North Korea nearly takes center stage from Iraq

On Jan. 10, in a show of political defiance aimed in part at the United States, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which it had signed in 1985. This decision followed the reopening of a plutonium extracting facility at Yongbyon and the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors late in December and has opened up a political can of worms at a time when the U.S. government is gearing up for what seems to be an imminent war with Iraq.

North Korea's announcement sparked a flurry of media attention, but with the Bush administration's increased focus on the Iraqi situation, the issue of North Korea seems to have faded into the background of national interest. While some foreign policy experts say Iraq should be the main focus of U.S. foreign policy, others assert that North Korea actually poses the larger threat to U.S. security. This new development has raised questions over why North Korea has chosen this moment to assert itself as a possible nuclear power and how this will affect U.S. policy toward Iraq.

"A nuclear weapons program serves a dual purpose for North Korea," said Frank Von Hippel, a University professor in the politics department. "First of all, nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent against being attacked. Secondly, they can serve as a bargaining chip for concessions, especially economic concessions, that would ensure the survival of [Kim Jong-Il's] regime. Of course they might have also been pushed over the edge by the fear that the Bush administration will do to them what they are now planning to do to Iraq."

The current crisis began in October when James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, flew to Pyongyang to confront officials there about U.S. suspicions that North Korea had resumed its uranium enrichment program. North Korean officials acknowledged the existence of the program, which violated the 1994 Agreed Framework that North Korea had signed under the Clinton administration.

The agreement had stipulated that North Korea freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear reactors and related facilities at Taechon and Yongbyon. In exchange, the U.S. had promised to support the building of light water reactors for energy as well as to take steps to reduce economic and financial restrictions on North Korea.

While North Korean officials admitted to their breach, they also pointed out America's own failure to hold up its side of the agreement and pushed for a nonaggression agreement as a condition for shutting down the enrichment program. Acting on instructions from the Bush administration, Kelly informed officials that they would have to freeze their program before the United States would consider their demands.

However, in the past months, instead of acquiescing to U.S. demands, North Korea has taken action to assert and possibly expand its nuclear capabilities, a move which it claims is necessary for protecting itself against the threat of U.S attack.

Under Kim Jong-Il, North Korea has faced a severe famine that has killed more than 2 million people, and the country has continued to face the further deterioration of its already weakened economy. Thus the development of nuclear weapons could serve to sustain the regime not only politically but also economically.

"In addition to the direct threat from North Korean nukes on their own ballistic missiles, there's a secondary threat," said Gary Bass, a professor in the politics department, in an email. "Once North Korea has its nuclear facilities up and running, they will be churning out plutonium. Since North Korea is currently experiencing the kind of economic catastrophe that goes along with Stalinism, Kim Jong-Il is surely going to be tempted to sell all this weapons-grade plutonium to somebody. And the kind of people who are shopping around for plutonium tend to be the kind of people you really don't want to get their hands on it."

Though North Korea has recently assured South Korea that it does not plan on developing nuclear weapons, U.S. intelligence officials currently estimate that North Korea already possesses one or two such weapons, albeit untested ones, and there is no guarantee that the country will not continue to develop these weapons, especially after its violation of the 1994 agreement.

With North Korea in possession of nuclear technology, the U.S. faces the possibility that North Korea will sell both missile technology and weapons-grade material to countries like Pakistan that have already gone nuclear as well as countries like Libya that are currently seeking the technology, said von Hippel.

In fact, the National Intelligence Estimate, which the CIA presented to President Bush in June, stated that North Korea has been selling its missiles to Pakistan since 1997 in exchange for nuclear information and technology.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Aside from its nuclear capabilities, North Korea remains a formidable military power with a standing army of 1 million, the fourth largest in the world, and an estimated 4.7 million more in reserve.

As of now, military intervention against North Korea would have the greatest ramifications for South Korea and Japan, both of which are within range of current North Korean missile technology, von Hippel said.

In addition to its current missile technology, North Korea is currently developing missile technology capable of hitting the U.S. For example, U.S. officials believe that North Korea is currently working on the Taepo Dong II, a missile that could hit Hawaii, Alaska and possibly California, Bass said.

While military action against North Korea would likely lead to devastation at least in South Korea, economic sanctions are not a viable option either, von Hippel said.

"There is little we can do right now in way of economic sanctions because we have already cut off our oil supplies, which was the main form of economic aid that we were providing them," he said. "Most of their economic lifeline seems to come through China who doesn't seem to want to bring about the collapse of the North Korean regime."

"Also, the Bush administration's refusal to negotiate until North Korea freezes its nuclear program makes it difficult to deal with the situation without backing down. The administration realizes that it has no real options outside of negotiations and so it is shifting the focus to Iraq," he said.

Though the North Korean crisis further complicates the situation in Iraq, the Bush administration has continued to push for war with Iraq with what seems to be an unwavering singleness of purpose.

With its attention focused elsewhere, the U.S. is currently relying on regional members like South Korea to deal with the situation despite the fact that North Korea continues to insist that they will only negotiate with the U.S.

While the Bush administration continues to insist that Iraq is the greatest threat to U.S. security, others disagree, pointing out that North Korea presumably has nuclear capabilities, while Iraq does not.

"North Korea is much more dangerous in terms of weapons of mass destruction than Iraq," von Hippel said. "U.N. weapons inspectors pretty much dismantled the Iraqi nuclear infrastructure before 1998, and Iraq has not yet rebuilt nearly to the level of capability that it had then, according to the [International Atomic Energy Agency] report. North Korea, on the other hand, could have several more nuclear weapons in a matter of months, perhaps even one hundred within a year. North Korea is an urgent situation while Iraq is a situation that we could probably put on the shelf for a couple of years."

However, while Iraq does not currently have nuclear capabilities, it has failed to prove to weapons inspectors that it has destroyed the biological and chemical weapons that it had in 1998, especially lethal VX nerve gas and anthrax, Bass said. Thus, Iraq is an important threat that may be more easily dealt with before it acquires nuclear capabilities similar to those presumably held by North Korea.

"If we bomb North Korea's nuclear facility at Yongbyon then North Korea can retaliate by shelling Seoul to rubble, or by firing off a nuke," Bass said. "It is incredibly hard to disarm a state that already possesses weapons of mass destruction, since if you try, they will likely use them. Iraq evidently does not yet have nuclear weapons (even though the dictatorship has been trying to get them at least since the 1970s), so it's a more feasible mission to disarm them."

Ultimately, Bass insists that the problems in one country should not take precedent over the problems in the other but that both present a serious threat to the U.S. and must be dealt with in a manner that will effectively stem the growth of nuclear weapons throughout the world.

"The global spread of weapons of mass destruction is a terrifying problem," he said. "It used to be that it took a massive industrial base and mass mobilization to be able to cause massive damage to another country's cities; now you just need some scientists. When Pakistan—an unstable, coup-prone and impoverished country—can build a nuclear bomb, we are in a very dangerous world...Unless we want to live in a world where every regional conflict is waged with weapons of mass destruction, we had better start vigorously pushing for nonproliferation."