Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

TYPE=INTERVIEW

NUMBER=3-731

TITLE=NORTH KOREA

BYLINE=DAVID BORGIDA

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTRODUCTION

A special envoy to North Korea under the Clinton administration says he thinks the United States and North Korea are drifting toward war, possibly as early as this year. William Perry, who also was a Clinton defense secretary, tells the Washington Post he thinks the Bush administration is losing control of the North Korean nuclear crisis. And he says Pyongyang's nuclear program poses imminent danger to American cities. Mr. Perry says his conclusions result from meetings over the last few months with U-S, Chinese and South Korean officials. Micheal O'Hanlon, a Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution will discuss the North Korean situation.

MR. BERTEL

And now joining us to discuss the situation in North Korea is Michael O'Hanlon, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Mr. O'Hanlon, thank you so much for being with us today.

As you know, former Special Envoy William Perry today said the United States and North Korea are drifting towards war. Is the situation in your mind as serious as that?

MR. O'HANLON

I think so. And it's also worth emphasizing, for anyone who does not know Dr. Perry, that he is extremely careful with his choice of words. This is not a man who says something in an exaggerated way simply to grab headlines or elevate his own role in a debate. If he said it, he has very good reason to say it. And he is one of the most thoughtful and experienced people watching this issue.

The facts are very simple and very troubling. We have an extremist state that has actually threatened to sell nuclear materials abroad now making progress towards developing them, with no easy military option or other option available to the United States to prevent that from happening. So this is, I think, by far the most serious crisis the United States faces in the world today.

MR. BERTEL

Two months ago President Bush said a nuclear armed North Korea "will not be tolerated." So what options does President Bush have?

MR. O'HANLON

Well, there are two main approaches. One is the option that Mr. Bush seems to think he has and seems to be implying, which I do not believe is very promising. And the second is a much broader and more ambitious option. Mr. Bush seems to think that squeezing North Korea will work. In other words, his Proliferation Security Initiative to try to stop some of the trade coming out of North Korea, to stop some of the drug smuggling, some of the counterfeiting, any movement of weaponry of course, he wants to get other countries to work with us to stop this kind of ship traffic when possible.

He also wants to convince China and South Korea and Japan to reduce their economic interaction with North Korea, and put so much pressure on it economically and diplomatically that it finally changes its mind and comes clean on the nuclear issue. I don't think that will work.

I think North Korea has proven that it's willing to stand up to the United States. It feels it's a matter of pride to do so. It feels that it needs nuclear weapons to stand up to Mr. Bush, with his concept of preemption and axis of evil.

So if you're going to succeed, I think you need a second option, a much broader option, that gives North Korea real, major incentives to reform itself, not just in the nuclear arena but also in the conventional military arena, in the economic realm, and in the human rights realm. And if North Korea will make progress and work with China and South Korea and the United States and Japan, we will provide economic assistance on a large scale, we will provide our own peace treaty and security assurances, and we will engage in a normal diplomatic process of relations.

That kind of broad road map I think can be much more promising, because it gives the North Koreans a way out of their current economic mess and their current general breakdown in relations with the outside world. But Mr. Bush seems to have no interest in trying that sort of option right now.

MR. BERTEL

Well, getting to that point could be very difficult because, as you know, North Korea is demanding bilateral discussions with the United States while the United States is demanding multilateral discussions, including some of North Korea's neighbors in Asia. What can be done to allow both sides to save face and come to a peaceful solution?

MR. O'HANLON

That's a good question. I think we can find a way out of this. The United States I think is correct that ultimately any talks need to be multilateral, because we need China to be involved in helping with economic reform. China knows how to reform a command economy to allow for special economic zones.

We need South Korea to be the primary engine of investment in North Korea, because of course South Korea has the greatest incentive and the closest ties culturally and otherwise. We need the United States to be involved because we bring the primary security issues to the table. We have the opportunity to offer a peace treaty, diplomatic ties, security assurances and, together with South Korea, to stabilize the Peninsula militarily If North Korea is willing to agree to some comparable steps on its part.

So we need all of these parties. We need a multilateral approach. But the United States, I think, even though it's right about that, should be willing to state some of these points to North Korea in a bilateral context. In other words, use a bilateral process to kick start a multilateral effort that will ultimately involve many other nations in the negotiation and also the implementation. If we had that kind of a strategy, to begin with a bilateral kick start and work towards a multilateral format, I think both Washington and Pyongyang can save face and claim victory.

MR. BERTEL

We only have about 30 seconds left. And the wild card in this would seem to be Iran. The policy that's being taken against North Korea I would assume would also have to look ahead to possible action in Iran.

MR. O'HANLON

You're right, but I think that Iran is a much different case. Iran, as bad as its support for Hezbollah is, as troubling as its rejection of any kind of peace deal with Israel may be, is not the same kind of regime as North Korea. It's not a country that is actively developing nuclear weapons even as we speak, in terms of reprocessing plutonium. It's not a country that has presided over the deaths of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens due to starvation. It's not nearly the same kind of acute crisis, with a despotic, desperate regime. So I think diplomacy and economic pressure makes more sense with Iran.

We have to force this to a head first with diplomacy and then, if necessary, with more coercive means with North Korea right away, because this problem is extremely urgent and extremely serious.

MR. BERTEL

And we're going to have to wrap up our discussion there. Michael O'Hanlon from the Brookings Institution, thank you so much for taking time to be with us.

MR. O'HANLON

My pleasure, sir.

(End of interview.)

NEB/PT