|
Capitol Comment
by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
U.S. Must Not Capitulate to North Korea’s Nuclear Blackmail
May 29, 2009
Less than one week after Iran launched a ballistic missile capable of striking U.S. targets and allies, North Korea followed suit and raised the stakes by detonating an illicit nuclear device. This aggressive act incited outrage across the globe, even drawing a strong rebuke from North Korea’s traditional ally China. The question is, how will the United States meet the escalating challenge of a nuclear armed North Korea or Iran? History gives us a framework of what will not work.
In 1994, the North Korean threat to develop nuclear weapons was rewarded with the "Framework Agreement" with President Clinton guaranteeing the delivery of two energy-producing light-water nuclear reactors and 500,000 tons of fuel oil annually, if Pyongyang would halt operations at their nuclear facility in Yongbyon.
At the time, President Clinton insisted it was the best agreement possible and preferable to war. In a column I wrote in 1995, I raised concerns that this appeasement strategy bore insufficient safeguards and, by rewarding North Korea's bad behavior, we were sending a message that the United States would capitulate to nuclear blackmail.
The ineffectiveness of this strategy was again proven when, in 2006, North Korea acknowledged to the world that it had never terminated its nuclear program. That year, it tested the Bush Administration by detonating its first nuclear device. Many experts believe that the 2006 test was technically flawed and fell short of the expectations of North Korean scientists, sending them back to the drawing board.
But this month’s successful nuclear test, reportedly yielding a blast comparable to the bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, has made it very clear that, not only is North Korea’s nuclear program active, but it has made enough technical advancements to be truly dangerous. This is an important part of North Korea’s strategy, which has been rapidly unfolding over the last five years. This year, North Korea rejected the Obama Administration’s diplomatic overtures, abandoned the six party talks, ousted U.N. inspectors, resumed activity at Yongbyon nuclear facility, and test launched as many as six missiles.
As former UN Ambassador John Bolton suggested in a Wall Street Journal column, North Korea faces no real consequences from the Obama Administration – only strong rhetoric. Mr. Bolton concluded that this gives North Korea what it wants: “America in a conciliatory mode.” Indeed, Pyongyang is counting on a weak response, culminating in negotiations and concessions being made by the United States. Once the desired negotiations begin, Kim Jong Il can siphon food, oil, and other inducements from America in exchange for their false promises to disarm. That is what was promised in 1994, and we see the results.
Absent nuclear weapons and missiles, North Korea would be irrelevant. Their economy is in shambles, and only their bad behavior continues to pay dividends. That’s why this cycle of appeasement must end. This time, our strategy must be multi-pronged:
First, we must lead international efforts to levy punitive sanctions against North Korea. Presently, trade with the nation is limited because North Korea has little of value to offer partners. Yet, it relies heavily on Russia and China, particularly to meet their energy needs. Russia and China are uniquely positioned to pressure Kim Jong Il, and they should use this leverage to help carry out the will of the international community that North Korea not be a nuclear-armed state.
Second, future negotiations with North Korea to terminate their nuclear weapons program must link any aid we provide to inspection and verification. Assurances by Pyongyang, proven to be duplicitous, are insufficient. We cannot declare our diplomatic efforts a success without verification, while North Korea continues to arm itself unabated.
Lastly, we must defend America and our allies by fully funding a leading edge missile defense program. The President’s recent budget has slashed missile defense funding by over a billion dollars. The programs that have been cancelled or seriously cut back are the very programs that would be an integral part of our missile defense response if North Korea followed through on its threats. Above all, our missile defense strategy must send the unmistakable message that the U.S. is prepared to meet and defeat any escalation of arms.
North Korea and Iran have shown that they’re willing to use provocative tactics to raise international tension and to instigate conflict with nations across the globe. Efforts to extend a hand of friendship have been met with belligerence. Calls for direct negotiations have been rebuked. As the U.S., once again, grapples with these challenges, our policy must be resolute and rooted in the reality that these are hostile, unreasonable nations who wish to do us harm.
Read more published articles >>
|
