DATE=8/14/1999
TYPE=ON THE LINE
TITLE=ON THE LINE:IS NORTH KOREA A THREAT?
NUMBER=1-00767
EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037
CONTENT=
ACTUALITIES AVAILABLE IN POLICY OFFICE
THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE
Anncr: On the Line - a discussion of United States
policy and contemporary issues. This week,
"Is North Korea a Threat?" Here is your host,
Robert Reilly.
Host: Hello and welcome to On the Line. North Korea
is reportedly preparing to test launch a long-
range missile, the Taepodong Two, which could
reach parts of the U.S. A year ago, North
Korea alarmed its neighbors and the United
States by launching a three-stage missile over
Japan and into the Pacific. In June of this
year, North Korea engaged in a series of naval
clashes with South Korea. And earlier this
month, talks between North and South Korea on
ending their formal state of hostilities ended
unsuccessfully. North Korea's behavior has
led to calls for the U.S. and its allies to
reappraise their approach to this isolated,
Communist regime. Some say that a continued
policy of engagement will only encourage
further aggressive behavior from North Korea.
Others claim that such engagement is the best
way to prevent war.
Joining me today to discuss the threat from
North Korea are three experts. Robert Manning
is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations. Douglas Paal is president of the
Asia-Pacific Policy Center. And Baker Spring
is a senior defense policy analyst at the
Heritage Foundation.
Robert Manning, what is the threat from North
Korea today?
Manning: Since 1994 when we signed the nuclear
agreement with them, they have developed their
third generation of new missiles. And the
danger here is that they can hit not only
Alaska and Hawaii, but they can hit U.S. bases
in Okinawa, Guam and elsewhere. The question
really is: why are they doing this. And there
are only two plausible explanations. The
charitable explanation is that they see it as
deterrence against the single superpower and
South Korea that threaten them. The less
charitable interpretation would be they have a
game plan involving nuclear blackmail because
there is only one thing that makes sense to
put at the end of that relatively inaccurate
missile and that is a nuclear warhead.
Host: Doug Paal, what do you think of the U.S.
reaction to this?
Paal: I think we have overreacted steadily since
1994 in our policy toward North Korea. And we
have inculcated in them a practice of threat
for accommodation, or what we used to call
appeasement. The notion is that we can get
some kind of limited accommodation of our
concerns, which are concerns they have
created, in exchange for food and other kinds
of assistance.
Host: Do you agree with that, Baker Spring?
Spring: I agree in terms of the incentives or the
benefits that the United States has provided
North Korea in this process. But I believe the
threat is serious and particularly the missile
threat. We are talking about essentially the
first country in the third world, and one that
is implacably hostile to the United States,
really being able to reach United States
territory with a weapon of mass destruction.
That's a qualitatively different threat from
what we faced in the past, at least vis-a-vis
third world countries.
Host: Douglas Paal from the Asia-Pacific Policy
Center, what is Japan's reaction to North
Korea's behavior?
Paal: The last five years have seen Japan really
waking up to new circumstances. Formerly
economically dominant in the region, envied
and feared, the Japanese see themselves as
struggling with their own economy. China has
had the strong growth in this period. China
has the expansive military modernization
program. And they see the rivalry between the
two as becoming disadvantageous to Japan over
the long term. This has led, on the one hand,
to a strengthening of the bilateral U.S.
relationship with Japan. They need that anchor
outside the region for their own security and
stability. It has led to an outsized reaction
to what North Korea did when it fired the
missile.
Host: Mr. Manning from the Council on Foreign
Relations, what is China's reaction?
Manning: That is one of the great ironies here, in that
the North Koreas have done enormous harm to
Chinese interests and foreign policy across
northeast Asia. Because it is one thing for
China to criticize Japan for missile defense
aimed at China, but when North Korea is firing
missiles over Honshu Island, they can say that
but they have to acknowledge that there is a
real threat.
Host: But, Mr. Manning what should the U.S. do?
Manning: There are limits to what we can do. I think
we need to break the dynamics of this food-
for-meetings. The administration has
portrayed the choice as essentially blackmail
or war. And if we don't give them some
goodies, they will start a war. I think all
their behavior over the last decade says very
strongly that they are desperate to survive at
the lowest cost. There is no evidence of any
suicidal impulses.
Host: What should the U.S. say to North Korea now,
Mr. Manning?
Manning: I think that what we should do is, sort of
more in sorrow than in anger, essentially say
to them, "we wanted to take this new course,
you have made this choice. We really regret
it. The deal is on the table. We hope you
will pursue it at some point, but we cannot do
this anymore. There is no political support
for this policy. Here is the eight hundred
number, toll-free, twenty-four hours a day,
but don't call us, we'll call you."
Host: Mr. Paal from the Asia-Pacific Policy Center
thinks that North Korea has been taught the
wrong lessons by U.S. behavior.
Paal: Each time they have developed a new capacity
to threaten our interests, they are better off
as a consequence, which means they are getting
the benefit by using just what their weak
economy can produce to initiate a program. We
assume they are going to go all the way with
the program and we pay them off. That's the
wrong cycle. They have to be worse off at the
end of developing these capacities. And that's
what we have not been able to achieve in the
last five years.
Host: Baker Spring from the Heritage Foundation says
that North Korea will use its weapons program
to try to weaken the alliance against it.
Spring: As long as the North Koreans believe, for
example, at some point that this kind of
threat will cause the United States to
reassess its position in Asia, or drive wedges
between the United States and South Korea, or
wedges between the Untied States and Japan,
and from the viewpoint of the Chinese the
same, the bad behavior is going to continue in
my judgment.
Host: Douglas Paal, isn't North Korea's behavior
producing results contrary to China's
interests: a regional missile defense program
with Japan, the reinforcement of the U.S.-
Japan defense agreements, and a closer
relationship between South Korea and Japan?
Paal: The Chinese look at what took place in the war
with Yugoslavia recently and they say, North
Korea would probably be better off if it had a
capacity to strike back that Slobodan
Milosevic did not have when he was being
bombed by NATO. So they have interests in
conflict. On the one hand, they do not want
the North to test and disturb the region, and
they may succeed in pressuring the North not
to do that. But the price of that may be
assistance to the North in various ways to
develop a capability so they can sting the
Americans or the allies in east Asia if there
is a new conflict in the region.
Host: Robert Manning from the Council on foreign
Relations says that the war in Kosovo
convinced North Korea that it must keep its
missiles.
Manning: When Bill Perry met with their top general,
the vice-chairman of their defense commission,
he told them very clearly - and this is a
rough quote - "We are not going to be
Yugoslavia." I think that the North Korean
military, which has a disproportionate
influence politically under Kim Jong Il, much
more than it did under his father, is
committed to these weapons systems. I do not
believe that they are going to give them up.
Host: Mr. Manning, what position does this leave
China in?
Manning: I think that China has a dilemma. Last week,
the South Koreans and the Japanese held their
first joint military exercise. That would
have been unimaginable just three or four
years ago. This is another way it is harming
China's interests, but they are stuck. They
are not looking forward to a unified,
democratic Korea, aligned with the United
States, going all the way up to the Yalu
River. So they want to keep North Korea
around, but the cost of doing that is growing
in a whole variety of ways.
Host: I'm afraid that's all the time we have this
week and I would like to thank our guests -
Robert Manning from the Council on Foreign
Relations; Douglas Paal from the Asia-Pacific
Policy Center; and Baker Spring from the
Heritage Foundation - for joining me to
discuss the North Korean threat. For On the
Line, this is Robert Reilly.
Anncr: You've been listening to "On the Line" -- a
discussion of United States policies and
contemporary issues. This is --------.
17-Aug-1999 14:59 PM EDT (17-Aug-1999 1859 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
