John Bolton, a leading neo-conservative official during the Bush administration, is a former U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. His latest book is Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad. He spoke with me on Wednesday, May 28, with Global Viewpoint Network.
Nathan Gardels: Five days before the North Korean nuclear test, you wrote a prescient article in the Wall Street Journal saying that such a test was imminent. What did you see as North Korea's motive in testing at this time?
John Bolton: The North Koreans had a nuclear test in October 2006 that was widely regarded as not entirely successful. So they had to redesign their warhead and test the new one to make sure they corrected whatever the problems had been.
What they needed was the opportunity to conduct the second test in a way that wouldn't be too politically costly. They waited out the election to see if Obama would come to power and then assess how he might perform. Their conclusion, apparently, was that they could undertake a new test in the wake of his election with minimal risk that there would be any consequences.
So far, their assessment seems to be correct. Certainly, there was a very ineffective response from the Obama administration to their recent Taepodong missile test.
Now, what is the administration saying so far after this test? They continue to say they want North Korea to return to the six-party talks (South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, North Korea and the U.S.)! Sorry to say, that is just not something that weighs very heavily on the North Koreans.
We still may have some action in the Security Council at the U.N. It is too early to say how that might turn out. But we are speaking already several days after the test and there have only been words, no action. The Security Council is not exactly acting like a fire brigade.
Gardels: So, the six-party talks are a dead end?
Bolton: Yes. I don't think the North Koreans have any intention of negotiating away their nuclear weapons capability. If there was any doubt about that, this nuclear test surely puts that to rest. Where is the evidence? All they do is keep processing, testing and firing missiles while everyone else talks.
Gardels: The Chinese and the Russians both hastily and harshly condemned the nuclear test. Does that make any difference?
Bolton: Well, they condemned the first test in 2006. They condemned the rocket launches in July 2006 as well as the more recent ones. And they even agreed in the Security Council then to some pretty tough military sanctions -- in U.N. Resolution 1718 -- but when all was said and done the Bush administration allowed those sanctions to fall into disuse as they changed course and pressed for a new round of negotiations with North Korea, and the Chinese didn't enforce them.
If this past experience is any indication, the actions of the Security Council now don't look promising. We'll see if this time is any different.
Gardels: What would be an effective response to North Korea this time around?
Bolton: The fact that South Korea has declared now it will join the Proliferation Security Initiative -- which would allow for searches of suspect North Korean ships at sea -- is a significant step forward. We ought to do whatever we can under PSI to interdict exports or imports related to weapons of mass-destruction development.
We should limit North Korea's access to international financial markets. The Bush administration went down that path and it was effective, before it changed course and gave way. We need to go back to that.
We should put North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. We never should have taken them off.
We should expel North Korea from the United Nations, since they have no intention of abiding by its rules and resolutions.
Finally, pressure must be brought on China, which has unique leverage over North Korea since it supplies more than 80 percent of its energy as well as significant amounts of food. If they are serious that they don't want a North Asia with nuclear weapons --where Japan and possibly South Korea and Taiwan seek their own deterrents -- then they should do something about North Korea now.
Gardels: If China is serious, why are they hesitant to put real pressure on North Korea?
Bolton: I take them at their word that they don't want a nuclear North Korea. They agree with the U.S. on that. Where they disagree with the U.S. is they are afraid to do anything that would bring down the Kim Jong-il regime. In my view, China should rethink this. It is not in their interest to keep this regime in power if it is going to pursue nuclear weapons.
The current North Korean regime sees nuclear weapons as their trump card, the symbol and guarantor of their power within the country. They are not going to give that up voluntarily. That is the dilemma of China's position.
Gardels: The North Koreans have said that interdicting any of their ships under the PSI, especially by South Korea, would be an act of war, and they would respond in kind by attacking the South. Does that scenario of military confrontation worry you?
Bolton: We should not be intimidated by their rhetoric. I was the lead U.S. negotiator on PSI in 2003. We very much wanted South Korea to join right then, but the government of South Korea at the time was intimidated by North Korea. When you give in to that kind of threat, you enable the very belligerent behavior we see today.
South Korea now has taken a very wise and courageous decision in joining PSI in the wake of this nuclear test. The world should support them in this.
Gardels: In other words, North Korea has been testing the world for years. Now, perhaps, it is time for the world to test North Korea's intimidating rhetoric by pushing back?
Bolton: Yes. If we really want to stop North Korea from obtaining and spreading nuclear weapons, we are rapidly running out of time to do it. Now is the time to stop them. We should not accept that our options are limited. If people don't like the suggestions I've made, what are their alternatives?
Gardels: Japan is directly in the line of fire of any nuclear-armed missiles North Korea might develop. This test has made some Japanese leaders so anxious they are calling for a pre-emptive capability to strike North Korea first. What do you think of that?
Bolton: Japan will have to do what it has to do. This anxiety reflects a concern about whether the U.S. nuclear umbrella over Japan is as strong as it used to be. I found it extraordinary that Secretary of State Clinton felt she had to publicly assure Japan of the U.S. commitment to their security as this crisis has unfolded. Obviously, the Japanese are worried, and that message is getting through.
Gardels: What impact will this North Korean nuclear test -- and the reaction to it -- have on other would-be proliferators, such as Iran?
Bolton: The Iranians are watching this very carefully. If the U.S. and the U.N. respond ineffectively, the Iranians will draw the conclusion that if North Korea can get away with it, then they can, too. The stakes are very high.
Gardels: Unfortunately, you can now say "I told you so" about the fruitlessness of negotiations and North Korea's belligerent intentions.
Bolton: It was not all that hard to predict what they might do. It just goes to show that this new Obama administration has been absent without leave on North Korea policy.
(C) 2009 GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK; (TM) TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
That said, Kim Jong Il is Obama's Saddam, and O has to deal with Kim decisively, or the GOP will gain traction in taking him down on national security. The fear card is the weapon that NK and the GOP have in common. Same mindset, apparently.
Why would you think he would be right about this?
Such policies have in the past had horrific consequences and created very long term enemies. If those who put forth such policies had ever known hunger themselves, the suffering would have taught them the reasons why it is not a functioning policy.
but better than doing nothing. I worry about the sale of material to terrorist the most.
I would rather error on the side people who fear the most.
This is no doubt Clinton's big challenge is to get China to take a stand against North Korea. But I feel confident that Hillary is very much up to this challenge.
I'd love to see Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China try to agree on anything - just read the history. Unfortunately, if we were to withdraw and leave it to the locals, war would be inevitable in the region and then we'd just be back again with our protective umbrella. There's no good solution when you're dealing with an insane dictator.
And for Brit Prof living in Tokyo, you should know better since the supreme leader, who is a huge fan of the cinema, kidnapped a famous Japanese director and actress to make a movie just for him. If that doesn't give you a clue about the Supreme Leaders sanity, then you've been watching too much North Korean propaganda.
The fact is that the traditional geopolitical alignment is changing and America as well as the rest of the world will have to change with it. It's going to be just as hard for America to let go of their role as it will be to get the other countries in the world to accept their new roles and responsibilities as members of the community of nations.
One bad idea in his list: the suggestion to re-list NK as a state sponsor of terrorism. (defined: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm) (NK info: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm) There is past behavior to justify this move, and they are certainly literally untrustworthy, but in my view the consequences would be more negative than positive. Applying that designation would have minimal policy consequences that I can see, given the current diplomatic climate around the issue. I certainly don't think we are somehow unable to cooperate internationally on restricting NK's finances under present law, for example. There are legitimate anti-terror interests in limiting nuclear proliferation, but we don't need them to justify preventing NK from further developing such weapons.