[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 23443-23444]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               TESTING NORTH KOREA'S COMMITMENT TO PEACE

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss the momentous 
changes underway on the Korean Peninsula and to take note of the 
contributions of one extraordinary American public servant to the cause 
of peace there. Former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry stepped down 
this month as special adviser to the President on Korea policy, a role 
he assumed when our relations with North Korea were in crisis and when 
congressional faith in our approach to the Korean challenge was at a 
nadir.
  It was a job no one coveted. North Korea ranks as one of the most 
difficult foreign policy challenges we face.
  It was a job fraught with risk. Err too far towards confrontation, 
and you might send North Korea over the brink and start another war. 
Err too far towards conciliation, and your initiative might be mistaken 
for appeasement, emboldening the North and undermining political 
support at home.
  Under Bill Perry's leadership, the U.S. launched a hard-headed 
initiative designed to test North Korea's willingness to abandon the 
path of confrontation in favor of the road to peace. From its 
inception, the Perry initiative was predicated on maintenance of a 
strong military deterrent. But Dr. Perry recognized that deterrence 
alone was not likely to lure North Korea out of its shell and reduce 
the threat of war.
  The Perry initiative was designed and implemented in concert with our 
South Korean and Japanese allies, and it continues to enjoy their full 
support.
  The results of this comprehensive and integrated engagement strategy 
have stunned even the most optimistic observers.
  The year began with a mysterious and unprecedented visit by Kim Jong-
il to the Chinese Embassy in Pyongyang. Over the course of a four-hour 
dinner, Kim made it plain that the year 2000 would see a shift in the 
North's approach to reviving its moribund economy and ending its 
diplomatic isolation.
  In quick succession, Kim hosted Russian President Putin and then 
South Korean President Kim Dae-jung. The historic Korean summit meeting 
in Pyongyang was a tremendous victory for South Korean President Kim 
Dae-jung's ``Sunshine Policy'' and a validation of Perry's engagement 
strategy. It is fitting that President Kim Dae-jung was just awarded 
the Nobel Peace prize for his life-long efforts on behalf of peace and 
democracy on the Korean peninsula.
  With the rapid emergence of Kim Jong-il from what he admitted was a 
``hermit's'' existence in North Korea, the prospects for a lasting 
peace on the peninsula are better today than at any time since the 
Korean War began more than 50 years ago. Time will tell.
  If fully implemented, the agreement reached in Pyongyang by President

[[Page 23444]]

Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il promises to reduce tensions in this former 
war zone and enhance economic, cultural, environmental, and 
humanitarian cooperation.
  There are encouraging signs that the summit meeting was not a fluke:
  Family reunification visits are proceeding, albeit at a pace that is 
slower than the families divided for 50 years desire or deserve.
  Ground will be broken soon to restore rail connections across the 
DMZ, restoring trade and communication links severed for 50 years.
  A follow-on meeting of the North and South Korean Defense Ministers 
in September led to an agreement to resume military contacts and to 
explore confidence building measures along the DMZ, including 
notification of exercises and creation of a North-South hot-line.
  Planning is proceeding smoothly for next year's North-South summit 
meeting in Seoul.
  There has also been progress in U.S.-North Korean relations. An 
historic meeting between President Clinton and senior North Korean 
military officer Cho Myong-nok occurred this month in Washington, 
setting the stage for next week's first ever visit to the North by an 
American Secretary of State.
  Mr. President, this flurry of diplomatic activity has been dismissed 
by some critics as all form, and no substance. They marvel at our 
willingness--and that of our South Korean ally--to provide food aid to 
a despotic regime that continues to spend precious resources on weapons 
and military training rather than tractors and agricultural production.
  No one condones the North Korean Government's callous disregard for 
the suffering of its own people. And obviously, much work remains to be 
done--especially in the security realm--to realize the hope generated 
by the summits. The North has not withdrawn any of its heavy artillery 
poised along the Demilitarized Zone.
  It has not halted provocative military exercises. It has not yet 
ended all of its support for terrorist organizations.
  And, although the North did reaffirm its moratorium on long-range 
missile testing this month in Washington, it has not stopped its 
development or export of long-range ballistic missile technology. North 
Korea's missile program continues to pose a serious threat not only to 
our allies South Korea and Japan, but also to other nations confronting 
the odious clients of North Korea's arms merchants.
  All of these issues must be addressed if we are to forge a lasting 
peace on the Korean peninsula.
  Our efforts to engage North Korea must ultimately be matched by 
reciprocal steps by the North. Engagement is not a one-way street.
  But the question is not whether North Korea is a desirable partner 
for peace. Kim Jong-il has all the appeal of Saddam Hussein. The 
question is how we manage the North Korean threat.
  I can't imagine how the situation would be improved if we did not 
offer North Korea a chance to choose peace over truculence. I can't 
imagine how the situation would be improved in any way if North Korean 
children were dying in droves from malnutrition and disease as they 
were prior to the launch of the U.S.-funded World Food Program relief 
efforts.
  Mr. President, we should not discount the importance of the recent 
diplomatic developments on the peninsula. How soon we forget that it 
was a process called glasnost--openness--combined with maintenance of a 
strong NATO alliance, which ultimately brought about the demise of the 
Soviet Union and the reunification of East and West Germany.
  Information about the outside world is hard to come by in North 
Korea, just as it was hard to get in the Soviet Union before detente 
opened the window and let the Soviet people catch the scent of the 
fresh air of freedom.
  Perhaps dialog with North Korea and greater openness there will bring 
about a similar result. If so, we will have Secretary Perry to thank 
for his role in getting that dialog jump-started after it had stalled 
amidst mutual suspicions and acrimony during the mid-1990s.
  Mr. President, in closing I would like to extend my profound thanks 
to Bill Perry for the way he carried out his responsibilities. He 
answered the call to public service two years ago, trading the comfort 
of northern California for the landmine-strewn terrain of Washington 
and North Korea. He has conducted himself with honor and a strong sense 
of duty. He will be missed.
  The stakes on the peninsula are high. Events there will not only 
shape the security environment of Northeast Asia, but also affect our 
decision whether to deploy a limited national missile defense, and if 
so, what kind of defense. From my perspective, it would be a great 
accomplishment if we could neutralize the North Korean missile threat 
through diplomacy rather than spend billions of dollars to construct a 
missile defense system which might do more harm to our national 
security than good.
  I wish Secretary Albright and her new Korea policy adviser Wendy 
Sherman well as they strive to build on the momentum generated over the 
past few months. It is a tough job, but it is incumbent on us to test 
North Korea's commitment to peace.

                          ____________________