[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 117 (Friday, August 1, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10884-S10886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            A PERFECT STORM

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the remarks I am about to make can very well 
be written under the title ``Gathering Storm Clouds Over North Korea.'' 
Weather forecasters have a name for one of their worst nightmares of 
violent atmospheric disturbance, triggered by an unusual convergence of 
weather systems. They call it the ``perfect storm.''
  As the United States continues to be preoccupied with quelling the 
postwar chaos in Iraq, I worry that the elements of a perfect storm, 
capable of wreaking devastating damage to international stability, are 
brewing elsewhere in the world. The forces at play are centered on the 
escalating nuclear threat from North Korea, but they also include the 
emergence of Iran as a nuclear contender, the violence and desperate 
humanitarian situation in Liberia, the near forgotten but continuing 
war in Afghanistan, and the unrelenting threat of international 
terrorism.
  Just a few days ago, the Department of Homeland Security issued a 
chilling alert that al-Qaida operatives may be plotting suicide 
missions to hijack commercial aircraft in the coming weeks, possibly in 
the United States--a very sobering thought indeed.
  Weather forecasters can do little more than watch a storm unfold. 
They cannot quiet the winds, as Jesus did on the Sea of Galilee, or 
calm the seas. We require more from the President of the United States 
when it comes to international crises. The President cannot afford 
merely to plot the course of the gathering storms over North Korea, 
Iran, Liberia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The President needs to turn 
his attention to these countries and work with the international 
community to defuse the emerging crises. The challenge is formidable 
and there are no easy answers. But the price of inaction could be 
ruinous.
  Of all the looming international threats, North Korea is clearly the

[[Page S10885]]

most worrisome. As recently as July 14, former Defense Secretary and 
Korean specialist, Willian Perry, warned that the United States and 
North Korea are drifting toward war, possibly as early as this year. In 
an interview published in the Washington Post, Dr. Perry said:
  The nuclear program now underway in North Korea poses an imminent 
danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities.
  Surely, such a stark warning from an official so deeply steeped in 
the political culture of North Korea should be a wake-up call to the 
President. Yet, to date, the administration has steadfastly refused to 
engage in direct talks with North Korea, or even to characterize the 
threat of North Korea's nuclear weapons program as a crisis. Instead, 
the President and his advisers have continued to hurl invectives at Kim 
Jong Il, while shrugging off increasingly alarming reports that North 
Korea is stepping up its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
  Since last October, when North Korea revealed that it planned to 
reprocess plutonium fuel rods into fissile material that could be used 
in nuclear weapons, the President and his advisers have consistently 
downplayed the nuclear threat from North Korea, while hyping the 
nuclear threat from Iraq.
  Yet while we have strong evidence that North Korea is working 
feverishly to accelerate its nuclear program, we still have not found a 
shread--not a shread--of evidence that Saddam Hussein's efforts to 
reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons program were anything more than 
bluster and hyperbole.

  It is time--if it is not already too late--to drop the false bravado 
of indifference to the threat from North Korea and engage in face-to-
face negotiations with the North Koreans. Multilateral negotiations are 
fine--preferable even--but they are unlikely to be productive unless 
the United States takes the lead. We cannot wait for the Chinese or the 
Japanese or the South Koreans to pave the way. We cannot brush off the 
nuclear threat posed by North Korea as just an annoying irritant. There 
is a real threat. Now there is a real threat to the United States, and 
the United States must act fast to naturalize it.
  The news on Thursday, July 31, that North Korea has expressed a 
willingness to engage in six-sided talks, with the participation of 
Russia in addition to the other players, offers a glimmer of 
opportunity that the United States should seize before North Korea 
changes its mind. As difficult as it is to predict or understand the 
motivations of Kim Jong Il, one thing is certain: No progress can be 
made in unraveling the nuclear tangle on the Korean peninsula until the 
parties involved start talking to each other.
  Not only must the President come to terms with the gravity of the 
situation in North Korea but the President must also understand that 
this is not a one-man show, and that this is not the type of discussion 
that can be sealed with a simple handshake. You don't look into the 
eyes here and determine what is in the depth of the soul.
  Under the Constitution, the Senate has a unique and important role to 
play in helping to frame the contours and the content of international 
treaties. Any agreement negotiated between the United States and Korea 
will have far-reaching implications for the national security of the 
United States and, as such, should be subject to the treaty advice and 
consent provision of article II, section 2, of the Constitution.
  On a collision course with the nuclear threat from North Korea is the 
question of how to deal with Iran's increasingly aggressive nuclear 
posture. A month ago the President hinted darkly that he would not 
tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon in Iran; but he has been 
largely silent on the issue in the ensuing weeks. When asked during a 
rare press conference earlier this week about the potential for war 
with Iran, the President placed the burden for seeking a peaceful 
solution squarely on the shoulders of the international community, 
without suggesting any role for the United States beyond ``convincing 
others'' to speak to the Iranian Government. When it comes to dealing 
with the threat from Iran's weapons of mass destruction, it appears 
that the White House is deferring to some of the same countries and 
institutions, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, that it 
dismissed as inconsequential during the runup to war with Iraq.

  Like North Korea, the options for dealing with Iran are limited, but 
dodging engagement in favor of sporadic saber rattling is scarcely the 
wisest course of action. Equally unhelpful are ominous hints that the 
United States is contemplating covert action to precipitate regime 
change in Iran. Unlike North Korea, Iran has not demanded direct 
negotiations with the United States. Before it comes to that point, and 
the United States is faced with the perception of being blackmailed 
into negotiations, the administration should seize the initiative and 
not abdicate its responsibility to other nations and other 
institutions. Here again, the administration cannot afford to ignore 
the storm warnings and hope the crisis will simply blow over.
  The situation in Liberia raises a different, but no less volatile, 
set of issues. Rent by violence and reeling from the effects of a 
three-way conflict between an illegitimate government and the warring 
rebels who want to unseat it, Liberia is desperately seeking help from 
the United States. The President raised expectations for U.S. 
intervention during his highly publicized visit to Africa earlier this 
month, but it has been several weeks now since his return, and still no 
clear policy with regard to Liberia has emerged from the White House.
  The question of whether the United States should intervene in the 
Liberian crisis is fraught with unknowns and uncertainties. The 
humanitarian crisis calls out for relief. And yet the solution is 
elusive, and the danger of ensnaring U.S. military troops in an 
intractable civil war is not to be underestimated. Can the Economic 
Community of West African States, known as ECOWAS, raise a force 
sufficient to stabilize the unrest in Liberia? Could the United States 
help without sending in ground troops? Is the United Nations prepared 
to take over peacekeeping operations once the situation is stabilized? 
Can the United States afford to assist Liberia? Can the United States 
afford to ignore Liberia?
  The questions are tough, but procrastination is not an acceptable 
response. Hundreds of innocent civilians are suffering and dying as a 
result of the conflict in Liberia. Monrovia is in shambles. Last week, 
July 25, the President took the tentative step of ordering several 
thousand U.S. Marines to be positioned off the coast of Liberia, but 
how or whether any of those troops will be deployed remains unknown. 
Indecisive, half-hearted gestures serve no purpose. As long as there is 
an expectation that the United States will intervene, African states 
are unlikely to take independent action to deal with the situation in 
Liberia. The President needs to determine a course of action, he needs 
to consult with Congress and the United Nations on pursuing that 
course, and he needs to explain his reasoning and his strategy to the 
American people.
  In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week on 
July 24, GEN Peter Pace, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
termed Liberia ``potentially a very dangerous situation'' that poses 
``great personal risk'' to American troops. Any decision to send 
American troops into that war-torn country is a decision that must be 
carefully thought through and be made in concert with Congress and the 
international community, not simply presented to the American people as 
an after-the-fact notification.
  The situation in Liberia, and the other crises brewing around the 
world, require more attention and more explanation from the President 
than the usual off-the-cuff comments tossed to reporters at the end of 
photo ops. This is not a summer for the President to spend riding 
around the ranch in his pick up truck. This is not a time to play to 
the television cameras with the ``bring 'em on'' school of rhetoric. 
The problems confronting the United States require the President's 
serious and undivided attention. The American people deserve a full 
accounting from the President of where he stands on critical 
international issues, and how he intends to deal with them.
  Against the backdrop of the war in Iraq and the emerging crises in 
North Korea, Iran, and Liberia, the largely

[[Page S10886]]

forgotten war in Afghanistan--the largely forgotten war in 
Afghanistan--continues to grind on and on and on more than a year and a 
half after the United States rousted the Taliban from power and 
obliterated al Qaeda's terrorist training camps. Nearly 10,000 American 
troops remain in Afghanistan, with no end--no end--to their mission in 
sight--and no clear mission to accomplish--hunting the remnants of the 
Taliban and al-Qaida organizations. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein's sons have 
been killed, and one can only hope that we are closing in on Saddam 
Hussein himself, but in the wider war on terrorism, Osama bin Laden 
remains at large, and his organization continues to spread its venom 
throughout the Middle East and perhaps the world.
  The alert issued earlier this week by the Homeland Security 
Department is only the latest reminder that the al-Qaida terrorist 
network remains a potent threat to America and its allies. The warning 
included specific details--such as the fact that targets might include 
the East Coast of the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, or 
Australia and it raised the possibility that at least one of the 
planned highjackings or bombings could be executed before the end of 
the summer.
  In the face of such a frightening specter, it is somewhat unsettling 
that on the subject of terrorism, the President is talking tough to 
Iran and Syria, but he seldom mentions Osama bin Laden anymore.
  Is this another example of the President's efforts to change his 
message to divert the attention of the American people, the people who 
are watching through those electronic eyes above the Chair's desk? The 
imminent and direct threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was 
used to hoodwink the public into accepting the rush to war, but now 
that no weapons have been found, the President barely mentions them 
anymore. Instead, he is now talking about how regime change in Iraq was 
really the catalyst required to stabilize the Middle East. New day, new 
message.
  At the center of America's imperiled relations with its friends and 
foes alike is the Bush doctrine of preemption, which was first 
articulated in the September 2002 National Security Strategy. This 
unprecedented declaration that the United States has the right to 
launch preemptive military attacks against hostile nations in the 
absence of direct provocation sent shockwaves throughout the 
international community.
  The doctrine of preemption was the justification for attacking Iraq 
without provocation, but the ramifications of the policy go far beyond 
that nation. All so-called ``rogue regimes'' were put on notice that 
the United States was prepared to act to deter the development of 
weapons of mass destruction that could be used against America.
  Suddenly, the elite club of nations that formed the President's 
``axis of evil'' found itself caught in the cross hairs of the U.S. 
military. And just as quickly, the hollowness of the doctrine was 
exposed. Iraq could be attacked at will because it did not have nuclear 
capability. North Korea called for restraint because it plausibly did 
have nuclear capability. Iran was a question mark. Predictably, both 
North Korea and Iran, seeing the writing on the wall, began to scramble 
to accelerate their nuclear programs. In retrospect, the doctrine of 
preemption is beginning to look more and more like a doctrine of 
provocation.
  Against this background, the storm clouds of international 
instability are massing. America's military forces are stretched thin 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military leadership is absorbed with Iraq. 
Our military resources, both financial and personnel, are strained to 
the breaking point. With the exception of Britain, our allies are 
reluctant to commit significant resources or manpower to an operation 
in Iraq in which the United States has a stranglehold on authority and 
decision-making. The executive branch is preoccupied with the 
occupation of Iraq and seems paralyzed when it comes to meaningful 
action to deal with North Korea or Iran or Liberia. Afghanistan and the 
global war on terror have seemingly been relegated to the status of 
afterthoughts. America's foreign policy appears to be adrift in an 
increasingly tumultuous sea of international turmoil. Meanwhile, the 
national terror threat continues to hover uneasily in the ``elevated 
range'' amid new warnings of terrorist attacks being plotted against 
commercial aircraft.
  In this moment of great potential peril, the President is preparing 
to retire for a month to his ranch in Texas. The question needs to be 
asked: Who's minding the White House?
  In a short time, the Senate will recess for the month of August. I do 
not think we should go very far. I hope that the international 
situation will remain stable, and that no new crises will erupt. But I 
do not pretend to be sanguine. I do not pretend to assume that all will 
be well.
  A rare combination of volatile and dangerous international events are 
poised to converge in the coming months. In large part, it is a storm 
of this administration's own making, fueled by the fear, confusion, and 
instability caused by the unprecedented and ill-advised doctrine of 
preemption. I only hope that the President and his advisers can summon 
the skill, the wit, and the leadership to engage and attempt to tame 
the elements of international turmoil before it is too late and we are 
swept up into the vortex of the storm.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Members, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________