Office of Ambiguous Affairs By Donnel Jones, January 22, 2004	Home   Search   Forum   Terms

From Reuters: N.Korea May Have Nuclear Weapons, UN Agency Says.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told BBC television that a recent U.S. delegation's unofficial visit to the country "confirmed that North Korea possibly have nuclear weapons already developed, not only the capability, but nuclear weapons."

A prominent scientist who visited North Korea as part of the unofficial U.S. delegation two weeks ago said on Wednesday that Pyongyang could probably make plutonium metal, a prerequisite for nuclear weapons, and that its nuclear program was of great concern.

Well, which is it? Do they have them or not? Maybe they're doing the shuffle game to make you believe Pyongyang might, perhaps, just maybe, possibly, have weapons of mass destruction. Just don't ask the Bush Administration. No one will believe 'em. Meanwhile the U.N. wants an official visit by the U.S. to North Korea. O.K., to do what exactly? Verify for sure there are nukes?

I don't want the U.S., meaning Bush, to be the one who has to say that North Korea has them. And if the U.N. is the alternative in determining the issue of whether or not North Korea is a rogue nuclear power, why does it turn to the U.S. for an official visit? Pro forma, of course. But what if there is no meeting of the minds between the U.N. and the U.S.? I know, these are too many "ifs," but when you see the equation U.N.+Bush+possibilityofWMD, what do you get?

An ulcer. To put it crudely, the U.S. can do pretty much whatever it wants, with consequences, as it proved after parting ways with the U.N., but now Bush has to be more careful in making claims about the possibility of WMD in other countries because there are none, so far, to be found in Iraq. Yes, all this is moot if they are found. To date, however, WMD is a hot potato for Bush and at a time we may need his credibility most.

No one, not even Bush, claimed that Saddam had nukes, only that he was seeking to develop them, yet the U.S. went in and cleaned house. Now with a greater possibility— well, perhaps, you might say, maybe—of Pyongyang having WMD, what do we do? Err on the side of caution and assume the best, that North Korea does not have them and hope nothing goes BANG in the night? Or assume the worst, as we did for Iraq, and put real pressure on the Chinese to turn off the spigot? What pressure? Charles Krauthammer has suggested the U.S. threaten to give Japan a nuclear arsenal.

But who is going to be believed that Pyongyang has them? The whole WMD issue is so tainted, it could cause real problems in how we deal with North Korea. Before something definitive need be done, definition had better come from an office other than that of the U.S. president. Yet, do we really want ElBaradei to verify the presence of WMD when you know he'll squeal if the U.S., in response, seeks to do something about it?

Which is why we should hope Bush deals with Pyongyang through back channels, intrigue, and arm-twisting of North Korea's neighbors. It shouldn't have to require the high drama of a meeting between Bush and the U.N. Let's hope North Korea falls as silently as it now suffers.