Bush's Pyongyang Policy 'Futile'

BBC ^ | 6-22-2004 | Jonathan Marcus

[blam]

Bush's Pyongyang policy 'futile'

By Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent in Washington

The row centres on North Korea's nuclear facilities

The architect of the Clinton administration's policy towards North Korea has told the BBC the current US approach to Pyongyang is going nowhere. Ambassador Robert Gallucci stressed the growing danger that North Korea might sell nuclear materials or even a bomb to a terrorist group.

Ambassador Gallucci also urged a fundamental rethink of US policy.

His comments come as a new round of six-party talks on the North Korea nuclear stand-off begin in Beijing.

Proliferation threat

Dealing with North Korea is one of the most intractable problems facing any US administration.

Gallucci said North Korea might sell nuclear know-how to terrorists

Most experts believe that the Pyongyang government could already have up to eight nuclear bombs.

These weapons, if mounted on ballistic missiles, could threaten many of its neighbours.

But Ambassador Gallucci said North Korea could effectively be deterred from using such weapons and that the principal threat from Pyongyang was that of nuclear proliferation.

"The concern that does, I think, motivate most of the worry in Washington, and should, is that North Korea would transfer material weapons to a terrorist group," he told the BBC.

"The concern here of course is that a terrorist group like al-Qaeda would deliver them to the United States and detonate them in an American city and not be discouraged from doing so by the threat of response."

'Hobbled' US policy

Ambassador Gallucci was the architect of former US President Bill Clinton's administration's policy which persuaded Pyongyang to freeze its weapons programme in return for the provision of power generating reactors.

But this deal collapsed, in large part due to North Korea's actions.

But Ambassador Gallucci says that since then there has been no coherent strategy from the Bush administration in Washington.

Tensions between the State Department, on the one hand, and the Pentagon and the vice president's office, on the other, have hobbled US policy, leading to what he called the most distant of negotiations between the US and North Korea.

Ambassador Gallucci believes that only high level direct talks can succeed and while China's support is important, he criticises the Bush team for effectively-sub contracting Washington's North Korea policy to Beijing.

Such an approach, he says, fails to take into account the very different strategic and regional interests of China and the US.

[blam]

"The concern here of course is that a terrorist group like al-Qaeda would deliver them to the United States and detonate them in an American city and not be discouraged from doing so by the threat of response."

I bet we can discourage North Korea, what do ya think?

It's my understanding that the plutonium isotopes can be traced to their origin.

[Batrachian]

I think it's pretty clear that North Korea and Iran are doing whatever they want and don't give a damn what we think. Operation OIF has had no deterrent effect in those quarters.

Let's send them a more direct message.

[Poodlebrain]

The complete failure of the recent policies recommended by the State Department have taught this expert nothing. He fails to realize, or worse chooses to ignore, that we are dealing with a nation that admitted it lied to us about its nuclear weapons program, and he wishes the U.S. to proceed as if we can trust North Korea. How do such idiots rise to levels of influence within our government?

I'd ask him why is it the U.S.'s duty to resolve the matter with the North Koreans? What duty does China have? Or Japan?

We have been in a state of cease fire with North Korea for over 50 years now, and the U.S. has possessed nuclear weapons for that whole period. The North Koreans should be fairly certain by now that the U.S. has no intentions to launch a nuclear attack against them. How did he fail to communicate this to the North Koreans while he was point man for our diplomacy?

When he provides compelling answers to these simple questions I'll begin to value his advice and opinions.

[glorgau]

Since nothing short of invasion is going to stop either of these loony tunes dictatorships, the current policy can't really do anything other than stall until we get a working missile defense in place.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Agree. A missle defence will be a stick in the spokes of the NK nuclear threat, at least for a while. W may be pushing this one off till 2006 when Iraq should be a wrap.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Agree. A missile defense will be a stick in the spokes of the NK nuclear threat, at least for a while. W may be pushing this one off till 2006 when Iraq should be a wrap.

[Junior_G]

I remember that not too long ago Drudge was linking to an article where the Russkies claimed to have developed a new weapons system that would make any US missile shield worthless. Does anyone know anything about that?

[Terpfen]

If I remember correctly, it's just a system with multiple warheads, so many that the interceptors can't get them all and at least one gets through.

[Jalapeno]

Korea will get real hot after this election cycle.

[hinckley buzzard]

"Dealing with North Korea is one of the most intractable problems facing any US administration."

Actually, "dealing with North Korea" has been a piece of cake for every US administration until Clinton's.

We knew the enemy when we saw him, and acted accordingly.

I guess this is considered "futile," and a sign of "intractability," by the adolescent pimple-poppers of the Clinton White House.

[elmer fudd]

My understanding of it was that they were going to use stealth technology on their missiles. Not sure just how feasable that is though. From everything I've read missiles have an enormous signature during launch and propulsion.