6/30/09

North Korea is likely to grab headlines over the coming July 4th weekend, as the regime has pledged to fire a missile toward Hawaii. But as David Sanger explains, “if your holiday plans call for spending the day on Diamond Head, it is probably not worth cancelling your plans: There is no evidence yet the North’s missiles can reach that far, and their aim is singularly unimpressive.” Nevertheless, North Korea is a real and serious security challenge – a challenge that worsened greatly over the last eight years under President Bush. Analysts have interpreted North Korea’s recent belligerence as part internal power struggle, part internal shift toward a more belligerent approach, and as part of an effort to reassert itself on Washington’s agenda. In response, the Obama administration, with few good options available, has taken firm diplomatic steps. Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, successfully led the charge to develop new UN sanctions that pressure the regime and provides new enforcement authority to the Proliferation Security Initiative, which seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear materials. The Obama administration has also left open the possibility of reopening negotiations, while making clear that North Korea’s belligerence won’t force the U.S. back to the negotiating table. This is in stark contrast to the disastrous approach of the Bush administration, which adopted a policy of isolation and bluster that failed to prevent North Korea from getting nuclear weapons. The Obama administration has rightly resisted renewed calls from conservatives to dangerously escalate the situation, recognizing the catastrophic implications of military action. Neocons and conservatives in Congress also continue to cling on to the failed approach and rhetoric of the Bush administration. Senator John Kyl, for instance, turned this critical issue into a political football by blocking State Department nominations vital to addressing North Korea. These well-qualified individuals were finally confirmed last week but playing political gamesmanship on an issue so critical to our nation’s security is highly irresponsible.

The Obama administration’s firm approach to North Korea has avoided unnecessary escalation, leaving open the chance to return to the negotiating table.  So far the Obama administration has refused to be rushed by North Korea’s provocations, taking deliberate steps at organizing an international response, while leaving open the possibility for talks later on. The first manifestation of the Obama administration’s approach came several weeks ago, when it successfully pushed for sanctions at the UN Security Council.  The New York Times reported: “Responding vigorously to a recent North Korean nuclear test, the Security Council voted unanimously Friday on an enhanced package of sanctions that, among other things, calls upon United Nations members to inspect cargo vessels and airplanes suspected of carrying military matériel in or out of the country.  The sanctions in Resolution 1874 were considered tougher than previous versions largely because China and Russia, the closest thing North Korea has to friends, agreed to a mixture of financial and trade restrictions designed to choke off military development.”  U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice commented at the time: “We’re going to focus on ensuring that implementation is fully achieved by us and others; that that bite is felt. And we’re not going to get into a tit-for-tat reaction to every North Korean provocative act.”  As a follow-up to the successful bid for sanctions, “the White House is forming an interagency team to coordinate sanctions efforts against North Korea with other nations,” to be led by Ambassador Philip Goldberg, reported the Washington Post last week.  According to the New York Times, the interagency team is intended to “give more teeth to international sanctions against North Korea.”  A senior administration official quoted in the Times piece remarked “We wanted somebody who woke up every morning and thought about nothing but sanctions implementation.”  The Wall Street Journal reported today that as part of this effort, “[t]he Treasury Department is taking a leading role and will work through international banking channels to try to restrict funds to 17 North Korean banks and companies that U.S. officials say are central players in Pyongyang's nuclear and weapons trade.”  The U.S. is also expected to do everything short of taking military action to strengthen the Proliferation Security Initiative and force inspections of North Korean ships believed to be carrying arms or nuclear technology, including one thought to be headed for Myanmar, said an Associated Press article. While these efforts are intended to pressure the North Korean regime, the Obama administration has maintained that any solution must be reached at the negotiating table. Addressing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Special Envoy for North Korea Stephen Bosworth remarked, “In the interest of all concerned, we very much hope North Korea will choose the path of diplomacy rather than confrontation." [NY Times, 6/12/09.  U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, 6/12/09. Washington Post, 6/27/09. NY Times, 6/26/09. WSJ, 6/30/09. AP, 6/27/09. North Korea Special Envoy Stephen Bosworth, 6/11/09]

North Korea’s secretive regime makes its actions difficult to interpret, limiting America’s options. Many experts say that North Korea’s actions may be the result of a possible transition of power taking place inside of the regime. As the Washington post writes, “In recent months, exceptional eruptions of North Korean belligerence have been attributed to the murky logic of hereditary succession as Kim [Jung Il], ailing since he had a stroke last year, positions his third son to take command of the communist country. Kim Jong Un is just 26, and many analysts have explained the North's missile launches, a second nuclear test in May and repeated threats of ‘merciless war’ as a way of cementing the young man's credibility as a fearsome and deserving heir.” Additionally, with the global economic crisis, two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a volatile situation in Pakistan, and the Administration’s efforts to reengage the Middle East, the North Koreans may feel they are off Washington’s radar. As the LA Times wrote last month, when North Korea tested its second nuclear weapon, “analysts said the tests signaled Pyongyang's growing disillusionment over the U.S. refusal to conduct bilateral talks... Figuratively speaking, North Korea's dual actions... were aimed directly at Washington, which has directed its attentions away from Pyongyang as officials wage wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” With tens of millions of people living in range the autocratic and opaque regime’s weapons, bipartisan experts have long concluded that there are no good options for confronting Pyongyang.  “Despite the fact that the world powers seem to be pulling together to condemn North Korea's actions, administration officials readily acknowledge that they have limited options in how to proceed,” writes Slate.  David Sanger of the New York Times reports, “as they had meetings every few hours... some of Mr. Obama’s aides acknowledged that the administration’s options were limited.”  [LA Times, 5/26/09. Washington Post, 6/27/09. Slate, 5/26/09. New York Times, 5/26/09]

Failures of the Bush administration have compounded the challenge from North Korea, leaving U.S. with few good options. The Washington Post notes that “When Bush became president in 2000, Pyongyang's reactor was frozen under a 1994 agreement with the United States. Clinton administration officials thought they were so close to a deal limiting North Korean missiles that in the days before he left office, Bill Clinton seriously considered making the first visit to Pyongyang by a U.S. president.  But conservatives had long been deeply skeptical of the deal freezing North Korea's program --known as the Agreed Framework -- in part because it called for building two light-water nuclear reactors (largely funded by the Japanese and South Koreans). When then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell publicly said in early 2001 that he favored continuing Clinton's approach, Bush rebuked him.” During the first 6 years of his administration, President Bush reversed the Clinton-era policy of engaging directly with North Korea – in favor of an approach the New York Times described as an effort “to push the country to collapse and then to try to seize its leaders’ assets.”  Bush administration officials even considered that their invasion of Iraq would be enough to force North Korea into line. Asked what lesson the Iraq invasion held for North Korea (and fellow Axis of Evil state Iran), Bush Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton replied “Take a number.”  But the message had the opposite of effect. By the time the Bush administration had belatedly opted to re-engage, the country had developed enough material for approximately 10 nuclear bombs and even tested a device in 2006. According to the Times, “A C.I.A. assessment concluded that North Korea had built one or two nuclear weapons during the administration of the first President Bush, and in the spring of 2003, while the United States was focused on Iraq, the North expelled inspectors and harvested the fuel for six or more weapons. The second Bush administration said it would never ‘tolerate’ a nuclear North Korea, but by the time it left office, none of that fissile material had been recovered.” [Washington Post, 10/09/06. John Bolton, Business Week, 9/20/05. NY Times, 5/26/09]

Obama’s firm but measured approach is in stark contrast to the radical and obstructionist approach advocated by some neoconservatives. Bill Kristol even said, “I think it would be the wise thing to decide - to knock out [North Korea’s nuclear and missile facilities]…It might be worth doing some targeted airstrikes to show to show the North Koreans instead of always talking about ‘Gee there should be consequences’ to show that they can’t simply keep going down this path.” But as Victor Cha of CSIS says, “While a strike would indeed set back the North’s missile program, the two to three years gained from a strike pales in comparison to the potential wider fallout from such an action. The retaliation could be artillery launched on Seoul, or the firing of a Nodong missile on a city in Japan. Then what? Does the United States fulfill its treaty commitments and go to war?” The efforts of some conservatives in Congress have only undermined the Obama administration’s ability to address this challenge. Senator John Kyl held up important nominations regarding nuclear weapons and North Korea, placing holds on nominations that included Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) for Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and Kurt Campbell for Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs. Fortunately, Tauscher and Campbell were finally confirmed last week. [Bill Kristol, 6/01/09. Victor Cha, 3/09/09. The Cable, 6/22/09]

What We’re Reading

US troops have withdrawn from Iraqi cities six years after the invasion, having formally handed over security responsibilities in cities to Iraqi forces. Four US soldiers were killed just before the pullout was completed. Iraq now begins to auction off oil and gas licenses, with China as a key bidder.

The ousted Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, has said he will return home this Thursday, after being forced into exile on Sunday. Pro-Zelaya protestors clashed with Honduran police and soldiers yesterday. The coup invokes ghosts of past U.S. policies towards Latin America.

North Korea is going ahead with plans to enrich uranium, a possible step to making a nuclear weapon, South Korean Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee has said. The Obama administration is preparing to wield broad financial pressure to try to force North Korea to dial back its weapons program.

Iran’s Guardian Council formally certified the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a second four-year term Monday night, saying there was no validity to charges of voting fraud. Five out of nine local staff from the UK embassy detained in Tehran have been released, Iranian officials say.

A wing of the Taliban based in a North Waziristan say they have abandoned a peace deal with the Pakistani government. A reputed drug lord described as one of the biggest heroin suppliers in eastern Afghanistan -- with suspected ties to the Taliban -- appeared in federal court in Washington Monday, where he was ordered detained pending his expected drug trial.

Israel has dispatched its defense minister, Ehud Barak, to the US as relations with the White House deteriorate over Israel's refusal to end settlement building in occupied territories.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will visit Myanmar at the end of the week for talks that will include the 13-year detention of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the United Nations said.

Néstor Kirchner, the former president of Argentina, resigned his post as leader of the Peronist Party on Monday, a day after he and his supporters suffered a crushing defeat in national congressional elections.

China has agreed to loan Zimbabwe $950m to help it revive its fledgling economy, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has said.

Commentary of the Day

Jawad Al Bolani, Iraqi Interior Minister, expounds on the anticipated instability within his country.  

Bob Herbert criticizes the Obama administration’s continued, unlawful incarceration of an Afghan detainee.  

Alvaro Vargas Llosa discusses Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez’s role in the Honduran coup.

Richard Cohen urges President Obama to end the US military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Con Coughlin analyzes current tensions between Iran and the UK