by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 6, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

iring up its Yongbyon reprocessing plant, North Korea upped the ante, threatening "total war," should the U.S. take preemptive action against its nuclear reactor. Turning the tables, "I wouldn't label it a crisis," said Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitrage, reassuring the press that the U.S. was capable of managing more than one crisis at a time. Though the U.S. doesn't relish the idea of confronting Kim Jong Il's Stalinist regime, boasting a 1.2 million-man army armed to the teeth with 10,000 Russian and Chinese artillery pieces. With the White House preoccupied with Iraq, North Korea seized the headlines, staring down the U.S. for its unrelenting rebuke of the Pyongyang regime. Last October, North Korea announced plans to restart its Yongbyon uranium enrichment facility, abrogating a 1994 agreement with the Clinton administration to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

     While Secretary of State Colin L. Powell pitched his case against Iraq to the U.N. Security Council, Pyongyang announced that it was firing up its 5-megawatt reactor, which, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, has no use other than generating fissile material for atomic bombs. North Korea currently has 8,000 spent fuel rods capable of producing enough weapons grade plutonium to make six 10-kiloton nuclear bombs—the same sized bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While the U.S. downplayed military options in North Korea, officials didn't rule it out, admitting "robust plans for any contingencies." Pyongyang responded by threatening preemptive action, stirring concerns in Congress. "North Korea is a grave threat that seems to grow with each day that passes without high-level engagement," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), shifting attention away from Iraq.

     Booting out IAEA inspectors last month, the U.S. has no confirmation that North Korea fired up its Yongbyon reprocessing plant. Some think that Kim Jong Il is bluffing his way to concessions by threatening to ramp up his atomic weapons program. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer called North Korea's threats "saber-rattling," reminding the impoverished communist regime that "the United States is very prepared with robust plans for any contingency." With President Bush telling Saddam Hussein that the "game is over," North Korea picked the perfect time to fire propaganda salvos. North Korea's foreign Minister told the British tabloid Guradian that "preemptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the U.S.," sparking renewed criticism—from France and Germany—that the U.S.'s new preemptive doctrine destabilizes world peace. While unsettling, North Korea's tough talk isn't anything new—or credible.

     Unlike Iraq, one of the big obstacles in North Korea is the overgrown size of its military, leaving the U.S. leery of military options. While there's no love lost between Pyongyang and Beijing, China would no doubt take North Korea's side, lending financial, military and logistical support in any war against the U.S. North Korea already fought the U.S. to a standoff in 1953, claiming victory above the 38th parallel, now constituting its territory. Amassing 2.1 million casualties, the Korean War was one of bloodiest of the 20th century. Though the U.S. military is far more sophisticated today, neither South Korea nor the U.S. wants to confront North Korea's ominous million-man plus army, giving Pyongyang added muscle on the Korean peninsula. Faced with a unending recession, Japan also doesn't want to dissipate its flagging economy on a new military adventure.

     Last year's State-of-the-Union message, calling Iraq, Iran and North Korea "the axis of evil," now presents problems for an administration scrambling to contain terrorism in a post-Sept. 11 era, and, at the same time, managing emerging regional crises. While it's good to coin catchy slogans, it's not good to antagonize bitter enemies and draw attention to U.S. foreign policy. Calling U.S. policy toward North Korea "designed neglect," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) criticized the White House for ignoring the emerging crisis on the Korean peninsula. No foreign policy can spread itself so thin that it neglects national security. It's disingenuous to criticize the White House for lethargy in North Korea, while condemning its policy as trigger-happy in Baghdad. "North Korea is a more direct threat to South Korea and to China and to Russia than anyone else," said Powell, downplaying its immediate threat to the U.S.

     All administrations must pick their battles, including prioritizing what comes first, second and last. Blaming the White House for neglecting North Korea but acting too hastily on Iraq shows how partisanship leaks into foreign policy. Saddam Hussein is a sworn enemy of the United States, whose covert weapons threaten national security in a post-9/11 world. With 12 years of defiance and Iraq continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction, the White House can't sit on its hands waiting for the next catastrophic terrorist attack. Europeans don't fully comprehend the effect of Sept. 11—nor can U.S. national security depend on the U.N. Saddam would show little restraint using or giving dangerous weapons to terrorists sharing the common bond of hating the United States. North Korea and Iran are gathering dangers, but Iraq represents the next logical step in the war on terrorism. While some don't yet see the connection, they're about to find out.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.