North Korea Nuclear Admission Tough Issue With Iraq Looming
By Max Heuer
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17, 2002–Revelations this week that North Korea is in direct violation of a 1994 agreement with the United States that directed the South Asian country to halt its nuclear weapons program left New Hampshire’s congressional delegates and candidates with a thin political tightrope on which to balance, considering the looming confrontation with Iraq.
Every Granite State politician agreed that North Korea poses a serious threat to the United States and that the Bush administration should use diplomacy first to defuse the situation. But some disagreed sharply on the potential for unilateral U.S. military action and how similar the situation was to a pending showdown with Iraq.
1st district Democratic congressional candidate Martha Fuller Clark said she thought Iraq and North Korea were “equally dangerous” but said that in this situation the United States “mustn’t be hasty.”
“We must get as much evidence of the situation (as possible), and only then (act accordingly),” Fuller Clark said. “We certainly don’t have the adequate information now.”
Her Republican opponent, Jeb Bradley, also saw strong similarities between the two situations. “I don’t see that (the situation in North Korea is) any different from Iraq,” he said. “I think we have to see how the situation unfolds…. Certainly (unilateral military action) would be one possible response.”
“I support President Bush as he works to remove the threat posed by North Korea,” Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat who is running for Senate, said in a press release. “It is in our national interest to limit the world’s nuclear arsenals, particularly the ability of rogue states to obtain nuclear weapons.”
North Korea’s announcement complicated an already delicate political situation, particularly for the most hawkish supporters of the Bush administration’s push to confront Iraqi noncompliance with U.N. resolutions.
Some officials said the context in North Korea is completely different from that in Iraq and should be approached accordingly in the international community.
“You can’t say because we have a policy in Iraq, the circumstances, conditions and objectives (are the same in North Korea),” Rep. Charlie Bass, R-NH, said. “There is no nexus between the two, other than we are involved in (both).”
“Different approaches will be taken to respond to different kinds of security threats,” said Rep. John Sununu, R-NH, who is running for the Senate. “Iraq has shown it will use its weapons of mass destruction.”
Bass said that the political atmosphere in the region made “everything different” and that Iraq and North Korea were “not going to be comparable.”
“Maybe the Chinese will take care of it,” Bass said. “It’s a whole different debate…. I’m just not in the position to make all kinds of hypothetical (statements).”
“Korea is quite different from Iraq because we have 37,000 standing troops in South Korea,” Bass added. “At this point I want to find out what the administration has in mind first.”
Bass said he thought China was a crucial part of the equation.
“North Korea is pretty much powerless…. The real issue is China standing behind North Korea,” Bass said. “The Chinese don’t want North Korea allied with the West.”
Sununu said he didn’t think the news was particularly surprising to U. S. officials.
“There have been many in Congress that have raised this as a concern for years,” Sununu said. “The president will work with a coalition of partners to address this security threat and address these concerns…. This isn’t new.”
Sen. Bob Smith chimed in with ringing support for the Bush administration on the issue.
“I support President Bush’s bold determination to address regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction capabilities,” Smith said in a statement. “The United States must demand that North Korea comply fully with its commitments relating to the development of nuclear weapons and end immediately its nuclear weapons program.”
Sen. Judd Gregg expressed guarded optimism about a multilateral solution.
“I hope North Korea’s neighbors and the United States can work together to discourage any continued nuclear research and ensure the security of our nation,” Gregg said in a statement.
Bush administration officials disclosed late Wednesday that the North Korean government admitted, when pressed by U.S. officials with new intelligence information two weeks ago, that it was funding a clandestine nuclear development program.
The Clinton administration and former President Jimmy Carter negotiated an agreement with the country’s leader, Kim Jong Il, in 1994 that hinged on the dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear program in exchange for economic benefits.
Bush included North Korea in his “axis of evil” during his State of the Union address last January, but the administration has been steadfast in focusing its diplomatic policy on confronting Iraq.
“The Administration is consulting with key Members of Congress… (and U.S. officials) are traveling to the region to confer with friends and allies about this important issue,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in a press release Wednesday, adding that the United States will “seek a peaceful resolution of this situation.”
“I think one thing that is different is that weapons inspectors left Iraq and have been unable to return to Iraq, and Iraq used chemical weapons against their own people,”
Bradley said. Fuller Clark also pointed to Iraq’s previous use of weapons of mass destruction as a key difference.
Sununu said the new information about North Korea only “underscores” the importance of Bush’s decision last December to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
The 1972 agreement between the United States and the former Soviet Union allowed limited missile defense systems that some at the time felt could have offset what was a delicate balance of power between two nuclear-equipped countries. Bush, last year, cited the growing threat of terrorism as the reason for withdrawal.
“This is why Jeanne Shaheen was wrong to insist that the United States remain part of the ABM treaty,” Sununu said. He said that a missile defense system is crucial to protecting the United States from countries like North Korea and Iraq.
“Governor Shaheen supports developing the technology for a missile defense system, and John Sununu knows that,” Shaheen’s press secretary, Colin Van Ostern, responded Thursday. Sununu, he said, “is trying to mischaracterize her position to score political points, and it’s disappointing he would politicize national security issues like this.”
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
