25 March 1999
TEXT: AMB. BOSWORTH 3/25 AT KOREAN REGIONAL POLICY INSTITUTE
(Deterrence, diplomacy needed for Korean peninsula security) (2770) Washington -- North Korea remains a military threat to the security of the Korean peninsula and, as long as the threat exists, the United States will be committed to a strong deterrent, according to U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Stephen Bosworth. "For many years, the Republic of Korea and the United States have relied on military deterrence to preserve South Korean security and avoid conflict on the Korean peninsula," Bosworth said in March 25 remarks to the Korean Regional Policy Institute. "Our joint strategy of deterrence is a measured response to the threat posed by North Korea. The strategy has been successful, and as long as the threat exists, the United States will be committed to a strong deterrent." However, Bosworth added, deterrence alone is not enough. "We need to supplement deterrence with diplomatic, economic, and political measures in a comprehensive strategy aimed at lowering tensions and eventually a lasting peace," he said. One diplomatic initiative currently underway is a proposal for peace talks involving the United States, North Korea, South Korea, and China. These "Four Party peace talks," suggested by President Clinton and South Korean President Kim in April of 1996, focus on reducing tensions in the Korean Peninsula. "China, South Korea, North Korea, and the United States will hold the fourth session of the Four Party talks next month in Geneva. As was expected, progress so far has been slow. But the Four Party talks bring North and South Korea together in a mutually agreed negotiating framework. As the participants build greater mutual trust and confidence, the Four Party process has the potential to become an important mechanism for lasting peace on the peninsula." Another diplomatic initiative is the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, which halted North Korea's nuclear program and encourages dialogue between North and South Korea. The United States has also maintained an active bilateral dialogue with North Korea, according to Bosworth. "The recent agreement in New York on procedures for U.S. visits to the underground site at Kumchangni aims at removing concerns that this site could be nuclear related," he said. "We have also been discussing with North Korea our concerns and those of our allies over Pyongyang's medium and long-range missile program. A United States negotiating team is scheduled to travel to Pyongyang within the next few days for another round of missile negotiations. In the meantime, we continue to point out to Pyongyang the damage that another missile launch would cause our efforts to move toward a more normal bilateral relationship." The United States fully supports South Korea's policy of engagement with North Korea, according to Bosworth. "Engagement is a central element of our comprehensive joint approach toward North Korea and has gained broad international support," he said. "For the United States, security on the peninsula must be built first and foremost on security for the Republic of Korea, our ally and friend. But we also recognize that lasting security will be achieved only through South-North reconciliation. That is our common goal and our common commitment," Bosworth said. Following is the official text of Bosworth's remarks: (begin text) Real Security for the Korean Peninsula Remarks by The Honorable Stephen W. Bosworth Ambassador of the United States of America To the Korean Regional Policy Institute March 25, 1999 Thank you for inviting me to speak here today. The topic -- security for the Korean peninsula -- is always important and always timely. For the United States, our commitment to the security of the Republic of Korea has been one of our highest national priorities for nearly five decades. The stability of the Peninsula is vital to the security and economic well being of Northeast Asia, a region of immense national interest for my country. But security for the Korean Peninsula is obviously an even more vital subject for Koreans. All of Korea suffered severely during the war of 1950 to 1953. Unfortunately, the political, economic and social divisions over which that war was fought fifty years ago still remain. For many years, the Republic of Korea and the United States have relied on military deterrence to preserve South Korean security and avoid conflict on the Korean peninsula. Our joint strategy of deterrence is a measured response to the threat posed by North Korea. The strategy has been successful, and as long as the threat exists, the United States will be committed to a strong deterrent. I can say with confidence that our current deterrent posture is stronger than ever. As we assess the adequacy of our policies for the challenges of the future, we need to take account of the significant changes occurring on the peninsula. The end of the Cold War took away the external economic support North Korea needed to survive as a functioning state. While the ROK has progressed to economic prosperity and political freedom, North Korea has sunk into economic collapse and famine, even while it maintains a political system of centralized control and repression. The ideological confrontation and competition of the Cold War has ended in a clear decision. Democracy and market economics, even if they have yet to take hold in some parts of the world and even as we learn they are not always easy to practice, have demonstrated their superiority over alternative systems. In approaching change on the Korean peninsula, we must tread with care. North Korea remains a military threat. During the Cold War, military planners, looking at the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, insisted that we base our security policy and plans on a realistic appraisal of the capabilities of potential adversaries as well as their perceived intentions. When we look at North Korea today, we see the capabilities of a million man army, perhaps weakened by a poor economy, but ominous in its potential nevertheless. Moreover, we also see a possible new threat in North Korea for which deterrence alone is not a sufficient counter strategy. We see an active missile development program and activities that could be related to the production of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Combine this military potential with a failed economy and the North's self-imposed isolation, and we clearly have a more complex situation and potentially more dangerous situation than in the past, one not susceptible to simple solution. We need to supplement deterrence with diplomatic, economic, and political measures in a comprehensive strategy aimed at lowering tensions and eventually a lasting peace. In fact, the diplomatic dimension of our approach to the North has grown in importance in recent years. The 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework has now been in place for more than four years. The deliveries of heavy fuel oil required under the Agreed Framework are current. KEDO's construction of the Light Water Reactors is underway in North Korea and the ROK and Japan are expected to move forward soon to arrange LWR financing. For its part, North Korea has maintained the freeze on its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, and inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency remain in place. It is important to remember that had those facilities continued to operate as before, North Korea could have produced sufficient fissile material for several nuclear devices over the past four years. It has also become clear that security for Korea is not just a concern for Korea or the Korea-U.S. alliance. Security on the peninsula affects security throughout Northeast Asia and East Asia and beyond the region. China participates with the ROK, the U.S. and North Korea in the Four Party Talks. Japan is a partner in KEDO as is now the European Union. Russia, another neighbor, has strong interests in developments here. President Kim's travels during his first year in office took him to Europe as well as to the United States, China, Japan, Malaysia, and Vietnam. These trips demonstrate the reach of Korea's interests and influence. Heads of state and governments, as well as countless other senior officials, from Europe, Africa, America, and Asia have come to Korea. Korea has become a player on the world stage. So, we now have multilateral investment in the search for peace on the Korean Peninsula. China, South Korea, North Korea, and the United States will hold the fourth session of the Four Party talks next month in Geneva. As was expected, progress so far has been slow. But the Four Party talks bring North and South Korea together in a mutually agreed negotiating framework. As the participants build greater mutual trust and confidence, the Four Party process has the potential to become an important mechanism for lasting peace on the peninsula. For our part, the United States has maintained an active bilateral dialogue with North Korea. The recent agreement in New York on procedures for U.S. visits to the underground site at Kumchangni aims at removing concerns that this site could be nuclear related. We have also been discussing with North Korea our concerns and those of our allies over Pyongyang's medium and long-range missile program. A United States negotiating team is scheduled to travel to Pyongyang within the next few days for another round of missile negotiations. In the meantime, we continue to point out to Pyongyang the damage that another missile launch would cause our efforts to move toward a more normal bilateral relationship. Here in South Korea, the Administration of President Kim Dae-jung is pushing forward on a strategy of engagement with North Korea. President Kim is committed to exploring avenues of exchange and cooperation, governmental and non-governmental, between South and North. Business contacts have increased and exchanges have grown. The Kumgang mountain tourism project is a notable example. President Clinton has affirmed U.S. support for the engagement policy at two summit meetings with President Kim. As the U.S. Ambassador to Korea, I have affirmed and reaffirmed our support for this policy in official meetings and in public many times. I do so again today. Engagement is a central element of our comprehensive joint approach toward North Korea and has gained broad international support. Security for the Korean peninsula cannot be seen, therefore, as a discrete issue isolated from broader world affairs. It must be recognized as part of the broader whole. Similarly, security at the end of the 20th century transcends military or political questions to encompass economic strength. We need only look at the economic crisis which began in Thailand in 1997 and reached Russia and as far away as Brazil, even as it engulfed Korea. A thorough review of security on the Korean peninsula could justifiably include economic growth and global capital flows, as well as military matters. South Korea's continued progress in overcoming economic adversity is crucial not only to the nation's economic well being but also to security. Let me say a few words about United States policy toward North Korea. As you know, in response to concerns expressed in the Congress and elsewhere President Clinton asked former Secretary of Defense William Perry to undertake a thorough review of our policy. That review is still underway and no conclusions have been submitted to the President. However, I would like to emphasize certain principles that guide and inform Dr. Perry's work. First, the review has been undertaken with the full and active involvement of the South Korean Government and Japan, as well as consultations with China. Dr. Perry visited Seoul twice for consultations and met with senior Korean officials on other occasions. Our commitment to full consultation is based on the firm belief that any American approach toward North Korea must be in harmony with the policies and goals of South Korea. It is inconceivable that we would pursue a policy toward the North that was not acceptable to South Korea. Fortunately, the U.S. and the ROK share a common analysis of the current situation in North Korea. Secondly, the United States agrees with President Kim that our approach must be comprehensive and sustainable over the long term. We need to set long-term goals and pursue those goals on a step by step basis with patience and perseverance. In the process, we must also address emerging threats to stability, such as the North's missile program, as they arise. Finally, we need to coordinate our respective negotiating and dialogue efforts within a common framework. Dealing with North Korea is a complex process, and we need to ensure that efforts in one area reinforce our efforts in others. I would make a further point in response to some speculation in the press. U.S. forces devoted to the security of the Korean peninsula are devoted to a mission of deterrence, not offense. Secretary of Defense Cohen explicitly re-confirmed this policy during a recent visit to Seoul. What are we looking to achieve through engagement with North Korea? What would it mean to have a more normal relationship with North Korea? The best answer I can give is to repeat what President Kim Dae Jung stated in his speech of March 10 to the Korean Air Force Academy. He said that, fundamentally, we seek the removal of the threat of war from the Korean peninsula soon and the realization at an early date of a period of reconciliation and cooperation with the North. This is also the goal of U.S. policy. A technical state of war still exists on the peninsula; we seek to establish a lasting peace. Beyond peace, a more normal relationship could provide benefits to North Korea: not only opportunities for trade, but also aid in rebuilding and restructuring the North Korean economy as well as investment. In the right circumstance, the U.S. could be prepared to further ease sanctions, and we could be prepared to discuss eventual establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and North Korea. But, ultimately, North Korea must want these developments as much as we do. Such positive steps would require changes on the part of North Korea. Part of our task is to help North Korea to recognize that a lowering of tensions, more economic connections, greater openness, and increased contact with the international community is also in North Korea's own interest. Finally, allow me to respond to another question we are frequently asked. There is concern that the U.S. concerns about North Korean missiles and weapons of mass destruction are driven largely by our global pursuit of non-proliferation. We do have global interests, and we are concerned that actions by North Korea could fuel proliferation problems in other regions of the world. However, we are most immediately concerned about the impact of North Korea's development of missiles and weapons of mass destruction right here on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia. We have 37,000 troops in South Korea and 47,000 in Japan and security commitments to which we have pledged our national resources, and Northeast Asia is a regional of vital national interest to the United States. As I said at the opening of my remarks, security on the Korean peninsula is first and foremost an issue for the people of Korea. The United States recognizes Korea's responsibility and leading role in this regard. We congratulate President Kim on his leadership, expressed in the clear enunciation of his goals vis-a-vis North Korea. President Kim's approach of firmness with flexibility provides the foundation for a comprehensive approach to North Korea. In closing, let me return to the broader theme of security beyond the military context. A nation's strength lies not just in its military. Ultimately, security depends on the political and economic health of the nation and on the welfare of its people. The most stable and secure nations in the world at the end of the 20th century are free market economies. And the Republic of Korea is already a leading member of that group of nations. The economic crisis of 1997 revealed weaknesses in the Korean economy. The crisis also showed the strength of Korea as the country has risen to the challenge of economic restructuring and greater integration into the global economy. The vision of your leadership and the strength and determination of your people constitute the real security of Korea. My topic today has been the security of the Korean peninsula. For the United States, security on the peninsula must be built first and foremost on security for the Republic of Korea, our ally and friend. But we also recognize that lasting security will be achieved only through South-North reconciliation. That is our common goal and our common commitment. (end text)
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
