N. Korea’s Self-Destructiveness

American defense policy seeks to provide the capability for dealing with two major international crises simultaneously, with the most likely areas of conflict usually identified as Iraq and North Korea. That policy could soon be put to the test.

North Korea’s refusal last week to allow U.S. specialists to inspect an underground site that may be intended for nuclear production has heightened security concerns. Charles Kartman, the State Department official who led the specialists to Pyongyang, has cited “compelling evidence” that North Korea is trying to restart work on developing nuclear weapons. Such an effort would violate the 1994 agreement under which North Korea suspended its nuclear weapons program in exchange for two modern nuclear power reactors, paid for chiefly by South Korea and Japan, and large fuel oil shipments paid for by the United States. Many in Congress believe funding for the oil shipments should be cut off. The latest show of bad faith by Pyongyang encourages that mood.

In refusing to open its suspect facility, North Korea made a typical in-your-face claim: that simply by questioning its good faith the United States had committed an act of aggression for which “reparations” must be paid. President Clinton, on his weekend visit to South Korea, confirmed that Pyongyang demanded $300 million to allow a look-see at the suspect site. All this further boosts concerns about the North Korean leadership’s detachment from reality.

A bizarre situation thus grows more worrisome. This is clearly not the time for North Korea to be flaunting its hostility and inviting further isolation. With famine rampant, the country needs all the help it can get. Yet, even as it pleads for food and medicine to save its children, North Korea presses ahead with a possible nuclear weapons program and with a long-range missile that has the potential of reaching Alaska. If the North Koreans are indeed determined to give primacy to their threatening weapons programs, the United States has no choice but to change course in its current policy and its aid effort.