Nicholas Eberstadt

Regarding comments issued by Korean President Roh Moo-hyun during his recent tour of Europe, to the effect that he would oppose any form of sanctions or pressure on the North, Eberstadt labeled such sentiments "a unilateral and pre-emptive attack on the United States... No matter what the U.S. government says officially, tension in the Korea-U.S. alliance is continuing to rise."

The Chosun Ilbo met with America's self-appointed neocon spokesman Sunday to unravel the meaning of some of his more controversial statements.

You have claimed there can be no solution to the nuclear issue without regime change in North Korea. What is the basis of your statement?
"It is built upon two premises. Firstly, we have been negotiating to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear program for the last 15 years. During that time, the North Korea threat has grown, and it has violated all its international agreements related to nuclear development. In the end, North Korea has said it has no intention to give up nuclear development.

"Secondly, North Korea will not change its attitude before new ruling forces appear. The current North Korean regime has not kept any of the deals it has negotiated up till now. Now, we must work so that a new regime appears in the North."

Are you saying Kim Jong-il must be expelled?
"At the very least, regime change means a new leadership in North Korea. At most, it means 'after North Korea,' i.e., the complete end of North Korea. Without an end to the North Korean regime, there could be no future unification of the Korean Peninsula under a non-communist regime."

But recently, didn't White House National Security Advisor designate Stephen Hadley say that the United States was pursuing "regime transformation," not collapse or regime change in North Korea?
"Regime transformation means changes in the behavior of the North Korean regime, but as the current regime has neither the intention nor capability of changing its behavior, how can it transform? The only way to change its behavior is to place a new regime in Pyongyang."

The Korean government opposes "regime change," but it seems to accomodate the term "regime transformation."
"Hadley's message was meant for the Korean audience. Both the U.S. and Korea could agree to that term. The idea behind the term, however, is vague, and the meaning behind its use is completely different in both countries. For the Korean government, regime transformation means changing North Korea's society and economy so that it helps unification from a long term perspective, while for the United States, it means changes in the nuclear and other security issues right now."

In contrast to your position, President Roh Moo-hyun said during a recent tour of Europe that he opposed any form of pressure or sanctions on North Korea.
"Seoul's North Korea policy is mistaken. The strangest thing is that the hopes and goals of the policy are completely disjointed. While 'hoping' for a peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue, it had claimed we mustn't use military or economic pressure as a means to denuclearize North Korea. If that is the case, what diplomatic means do you intend to use to attain your 'goal' of a denuclearized North Korea? Is there a reason that the North Korean regime, which has violated all its international agreements and pursued nuclear weapons development for the last 15 years, will now suddenly change its behavior and point of view? What's even more distressing is that the South Korean government is talking as if the North Koreans have real security reasons for possessing nuclear weapons. If the South Korean government believes this, while at the same time saying we mustn't use any pressure on North Korea, personally, I don't know how we'll make progress in getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear program."

What do you think is President Roh's reason for repeatedly issuing such arguments?
"It might have been to show North Korea that Seoul is a 'compassionate brother.' To tell the U.S. to take certain tools off the table was a unilateral and pre-emptive act."

Do the nondiplomatic instruments about which you speak include military attacks?
"One can mobilize everything from reducing economic aid to North Korea to military pressure through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and issues such as human rights, defectors, drug trafficking and counterfeiting. One mustn't completely rule out military pressure, but it's a last resort. If the U.S. discovers that North Korea is going to sell nuclear materials or equipment to international terrorist groups, it must immediately mobilize its military strength. The U.S. president would have no other choice, and if he didn't [use the military in that situation], he would be impeached."

Are the Korean people worried that such pressure could lead to war on the Korean Peninsula?
"[That pressure] is the realistic way to reduce the North Korean threat. South Korea has been at a state of quasi-war with North Korea for the last 50 years and is preparing based on the assumption that North Korea could invade. One mustn't assume the current situation amounts to peace. The way to reduce the North Korean threat is to reduce the threat of war."

Can the U.S. mobilize its nondiplomatic instruments without the participation of South Korea?
"The PSI goes on without the participation of the South Korean government, and the U.S. enacted the North Korean Human Rights Act without the support of the South Korean government. In the big picture, the participation of the South Korean government would be very helpful. If Seoul were to decrease its aid to North Korea, or what it calls 'economic cooperation,' it would put a lot of pressure on the North."

You've said that for the last 15 years, there has been nothing but "dialogue and bribes" with the North Korean nuclear issue. Isn't this a bit harsh?
"Giving economic compensation to North Korea in return for it to drop its nuclear program is nothing more than a bribe. North Korea is a country that lives on bribes from foreign countries, and it participates in the six-party talks in hopes of getting bribes."

You've called South Korea a "prodigal ally." What is your basis for that?
"South Korea believes military tension on the Korean Peninsula no longer exists. It's even going to erase reference to North Korea as the 'main enemy.' Does this mean that the South Korean military of several hundreds of thousands of men exists because of Russia and China? This brings about a serious self-contradiction in the alliance, because while South Korea behaves as if North Korea is no longer a threat, at the same time, it is preserving its alliance with the U.S. premised on the current North Korean threat. This is the 'prodigal ally' about whom I talk."

Do you think if this contradiction continues, it could end the Korea-U.S. alliance?
"The Korea-U.S. alliance is currently in serious danger and crisis. The first thing that must be done is for both sides to honestly discuss their differing thoughts and principles. For too long, both sides have pretended that their alliance was solid. If this masquerade continues, the heart of the alliance will simply rot as time passes."

(Heo Yong-beom, heo@chosun.com )