Is
North Korea More Dangerous than Iraq?
January 5, 2002
North Korea, not Iraq, presently poses the greater threat to international security. This does not mean we can relax our vigilance against Saddam Hussein but it does require that the Bush Administration address the Korean problem with greater urgency and explain how this crisis relates to its rhetoric about strategies of preemption.
North Korea has a small number of nuclear weapons; Iraq does not. North Korea has surface-to-surface missiles in its inventory that can threaten important allies such as Japan; Iraq’s few remaining missiles pose a serious, but lesser threat to its neighbors. North Korea’s conventional forces are formidable and well equipped. They can inflict instant and large-scale damage to U.S. forces based in South Korea. Iraq’s conventional forces are weak and underequipped. If North Korea’s nuclear capacity is not stopped, in a matter of months it could be able to export weapons grade material to terrorist groups around the world. It is already exporting missiles and has probably helped Pakistan with both its missile and nuclear programs. In contrast, Iraq is currently under intense inspections by the UN and is not believed to possess either nuclear weapons or fissionable nuclear material. It almost certainly has chemical and biological agents and a few remaining Scud missiles. Over time, Iraq can pose a major threat to the international community, but not now.
The most credible argument for the U.S. putting Iraq at the top of the list of "rogue" or "evil" states to be dealt with is that without active intervention by the U.S. it will become more dangerous and could eventually surpass Korea as a threat since it has far greater financial resources to build up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. But the urgency for using military force against Iraq has been lessened thanks to the Bush administration’s success in motivating the UN to step up to it’s responsibilities by sending UNMOVIC and the IAEA to Iraq with a tough new resolution demanding new inspections and greater Iraqi cooperation. Whether or not the inspectors will be able to detect the true dimensions of Saddam’s weapons programs is unclear. What is clear is that Iraq will be under greater surveillance than ever before. If it decides to proceed with banned weapons programs it will face continuing international pressure and the almost certain use of force.
The danger posed by North Korea is more immediate. The country is in dire straits; its economy does not work and it faces mass starvation. It has used the export of missiles to earn hard currency and is clearly desperate for better economic relations with its neighbors. Some South Korean politicians and businessmen believe that economic cooperation with the North is the preferred mode of engagement and that further isolation and economic sanctions will exacerbate the crisis and increase the risks of either confrontation or chaos. Fortunately the new government in Seoul, though in favor of continued dialogue with the North, shares Washington’s concern about the nuclear dimension to the problem and the need to be tough the North on this issue. Japan has similar ambivalence about the North but is particularly worried about the impact on its own security debate if the nuclear issue is not resolved.
The greatest danger is that nuclear proliferation could spread throughout East Asia. The prospect for Japan opting for nuclear weapons is an order of magnitude different from any other Asian crisis faced in recent years. It would drastically change the relationship between China and Japan and could precipitate a new nuclear arms race between two of the world’s most powerful countries which could assume proportions equivalent to the US - Soviet arms race in its early phases.
This would lead to a fundamental change in the balance of power in East Asia with the U.S. no longer being the dominant military player. It would raise the risks of further nuclear proliferation to South Korea and Taiwan. This, in turn, would make the prospects for an East Asian nuclear war greater than at any time in the post war era. In the Middle East the consequences of further proliferation if Iraq is not stopped are also very serious. If Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and, possibly, Egypt contemplate nuclear weapons if Iraq is not stopped, an equally dangerous situation would result. But it would be much harder for these countries to build or purchase nuclear weapons. What is so scary about East Asia is that Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all have the indigenous skills to produce nuclear weapons in a fairly short time frame.
For this reason the Bush Administration cannot play down the Korean crisis or put it on the backburner. It must be addressed directly with the countries in the region, especially China and South Korea. A military confrontation with Iraq can be deferred until next fall. The issue of North Korean nuclear weapons must be resolved before then.
