further emboldened if it achieved nuclear weapons status. North Korea is ideologically isolated and virtually starving. Such poverty can now be used as a diplomatic lever to demand it disarm. This may be so. But, in labeling North Korea a 'rogue state,' the United States has argued that the danger lies in poor, unaccountable nations selling weapons of mass destruction or their components to terrorists. This risk remains."

SINGAPORE: "Pyongyang Bombshell"

The pro-government Straits Times (10/21) opined: "North Korea's stunning admission... confronts Asia and the world with yet another crisis at the worst possible time.... A military response is obviously out of the question, not least because the U.S. cannot at one and the same time threaten regime-change in Iraq and fight on another front at the other end of the globe. Moreover, North Korea, with its massive conventional (and possibly nuclear) capacity, is in a position to wreak considerable damage on South Korea and Japan.... Washington and its allies...have no alternative but to continue engaging Pyongyang somehow, despite the fact that it has proven itself to be completely untrustworthy. It may be quixotic to argue, as supporters of Mr. Kim's 'sunshine policy' do, that Pyongyang's 'candid' admission of wrongdoing is itself a positive sign for it indicates a willingness 'to resolve this matter through dialogue', but it would be wise to explore this possibility, as improbable as it may seem. At any rate, it would be unwise to break off engagement with Pyongyang, for isolating an already isolated country is unlikely to bring it to its senses."

THAILAND: "Pyongyang Must Be Made To Reform"

The lead editorial in top-circulation, moderately conservative, English-language Bangkok Post read (10/19): "Having seen television footage and read about the hardships in North Korea, Thais as a member of the international community should be inspired by the U.S. revelation, to push for pressure against the regime. The U.S. has made clear its wish for a peaceful resolution of the matter and is sending envoys to Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo to discuss options. In any move towards a resolution, the wishes of Japan and South Korea, as immediate neighbors of North Korea, must be respected. Japan has made it known it will go ahead with talks on the normalization of ties with North Korea that were scheduled before the U.S. revelation."

VIETNAM: "A Signal That Attracts Much Concern "

Tuong Van wrote in Ho Chi Minh City's pro-Communist Party Sai Gon Giai Phong (10/21):

"Uncle Sam has shown a flexible attitude toward North Korea after the country, which was branded as an 'axis of evil,' admitted that it has pursued a nuclear weapons program. Secretary of State Collin Powell said the problem will be resolved purely by diplomatic measures. International observers say that the U.S. is forced to resort to diplomacy because it cannot attack both Iraq and North Korea at the same time. The world can sigh in relief...given Washington's inclination to pursue a peaceful solution for the crisis with North Korea. "

EUROPE

BRITAIN: "Confessional Diplomacy"

An editorial in the liberal Guardian stated (10/22): "[The U.S., faced with North Korea's admission faces a choice:] either pursue a tougher, confrontational policy towards Pyongyang or to follow the diplomatic route. Selecting the first option would be ill-advised.... It seems highly unlikely that North Korea would seriously try to threaten the United States or its allies unless cornered. Its nuclear mea culpa should be seen primarily as a crude incentive to the U.S. to curb its hostility and resume the dialogue initiated by the Clinton administration. It was also a cry for help--for bombs and missiles apart, North Korea has few bargaining chips.... Whether the Bush administration is thinking objectively, and will respond sensibly, is uncertain."

"Dropping A Bombshell"

The independent Financial Times stated (10/18): "Until the secretive regime of Kim Jong-Il clarifies why it told U.S. officials...that it has been running a clandestine nuclear weapons programme, it is hard to know what to make of the admission, and therefore how to react. Is it an act of contrition, belligerence or blackmail?... North Korea's admission is hardly surprising, given the way it has played nuclear liar's poker with the outside world.... But in recent years it has been a serial blackmailer of other countries.... Unchanged, however, is the U.S. reluctance to risk any military action against North Korea's massive forces.... Unlike with Iraq, the U.S. has no choice but to follow the diplomatic route.... Japan, Russia and China will have to persuade the North Korean leader that he must end his game of nuclear hide-and-seek."

"North Korea's Nasty Game"

The conservative Daily Telegraph stated (10/18) "Despite its more forthright attitude towards North Korea, the Bush administration is being sucked into the same diplomatic quagmire as its predecessor.... Pyongyang is a past master at playing a weak hand skillfully.... But where do the Americans go from here?.... Military action presents enormous difficulties.... The president, like Clinton, will be forced to [deal] with a regime which has fashioned nuclear cheating and economic illiteracy into a surprisingly powerful diplomatic lever."

"Hope Over Experience"

An editorial in the conservative Times held (10/18): "The U.S.' revelation that North Korea has admitted running a secretive nuclear weapons programme is both bad and good news for the West. The fact that Pyongyang disregarded its 1994 promise to freeze all nuclear development...casts a shadow on the policy of engagement with an isolated country. On the other hand, Pyongyang's owning up may also be interpreted as a sign that it is at last looking for genuine dialogue.... Whether bringing the nuclear programme into the open will improve or sour relations with Washington remains unclear.... [North Korea's] unusual admission is in stark contrast to its traditional policy of blatant lying. Pyongyang must now follow words with action.... The North Korean leader should take further steps towards creating a more 'normal' state.... As long as Pyongyang proves it is willing to change, the West would be wise not to disengage when skillful diplomacy could bring rewards."

"The Real Threat Comes From Terrorism"

An editorial in the centrist Independent stated (10/18): "The logic of Bush's campaign against the axis of evil, never persuasive, is coming apart in his hands.... The inconsistencies of U.S. policy are exposed.... Where Iraq is threatened with invasion, the forceful deposition of Saddam and U.S. rule...the White House says of North Korea, 'We seek a peaceful resolution of this situation.'... The truth is that U.S. policy towards North Korea is sensible, while that towards Iraq is not.... As the bombing of Bali reminded the world, the terrorist threat to the West comes from fluid networks of extremist organization rather than from the rogue states that so dominate the mythology of U.S. foreign policy."

FRANCE: "Starting From Zero With North Korea"

Francois Godement, an expert on foreign policy issues, in left-of-center Liberation (10/23): "North Korea, far from any international inspection program, has marched towards possession of nuclear weapons. This change should lead us to ask ourselves some questions. Constructive commitment policies work, sometimes. Not so with North Korea.... North Korea is back to its old habits: brandishing the threat of nuclear weapons as a potential bargaining chip for the future.... The international approach to North Korea must be revisited.... There is today a conjunction of extremes between al-Qaida, Iraq and North Korea. This is not the doings of Washington's hawks: North Korea has exploited the relative détente of the Clinton-Kim Dae Jung era. The true lesson to be learned from North Korea's surprising revelation is that a determined policy of prevention against the acquisition of WMD is the only policy. Anything else is hiding one's head in the sand."

"Iraq And North Korea"

Left-of-center Le Monde editorialized (10/21): "The reason behind Washington's revelation about North Korea lies with U.S. domestic politics and the coming mid-term elections. It offers arguments to the Republicans who have been criticizing the Clinton-Gore policy towards Pyongyang.... But Pyongyang's 'confession' has equally been a subject of embarrassment for the Bush administration, because North Korea is the second country in the 'axis of evil' to possess WMD. But in this case the solution to destroy the threat is not military, as in the case of Iraq. The Bush administration has chosen to deal through diplomatic channels. In order to explain to American public opinion and to the rest of the world why it is necessary to adopt two different strategies to deal with nations which show the same characteristics, Washington has accepted North Korea's thesis that its program is defensive rather than offensive, like Iraq's. This is in fact true.... The U.S. has no other choice but to try to negotiate. A 'preventive' military action against North Korea is not an option. While the U.S. could easily reduce North Korea to ashes, the risk of retaliation against South Korea and Washington's presence in the region is too great. And as far as sanctions go, the U.S. cannot do much more."

"North Korea And Nuclear Weapons"

Richard Werly wrote in left-of-center Liberation (10/18): "According to Washington, North Korea has acknowledged that it has continued with its enriched uranium programs.... The American emissary, James Kelly, who was accused of 'arrogance' by the North Korean press, clearly pushed his interlocutors to confess, probably by showing U.S. satellite photos.... Paris does not appear to be particularly upset by the fact that such revelations fit perfectly with President Bush's accusations against North Korea as being part of the 'axis of evil.'"

"North Korea's Confession"

Right-of-center Les Echos editorialized (10/18): "According to Washington, Pyongyang has just made a major confession that leaves an aftertaste of the Cold War era and which could push Washington to make important strategic changes.... Pyongyang is by its own admission putting on hold its dialogue with South Korea and the aid which Japan, Europe and the U.S. had planned for its reconstruction.... This surprising revelation carries implications that go beyond North Korea. They prove that non-proliferation treaties, as with Iraq, are not worth the paper they are printed on. In a way this could re-enforce Washington's hard line policy towards 'rogue states.'"

GERMANY: "North Korean Jitters"

Business Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg observed (10/22): "The basic principle of dealing with North Korean dictator Kim must be the same that applies to Iraq--an aggressive dictator cannot be allowed to own nuclear weapons.... No policy option can be ruled out, including the military one.... For now, the West must keep the option of a political solution alive.... A number of things indicate that North Korea's confession is an offer to enter into negotiations and make a deal: disarmament in return for recognition. The West should check the offer carefully.... However, North Korea is not fully trustworthy.... It is unclear who is really in charge in Pyongyang - careful reformers or reactionary military.... The West must talk with North Korea, but it cannot let itself be blackmailed."

"Third League Of Nuclear Powers"

Rainer Ostermann opined in an editorial in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (10/19): "With North Korea openly breaking its word, there is growing concern that nuclear weapons could turn into cheap mass-produced goods even for third-class powers in the 21st century.... But even the U.S. 'first -strike' doctrine is anything but a panacea. The latest development shows that it is wrong and dangerous, because it is based on a flaw in the U.S. reasoning: the idea that regimes that strive for the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction could be forced to give up their plans by threatening the use of force. On the Korean peninsula this doctrine failed. On the contrary, the regime in Pyongyang was not impressed by the planned punitive action against Iraq.... If a country has acquired the status of a nuclear power, preventive strikes will be out of the question. We must fear that other countries will copy North Korea's example: to officially renounce nuclear weapons but to continue to work secretly and more intensely for the production of the protecting bomb."

"What Separates Pyongyang From Iraq"

Dietrich Alexander wrote in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (10/19): "Washington's decision not to take action against North Korea is based on realpolitk. The superpower is unable to wage a two--if not three-front--war.... The conflict with Iraq is in an early but serious stage and now Pyongyang?.... With his confession of having conducted a secret nuclear weapons program, North Korea's leader gave evidence of being part of the axis of evil. But this part of the [U.S.] reasoning does not exist with respect to Iraq where one is suspecting things without knowing whether they are true. If we follow the U.S. logic, North Korea should be the prime target for the United States. Why then Iraq, not North Korea?.... The fact that North Korea is now flexing its nuclear muscles seems to be based on the paranoia of its autistic leader. Why then should [the United States] threaten to use its sword if wise diplomacy could also produce results?... The case of North Korea shows how important a transparent and unconditional control is what Iraq should now accept if it wants to prevent a devastating war."

"New Considerations"

Guenter Nonnenmacher editorialized in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (10/18): "This is a setback for the attempt to integrate this outsider regime into the strategic balance in Asia. This is true for South Korea's sunshine policy but also for the rapprochement with Japan. And the surprising confession obviously caused considerable embarrassment in Washington, since this is the only explanation for the twelve days of silence in Washington. Kim Jong-Il's regime is as isolated in the world as Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but its geopolitical position differ considerably.... This means for Washington that it is moving on such precarious ground that it has not even indicated the possibility of a military threat. The United States will now first of all try to exert influence on the powers-that-be in Pyongyang via China and Russia. The priorities on the 'axis of evil' have now shifted. This means for President Bush that he, with his Iraq plans, must show new consideration for Moscow and Beijing."

"Invitation To Nuclear Dance"

Henrik Bork judged in an editorial in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (10/18): "North Korea should be sanctioned for this clear violation of bilateral agreements with the United States and South Korea, but also of international agreements.... In any case, Washington should listen to the advice of its allies in Asia and first of all seek a dialogue with Pyongyang. One Iraq is enough."

"Wealthy Enough For The Bomb"

Christoph von Marschall opined in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (10/18): "Is George W. Bush preparing for the wrong war: against Saddam who has no nuclear weapons and only missiles with a short range? Is it now becoming clear that North Korea is a rogue state and even more dangerous than Iraq, because it successfully tested carrier missiles with a range of thousand kilometers and has weapons-grade plutonium for several bombs?... Yes, George W. Bush has a problem. But the shock must even be greater for all those who assailed Bush's policy toward Iraq as an adventure. They argue that it is first of all necessary to test all peaceful means of arms control--by pursuing a carrot-and- stick policy.... But exactly this policy was tried with North Korea. With an extensive dialogue and with billions of dollars, South Korea and the United States prompted the poverty dictatorship in Pyongyang to officially end its nuclear program. This approach failed in Korea. The result is uncertainty, unreliability, and mounting doubts whether the proliferation of nuclear weapons can amicably be contained at all or be stopped only by pursuing a tough policy, and, if necessary, by using force."

ITALY: "Nuclear Weapons, Pyongyang Wants To Dialogue With The United States"

A report in pro-Democratic Left party (DS) L'Unita' (10/22): "North Korea is ready to reassure the United States. In the wake of last week's revelations about its secret nuclear plans, the Kim Jong II regime now wants 'to dispel American alarms,' on condition that Washington cancel Pyongyang from the 'Evil Axis'.... The statements issued by the number two man of the North Korean regime, Kim Yong Nam, are the first official reaction after the admission that North Korea has continued to develop nuclear weapons in violation of the 1994 agreement with the United States.... The reaction in Seoul was positive.... The reaction in Washington was instead cold."

"The U.S. Agreement With Pyongyang Cancelled"

New York correspondent Maurizio Molinari wrote in centrist, influential La Stampa (10/21): "The U.S. considers null and void the agreement against nuclear proliferation signed in 1994 with North Korea, and is preparing a diplomatic and economic offensive to put Kim Jong-il's back against the wall.... One immediate consequence of the cancellation of the agreement is the suspension of U.S. oil deliveries to North Korea. As a second step, the Bush Administration is about to coordinate a massive campaign of diplomatic and economic pressure to convience the Kim Jong-il regime to reconsider its plans. The military option is not being considered for the time being.... President Bush will discuss the issue with Chinese President Jiang Zemin on Friday on his Crawford ranch."

"Meanwhile Pakistanis And Egyptians Cooperate With North Korea"

Analyst Andrea Naativi wrote in pro-government, leading center-right Il Giornale (10/19): The United States hesitates, and has no intention whatsoever to start a new crisis that could hinder or slow down the diplomatic offensive on the main front, i.e. Iraq. And it is surprising to hear 'hawks' like Condoleezza Rice explain that the situation in the Korean peninsula is much different from Iraq and that North Korea is indeed among the countries listed by the White House as 'outlaw states.'... Too bad U.S. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is declaring that North Korea already has nuclear bombs while even the CIA says that Saddam will not have a nuclear weapons before five years. This issue emphasizes the casualness of the U.S. administration in dealing with the risks involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Not a word of criticism for Pakistan, that reportedly provided North Korea with viatal material and technology."

"The Korean Confession"

An article in elite, classical liberal Il Foglio stated (10/18): "It is interesting that, while Kim Jong II admits, Saddam Hussein denies. The admission by the former, always suspected by the United States, adds to U.S. doubts about the latter, which are, in fact, something more than just doubts. This way, North Korea objectively becomes an ally of Bush in the international media campaign to increasingly isolate the Iraqi dictator and make the day of reckoning closer: inspections without limitations, controlled disarmament if caches of mass destruction weapons were to be discovered, military intervention in case of resistance on the part of Saddam Hussein to turn in what may put peace at risk."

RUSSIA: "Threats Are Pyongyang's Only Source Of Revenue"

Sergey Strokan argued in reformist business-oriented Kommersant (10/22): "An ambiguity in the situation around North Korea is good for both Washington and Pyongyang, with each hoping to profit from it. For the George Bush administration it is a chance once again to remind people (so that no one forgets) of its noble and difficult job to save the world from tyrants. Kim Jong-ill is a different story. Unlike Saddam Hussein, who is in control of huge oil resources, Kim Jong-il has nothing to export--locally made sneakers don't count. For him the 'North Korean threat' is the only source of revenue. As other countries worry about the threat, Pyongyang offers them cooperation in removing it, hoping that the grateful international community will return the favor by helping with food and energy."

"The Game of Poker A La Pyongyang"

Reformist Vremya Novostey said in a comment by Aleksey Slobodin and Aleksandr Lomanov (10/22): "It looks as if the Americans don't know much about the status of North Korea's military programs. Under Secretary of State John Bolton is in Moscow not so much to tell the Russian Foreign Minister about the DPRK's nuclear program (as stated by Igor Ivanov himself) as to find out about this program from Russian experts.... If Bush chooses to stick to his guns and refuses to sit down at the negotiating table with Kim Jong-il, Japan and South Korea will turn up the heat. Frightened, they will urge Washington to make a deal if Pyongyang clearly sets the conditions on which it will be ready to give up its nuclear bombs."

"Why Kelly Did In N. Korea"

Nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya asserted in a page-one story by Vasiliy Safronchuk (10/22): "The impression is that, rather than trying to renew a dialogue with Pyongyang while on a mission there, (James) Kelly was busy spying and causing more problems in North Korea's relations with its neighbors, South Korea and Japan. In fact, it is Washington, not Pyongyang, which has breached the 1994 agreement.... The United States' attitude toward the DPRK is double standards at their most glaring. Why is it that Israel, the United States' ally in the Middle East, can have nuclear weapons, but North Korea cannot? How come, Pakistan, the United States' ally in Asia, can have nuclear weapons, but the DPRK cannot?"

AUSTRIA: "Double Standard"

Foreign affairs writer Christian Ultsch commented in centrist Die Presse (10/18): "Imagine the uproar in Washington if Iraq had come up with this kind of admission. But in North Korea's case the U.S. government is apparently quite unperturbed. Washington cannot afford a second front in addition to Iraq. Besides, there's no oil in Pyongyang. These are the times when Bush decides to rely on diplomacy."

BULGARIA: "Every Agreement Has Two Parties"

Left-leaning daily Duma commented (10/18): "After the Cold War's startling clatter the era of 'quiet diplomacy' came along. In 1994 President Clinton managed to negotiate, with the 'beloved leader' of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, an agreement providing that North Korea would end its nuclear program in return for which the U.S. would establish an international consortium to build two nuclear power units in North Korea by 2003. Yet, after Bush moved into the White House a time of suspicion and distrust came back. The dialogue was cancelled and the CIA looked for and quickly found evidence of Pyongyang's violation of the agreement. It turns out, however, that the other party has also failed to fulfill its commitments under this agreement--the construction works of the two reactors are still in their initial stage. So, the U.S. is also to be blamed for the present scandal. A double standard is not the best instrument--especially when a nuclear bomb is concerned."

FINLAND: "Substance Added To Axis Of Evil"

Finland's leading independent Helsingin Sanomat Washington correspondent Jyri Raivio stated (10/18): "North Korea 's disclosure that it possesses a nuclear arms program is yet another crisis for the United States, hardly desired. All diplomatic ammunition, and soon even the military, faces in the direction of Iraq but Kim Jong-Il's admission was not just bad news for the White House. It added significantly to the credibility of the concept of the Axis of Evil."

POLAND: "Axis And Axis"

Leopold Unger wrote in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (10/24): "From the U.S. point of view, there are basic differences [between North Korea and Iraq.].... Two strategic elements are the most important. First is oil on which Saddam is sitting, whereas Kim is sitting on poverty. If someone friendly to Washington sat on Iraq's oil, the U.S. would take control of oil resources of the magnitude of Saudi Arabia's, as well as of a significant part of world oil market.... The other element is geopolitics. North Korea could be the object of diplomatic-rather than military-pressure because the countries threatened are first and foremost [North Korea's] neighbors: South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia rather than the U.S. Therefore, there is a significant coalition eager to work together toward stripping Kim Jong Il of his nuclear status. With Saddam, it is the opposite. The U.S. is practically alone in its struggle."

SWEDEN: "Inspections of North Korea"

Independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter editorialized (10/18): "Now when North Korea allegedly has, or is striving for, weapons of mass destruction, we can expect a debate on dual standards in international politics; i.e., criticism that countries are judged by different yardsticks.... But the world is not perfect, and there is all the reason to welcome any attempt that would make the world a safer and more decent place, even if this would mean that some outrages will not be punished. The fact that the U.S. now wants to deal peacefully with North Korea should be welcomed. However, any message by North Korea, disregarding whether it is positive or not, should be received with skepticism. The Pyongyang regime does not belong to the most reliable ones in the world. Disregarding the degree of truth in yesterday's messages, they focus on an important issue--the need for a working international weapons inspection program."

SOUTH ASIA

INDIA: "The Ninth Nuclear Horseman"

Jasjit Singh, Editorial Advisor, wrote in the independent Indian Express (10/21): "Another country has quietly gatecrashed into the nuclear club.... Curiously, in the face of such a momentous development, the United States, after telling Japan to keep the secret, has treated this as a near non-event. It is possible that the revelations far exceeded the intelligence information that James Kelley was trying to show to the North Koreans.... It is as if the sole superpower trying to manage world affairs was for once lost about how to shape its response.... What does a nuclear North Korea mean for the region and the world? Firstly, the U.S. would find it extremely difficult to use force against North Korea which maintains a massive conventional military force.... A possible Korean War with nuclear weapons is the last thing the U.S. would want. Secondly, re-unification of the Koreas, difficult at the best of times, would now appear to have receded into a very distant future. Clandestine acquisition of nuclear weapons by an NPT non-nuclear member, otherwise a weak state, poses the severest challenge to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive use of superior military force and counter-proliferation. In the overall context, nuclear non-proliferation has received a major blow which it may find it difficult to survive.

"Pakistan Is The Nuclear Rogue"

The nationalist Hindustan Times editorialized (10/21): "North Korea's sudden admission that it has a secret uranium-based nuclear weapons programme is probably an example of Pyongyang's famed 'judo diplomacy'--sharp negotiating turns designed to extract concessions from a surprised opponent. What interests India is that this admission has confirmed what New Delhi has long suspected--Pakistan peddled the uranium-processing technology that underpins the clandestine North Korean programme. The world will watch how the U.S. responds to the exposing of Pakistan as the world's nuclear black marketeer. In the longer term, the U.S. needs to recognise that Pakistan's manic search for a means to negate India's greater strength--a quest that has made it a nuclear proliferator, a supplicant of China and a terror incubator--has made it the world's ultimate Rogue State."

PAKISTAN: "The Charge Of Helping 'Axis Of Evil'"

Khalil Malick commented in independent Urdu-language independent Ausaf (10/20): "Do you have any sense of what is being said and what will be its implications? It is said--that, too, by the New York Times--that Pakistan is transferring nuclear technology to North Korea.... Sooner or later it will become clear that India has helped the United States in fabricating this story.... If possible, President Musharraf should himself take the initiative and bring out his friend, President Bush, in Pakistan's support. Hectic efforts should be made to prevent the situation from further deterioration, particularly at a time when, good or bad, elections have been held; Indian forces are returning from the border; Mr. Vajpayee is compelled to visit Pakistan; joint U.S.-Pakistan military exercises are going on; the economy, though in tatters at the masses' level, is better at the government level; and Pakistan has become a temporary member of the UN Security Council."

MIDDLE EAST

ISRAEL: "Clear and Present Danger"

Intelligence affairs reporter Ronen Bergman wrote in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (10/18): "North Korea's admission...presents a clear and present danger to Israel's existence. Indeed, North Korea has no direct antagonism with Israel, but together with Russia it is the key technology supplier of weapons of mass destruction to the worst enemies of Israel, such as Iran and Syria.... North Korea is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It has passed a never-ending number of inspections by the IAEA and was granted a certificate that it has made no attempt to develop nuclear weapons. This means that is very easy to manipulate the inspectors and that their work is no guarantee for anything. The greatest fear is that North Korea won't stop at providing missile technology to Israel's enemies, but that it will cooperate with Iranian efforts to obtain nuclear weapons."

SAUDI ARABIA: "Common Factor Between Iraq And North Korea"

Riyadh's moderate, Al-Jazira editorialized (10/23): "It is correct that Iraq is not North Korea and that we cannot always apply the same policies to different states, but the common factor between the two cases is weapons of mass destruction, confirmed and unconfirmed ones. The U.S. views Iraq from geopolitical considerations in a region where Israel, the dearest ally of the U.S., is found, which encourages American rashness to carry out a military action against Iraq.

"Is Korea a Road to Iraq?"

London's pan-Arab, Al-Hayat ran an editorial by Jalal Al-Mashata (10/22): "Even though Pyongyang has admitted to the continuation of its uranium enrichment program, Washington doesn't hide the fact that it has no intention of opening another front in the Korean Peninsula, but that it intends to find a political solution instead.... Why don't we assume that the leniency with Pyongyang provides a precedence to 'soften' the attitude toward Baghdad? In other words, enriching uranium in Korea 'generates' a new situation in dealing with Iraq. There is no doubt that the White House--which has given the American public and the world the impression that the use of force is inevitable--needs to undergo a complicated maneuver in order to go back on it. Thus, the problem with North Korea will turn into a ladder that the American President can use to climb down from the mule of war that kicks its rider."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CANADA: "Why North Koreans Broke Silence On Nukes"

Columnist Stephen Handelman commented in the liberal Toronto Star (10/22): "The Kim Jong-Il regime's unexpected declaration this month that it had restarted its uranium enrichment program seems most calculated to ensure that the rest of the world takes it seriously.... But the fact that the White House response has been comparatively low-key isn't damning in itself. We should probably be glad that Washington sees the situation on the Korean peninsula in less stark terms than it appears to in the Middle East. A pre-emptive war to eliminate North Korea's nuclear fantasies would be disastrous.... The North Koreans have now signalled their desire for a more direct approach. Deal with us as we are now, or we won't be responsible for what happens later. What they have done, in effect, is put themselves back into regional politics.... By forcing the international community to negotiate on their strengths, rather than their weaknesses, they can preserve a semblance of control. In the short term, it means losing the prospect of more fuel and food aid. But it has the virtue of reminding a world currently absorbed in the Middle East not to forget about the cauldron still boiling in northeast Asia."

"North Korea's Nukes"

Under the sub-heading, "Suddenly, multilateralists hope the U.S. will solve the crisis alone," the nationalist Ottawa Citizen editorialized (10/21): "Proliferation was inevitable in the post-Cold War world, but schizophrenic North Korea is one of the last countries we hoped would join the nuclear club. The likelihood of a nuclear explosion in the next decade...increased with news of North Korea's capability. The question now being asked is: What's U.S. President George W. Bush going to do about it? It's a bad question because North Korea is not an American problem but a global one. It's funny that people who complain about American dominance--Canadian politicians among them--are suddenly happy to pass the buck.... Mr. Kim signed an agreement in 1994 to abandon nuclear ambitions. His treachery is a steep price to pay for learning the limits of diplomacy, namely, that the signature of a dictator is usually worthless. Mr. Kim now holds his entire region hostage. Let this be, at least, a lesson that is absorbed by those who insist on negotiating with, rather than pre-empting, other nuclear-obsessed tyrants."

"Oops. North Korea has what?"

Columnist Richard Gwyn observed in the liberal Toronto Star (10/20): "As for Bush, his total comments about what North Korea have added up to zero, nothing, nada. Because of the embarrassing comparison with Iraq, junior officials, most often off the record, have made all Washington comments. The reason for the difference in treatment couldn't be simpler. Because Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction, he's no threat. North Korea is a threat. It not only has the weapons it also has, in the Nodong...the means to deliver them.... As for Saddam's supposed - minimal at worst - weapons of mass destruction they do serve one vital purpose: They provide the excuse to knock him off. In short, it's not about disarmament; it's about regime change. Kim Jong-Il, by contrast, has no oil and he's never embarrassed a U.S. president, but he has the weapons. So he gets slapped with kid gloves. Another difference that can't be ignored because it most certainly will not be by more than 1 billion people in the world: Saddam, unlike Kim, is an Arab and a Muslim and so easy to demonize. This is the misshapen shape of the New World Order."

"A Cautious Reception For North Korea"

The conservative National Post editorialized (10/17): "If Pyongyang is sincere in its desire to establish normal relations with Japan, and to begin the process of rejoining the international community, then the onus is on it to reform its ways..North Korea, which has also recently made welcome overtures to South Korea and the United States, is really in no position to set the terms for its re-entry into the international community..Pyongyang must immediately release all abductees and their families from bondage. It must allow Japanese investigators into the country to establish the fate of eight other abductees the North Koreans claim are dead. In other words, it must start to demonstrate that it is capable of adhering to the rule of law -- international and criminal."

BRAZIL: "Pyongyang's Shows Its Cards"

Foreign policy commentator Jaime Spitzcovsky said in liberal Folha de Sao Paulo (10/22): "By revealing its secret nuclear project to Washington's envoys, North Korea is reverting to its old flight plan: presenting itself as the holder of significant military power and offering reductions in the nuclear sector in exchange for negotiating with the USG.... When he saw his nation included in the 'axis of evil,' Kim Jong-il thought that following Saddam Hussein's possible fall, Washington might exert pressure to change North Korea's regime.... Still linked to communist dogma and isolationism...North Korea hesitates in adopting economic changes, thus yielding to pressure from China, its main diplomatic partner.... Pressed by the economic crisis...North Korea is apparently abandoning its isolationism and willing to recycle the tactic used in other negotiations: it exhibits its military power in an attempt to obtain concessions, now from the U.S. This tactic, however, does not always succeed."

"Bush's Double Standard"

The lead editorial in center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo (10/19) observed: "We have not heard yet from the Bush administration vis-a-vis North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il anything vaguely similar to the warlike rhetoric it uses in regards to [Saddam Hussein's] Iraq.... The U.S. has not been able to convince skeptical analysts both domestically and overseas that while diplomatic pressure has little effect in the Middle East, it is perfect for the Korean Peninsula. Such reasoning obscures the fact that an attack against North Korea is just as unfeasible as an invasion of Iraq is undesirable to the international community. First, because Saddam Hussein himself is already a large enough problem [for the U.S. to cope with]. Second, because retaliation against South Korea would be immediate and devastating.... The world is more complex than it seems to be for President Bush."

MEXICO: "Double Standard?"

Modesto Suarez writes in independent Reforma (10/24): "A few days ago the world learned that the government of North Korea had a secret program to produce nuclear weapons. Given past history, (this) would surely have disastrous effects in terms of the regional and global balance of power: Japan would be forced to rearm, and this, in turn, would set off reactions in China and Russia, with concomitant problems for the U.S. In spite of the possible conclusion of such a scenario, curiously the most clear and present danger to the security of the U.S. and countries such as Great Britain comes from Iraq and not North Korea. The ambiguity in the application of the preventive war doctrine questions such a thesis, and undermines the casus belli presented by Washington and London against Iraq."

"North Korea in the Axis of Evil"

An editorial in far-left La Jornada stated (10/21): "The White House faces serious difficulties explaining the contrast in its attitudes towards Iraq - a country it means to raze even if there is no proof that it possesses weapons of mass destruction - and North Korea, before which Washington acts much more obsequiously, even when it claims to have evidence of the production of that kind of weapon by Pyongyang. If the claims were to be true, one would have to conclude that the difference between the two cases has little to do with nuclear proliferation, but rather with Bush's interest in Iraqi oil, and the control of strategic positions in the Middle East. Furthermore. an inevitable conclusion is that the United States has failed in its self-appointed task of dissuasion of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that such a task should be carried out exclusively by the UN, with the accord of all of its members."

CHILE: "A New Nuclear Threat"

Leading-circulation, popular La Tercera ran an editorial stating (10/21): "The disclosure that North Korea has a secret nuclear weapons program in open violation of the agreement it signed with the United States in 1994 is a new source of international tension that alters the strategic balance in the region.... Amid the international convulsions created by renewed terrorist activities and the threat of an operation against Hussein, Washington is right in differentiating the Iraqi threat from the North Korean threat and by assuring that it won't use force against the latter... It is not convenient to follow the same course that brought Pyongyang and the U.S. to the verge of war in 1994, particularly in a region where China's interests converge."

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Further Reading