Is the U.S. walking into another UN buzzsaw?

---

See the Sol Sanders Archive By Sol Sanders SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

The tortured question over the UNÕs role in postwar Iraq could be decided in a new encounter in the Security Council over sanctions against North Korea. It remains to be seen if the UN members will be more responsible in the case of Pyongyang than they were with Baghdad.

The UNÕs International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] has thrown into that arena the question of North KoreaÕs withdrawal from nuclear weapons safeguards and its apparent new nuclear weapons program. Pyongyang, in one earlier bombastic statements ø the rhetoric has cooled a bit in recent days ø threatened to call any sanctions an act of war.

At the UN, the lineup will be different than over the Iraq question. China, which tried to lie low in Iraq diplomatic maneuvering, will be on the frontline since it would bear the brunt of implementing such sanctions as overwhelmingly PyongyangÕs No. 1 trading partner. Some observers were surprised when China seemingly gave assent to put the issue before the Council. There is good reason to believe that the Chinese are conflicted: a nuclear arms race which Pyongyang threatens to set off in Northeast Asia would not be in BeijingÕs interest, especially were it to include a nuclearized and all-out rearmed Japan. But there has been more than a little hankypanky between Beijing and Pyongyang on missiles, and probably nuclear, technology transfers and the sale of missiles to pariah states øsomething Washington fears could happen with nuclear weapons technology. If North KoreaÕs collapsing Stalinist economy imploded, it would release a flood of refugees joining northeast ChinaÕs large Korean ethnic minority ø and reunification on South KoreaÕs terms, probably not welcomed in Beijing despite warming relations between Seoul and Beijing. So there is reason to believe there may be differences inside Chinese leadership which could be reflected in New York.

The French, contrarian as usual, earlier made noises that they see North Korean proliferation as a serious matter hinting this time they would act in concert with the U.S.. That might happen if for nothing else than to refurbish their UN veto as their major remaining leverage in world affairs, eroded in the Iraq affair ø and for trading on the post-Iraq commercial settlements. Nor is it clear where Moscow stands. It has tried to play a mediating role, hoping to regain once considerable Soviet influence on the Peninsular. But as President Putin has shown in his recent tack back to a more conciliatory position regarding U.S. policy on Iraq, Moscow does not have many cards to play in any international game.

WashingtonÕs biggest problem may be the South Korean administration of President Roh. The half century alliance is crumbling under the pressure of totally divergent policies. Roh still believes, apparently, that North KoreaÕs Kim Jong Il is on the defensive, that his inaugurating a new nuclear weapons program can be overcome withconciliation. But RohÕs inflammatory rhetoric during the presidential campaign last year whetted the appetites of young South Koreans who want to believe in the tooth fairy, who disregard the history of North Korean state terrorism and the Korean War. To get an even token noncombatant South Korean force to join the Americans in Iraq, has brought on a new crisis.

And to get that approval, Roh has had to reveal just the kind of cynicism which he and his supporters said they were going to eliminate from South Korean politics. ÒI have decided to send troops. It is because the fate of this country and the nation are at stake," said Roh. He said it was more important to strengthen South Korea-U.S. relations rather than "to stand on principle and incur friction in bilateral ties.Ó The 56-year-old presidentÕs critics, many in his own party, say supporting the war on Iraq implies backing U.S. policy of preemptive military action, which Washington could invoke to launch an attack on North Korean nuclear installations. ÒAs you have seen in the Iraqi situation, the United States will not make its decision on the North Korean nuclear issue in line with principles," said Roh. ÒÉMany lawmakers and people are opposed to the dispatch of troops. The main reason is that this war had no grounds," said Roh. "But regretfully, international politics are swayed by the power of reality, not by principles." However, as long as South Korea opposed an attack on the North, he said, "there will be no war on the Korean peninsula."

South KoreaÕs deteriorating economy, U.S. proposals to relocate and perhaps reduce its Òtrip wireÓ force on the so-called Demilitarized Zone, and public criticism by U.S. officials of RohÕs policies, already seem to be having their effect on policy ø if not on his thinking process. But if the UN takes over the issue before President Bush has an understanding with Roh, now scheduled for a May meeting in Washington, the U.S. may again find itself in the toils of another United Nations debacle.