Two repressive dictatorships with histories of aggression may
have weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration has
threatened Iraq with a war that may erupt within days, but the
president’s stance on North Korea is much less clear cut.
With the nation facing a growing crisis on the Korean peninsula,
several scholars, including UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale, met
Friday at UCLA to discuss policies available to the United
States.
“Diplomacy is the least bad option,” Carnesale said
at the event, held at the James West Alumni Center and sponsored by
the UCLA Asia Institute.
If North Korea makes serious moves to cooperate, Carnesale said
Bush should consider a non-aggression pact with North Korea.
The administration has stated that it will not accept nuclear
weapons in North Korea, and will not negotiate with Pyongyang for
their removal. However, the president has repeatedly insisted he
does not want to use force to resolve the situation, and that a
multilateral approach involving regional powers should be used.
Whether or not North Korea already has nuclear weapons is
unknown. The United States announced last October that North Korea
had admitted to maintaining a nuclear program in violation of
international agreements. Pyongyang denied these claims, but has
since threatened war and reactivated nuclear facilities.
Carnesale ““ a nuclear weapons policy expert ““ said
North Korea has material for two weapons, which they might use.
“If North Korea had nuclear weapons, they might be more
aggressive in the region … that aggression might even involve the
use of nuclear weapons,” he said.
The panelists shared more agreement on the dangers posed by a
North Korea with nuclear capabilities than how to solve the
problem. Some said there were possibilities for success through
talks, while others were more skeptical of diplomacy.
“In my opinion, engagement still works,” said Moon
Chung-In, dean of the Graduate School of International Studies at
Yonsei University in South Korea. Moon said the United States
should try dialogue first, and only resort to hard-line tactics if
talks fail.
“Cooperation begets cooperation, negation begets
negation,” he added.
But would Pyongyang be willing to make compromises?
“I think the only thing they understand is leverage and
power,” said history professor Ron Morse.
An issue for those wary of Pyongyang is whether North Korea
could be trusted to uphold their end of any agreement.
North Korea has “an unyielding aversion to serious
inspection,” said Victor Galinsky, former member of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
South Korea’s relationship with the United States is an
important factor with regard to negotiations’ feasibility.
South Korean president Roo Moo-hyun ran on a platform many
described as anti-American, but Moon said Roo would not end South
Korea’s alliance with the United States
“(Roo) used to be very anti-American, he’s become
more prudent, more pragmatic,” Moon said.
People in South Korea, though, agree with Roo’s position
of dealing peacefully with North Korea, known as the
“sunshine policy.”
“South Koreans support the sunshine policy,” said
Namhee Lee, UCLA East Asian languages and culture professor.
Could the crisis lead to war?
“I don’t think the administration harbors any
thoughts of having troops in North Korea,” Carnesale said,
adding that limited military strikes could still be possible.
“I can’t think of military action that goes beyond
preemption, trying to attack the (nuclear weapons)
facilities,” Carnesale said.
Though none of the panelists advocated a military strike,
Georgetown professor Victor Cha said force could become more likely
as the administration links nonproliferation efforts to
counterterrorism.
“I think the likelihood of preemption grows as the
administration defines this as a homeland security issue,”
Cha said.