See the Transcript of the April 20, 2003 Meet the Press interview
with Sen. Richard Lugar, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
and former CIA Director James Woolsey.

An Open Letter to Sen. Richard Lugar
by David Keppel davidkeppel@earthlink.net

Hon. Richard G. Lugar
1180 Market Tower
10 West Market Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Dear Senator Lugar:

I am gravely concerned by the risk of war with North Korea. In particular, I am troubled by your remarks on the April 20th edition of "Meet the Press." Taken with Secretary Rumsfeld's memorandum last week calling for regime change, your endorsement of a military "option" sets the Untied States on a path similar to the one that led to our attack on Iraq. As you know, the risks are in this case catastrophic.

You are right that a nuclear North Korea is a threat. But it is one substantially of our own making. Last week North Korea said that the Iraq war shows it needs a "physical deterrent" - which Iraq lacked. You will recall that critics of the war warned of this perverse lesson. More broadly, the Bush Administration's espousal of nuclear attack on non-nuclear states violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty and spurs countries to seek nuclear arsenals. President Bush's violent antipathy to Kim Jong Il - as reported by Bob Woodward - can only sharpen the North Koreans' insecurity and harden their position. Mr. Rumsfeld's memorandum on regime change effectively sabotages current negotiations.

You know well the risks in a Korean war: to South Korea, to Japan, to our relations with China and Russia. You know its cost in human life. Permit me to emphasize one point: the possibility of US first use of nuclear weapons. Before attacking Iraq, we moved troops forward; this time we would pull them back and rely on sheer air power. But it would be no Osirik operation: as well as striking potential nuclear targets, we would hit their forward positions and the regime itself. (Analysts remember that the April 7 strike on Saddam destroyed the regime, as Iraqis perhaps mistakenly thought we had killed him.) As Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times has pointed out (02/28/03), such a strike might involve tactical nuclear weapons.

A U.S. nuclear strike would have consequences beyond even the immediate death toll. If the United States breaks the post-Hiroshima taboo on using nuclear weapons, others will follow. On April 6, Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha told The Hindustan Times that the U.S. should follow its attack on Iraq with one on Pakistan. A few days earlier, he told Agence France Presse that India would be justified in carrying out air strikes. A Pentagon study reportedly estimates that a nuclear war on the Indian subcontinent could kill twelve million.

The Korean strike alone would shock the world, which is already deeply alienated by the Iraq war and the arrogance of President Bush's version of America. Mounting indebtedness and the balance of trade deficit leave us increasingly dependent on foreign capital. Mr. Bush's tax cut and rising military spending aggravate our dependency even as they antagonize others. If foreign money begins to abandon the dollar as the international reserve currency, the United States will be unable to sustain its economy, its way of life, or its military strength. Turmoil from a Korean war alone might so unsettle Asia - already troubled by SARS - as to throw the global economy into depression. That in turn could bring fascism or war to more than one country.

You may think it is possible to threaten war without ever having to fight it. Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak with Ambassador James Lilley, who was here to address a group of campus Republicans. After the session, I asked him about your "Meet the Press" statement. Ambassador Lilley said that in his opinion the military threat is too catastrophic to carry out. He went on to say that the threat could be "left on the table" for the sake of negotiations. But it is dangerous to bluff, particularly with the North Koreans, who have centuries of experience facing down stronger outsiders. They may discount the threat. If so, President Bush, who values toughness to the point of obsession, might feel compelled to launch a war that would have only losers. It would not be the first time the world had entered war through the miscalculation of leaders.

There is an alternative to war. Just as John F. Kennedy resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis by striking a non-bargain to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey, President Bush could meet North Korean concerns without making new concessions and thus "rewarding bad behavior." The fact is that both sides - North Korea and the United States - are in violation of standing commitments. We mentioned the way U.S. nuclear threats undermine - and violate -- the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is also true that Article III, Section 1 of the 1994 Agreed Framework says the U.S. will provide North Korea with formal assurances against the threat or use of our nuclear weapons.

More broadly, we have undermined the spirit and letter of the accords. Stalling on economic and political normalization began as early as the 1994 U.S. election, and our failure to make good on expectations strengthened the hand of hard liners within North Korea. Mr. Bush's humiliating sabotage of South Korea's "sunshine policy" and his insults about Kim Jong Il make a bad situation worse. We can expect North Korea to honor its commitments but we should expect no less of ourselves. This would not be rewarding their bad behavior but simply correcting our own.

The United States will not win security -- but instead wreak havoc -- if it tries to meet the global proliferation threat through a series of preemptive wars. Your April 4 remarks at the Norwegian Embassy were highly constructive in proposing to extend the Nunn-Lugar Initiative globally. But by omitting any commitment to eliminate first strike U.S. nuclear weapons and doctrines, your proposal might seem to codify a global double standard. A double standard invites strife. By contrast, a truly comprehensive proposal would offer mutual security. Only that would fulfill the Nunn-Lugar Initiative's true promise to reduce the nuclear danger.

The aftermath of the Iraq war shows that even military success can bring political failure. The risks in Korea are higher. Though you told Tim Russert that you are "fully cognizant" of them, I cannot believe that you are willing to see your country unleash a nuclear and political catastrophe by its own hand in a futile effort to prevent one by another's. I urge you to rethink your April 20 threat and to work for a diplomatic solution to the Korean - and global - nuclear crisis.

With best wishes,
Respectfully yours,

David Keppel

Page created April 19, 2003 by Charlie Jenks