Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=1/22/03

TYPE=INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

TITLE=EDWARD SCHULTZ

NUMBER=3-500

BYLINE=VICTOR BEATTIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTERNET=

/// EDITORS: THIS INTERVIEW IS AVAILABLE IN DALET UNDER SOD/ENGLISH NEWS NOW INTERVIEWS IN THE FOLDER FOR TODAY OR YESTERDAY ///

HOST: North and South Korean officials are holding several days of cabinet-level talks focusing on reconciliation and humanitarian issues. During Wednesday's talks in Seoul, the North Korean delegation responded to a South Korean appeal to abandon the North's nuclear ambitions by saying the Pyongyang government has no intention of building nuclear weapons.

The talks come as international efforts continue to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis over North Korea's nuclear program. North Korea announced in November it is re-starting a nuclear reactor that Western officials believe can be used to re-process plutonium -- the main ingredient in nuclear weapons.

V-O-A's Victor Beattie spoke with two analysts on North Korea. One of them, Edward Schultz, director of Korean studies at the University of Hawaii, says North Korea is seeking dialogue and assistance. While Mr. Schultz does not minimize the threat North Korea poses, he believes it is in Pyongyang's interest to avoid using such weapons if, indeed, they have them:

MR. SCHULTZ: In reality, I don't think they want to use it. I think they really want us to pay attention to them. They want us to not take them for granted. They have been trying to find ways to get our attention. And they've discovered, much like a small child, that sometimes if the parent isn't going to listen, you have to scream. I think they have finally got our attention.

The threat with North Korea is that they have their own uranium supplies. So, if you want to produce nuclear weapons, you need to have a good source of uranium. And I believe they have that. And I think they have been able to play this fear of developing nuclear weapons extremely well, because that's one of the very few trump cards they have. Basically, they are an economy that is out-produced by South Korea 20 to 1. In terms of weaponry, they're outgunned by South Korea and the United States by just a phenomenal amount. So, they have virtually nothing to play with except this so-called nuclear card.

MR. BEATTIE: If you had input on U.S. policy, would it be a diplomatic approach, would it be potentially diplomatic/military, or a military response?

MR. SCHULTZ: I would be diplomatic. They don't respond well to bluster. They don't respond well to names being called. They don't respond well to overt threats. They will respond well, I think, if you promise them security, if you promise them you don't want to destroy them, if you promise them that you will try to help them rebuild their economy.

I know that some Americans feel, why should we go and rebuild their economy? Let them collapse.

That's certainly one scenario we could think out. But I think that in the process of letting them collapse we could bring on a lot of anxiety and a lot of agony on all sides. And by trying to negotiate and begin to get them to open up, you will have a much better chance of having a more positive impact upon what goes on in North Korea.

HOST: Mr. Schultz says at the change of U-S administrations in early 2001, it appeared U-S policy was beginning to successfully engage the North Korean regime. He suggests a re-engagement, perhaps including cultural exchanges as a way to reduce mutual suspicions.

Ken Wells is director of the Center for Korean Studies at the Australian National University in Canberra. Mr. Wells says he also believes a diplomatic solution is preferable to a military response. He agrees that the North's nuclear issue is a means by which Pyongyang might gain aid and other concessions from the United States and South Korea.

Mr. Wells says linking Iraq, Iran and North Korea together in an "axis of evil" as Bush Administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have done is driving those three countries together:

MR. WELLS: Iraq and its own situation are not necessarily as different or as separate cases as they are to Rumsfeld and others in the administration. They do see themselves as having been lumped together with Iraq and other places, and that if the United States policy towards Iraq is so aggressive and the talk of war is so immediate, then it's not really unreasonable for the D-P-R-K to consider the possibility of that policy being applied to the D-P-R-K once Iraq has been removed.

HOST: Mr. Wells says a military showdown remains possible, but is not probable. He believes tensions with North Korea can be reduced if it can be convinced it is not going to be the object of military action and its regime, damaged by its dire economic plight, can be preserved.

NEB/