[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13910-13911]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              NORTH KOREA

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss recent events in 
North Korea. On April 5, the North Koreans tested a long-range Taepo 
Dong 2 missile, which traveled nearly 2,000 miles before falling into 
the Pacific Ocean. This test, which the North Koreans described as an 
attempt to launch a satellite into orbit, represented an improvement in 
the range of North Korea's missiles. In 2006, the Taepo Dong 2 only 
traveled 1,000 miles and did not successfully reach a second stage, as 
the most recent missile did.
  U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718 prohibits the country's use of 
ballistic missile technology, and the United Nations Security Council 
issued a statement on April 13 condemning the recent launch and calling 
on member states to implement existing sanctions against North Korea.
  In response, North Korea abandoned the six-party talks, promising to 
reactivate its nuclear program and never to return to the six-party 
negotiating table.
  Less than 2 weeks later, North Korea conducted a nuclear test. 
Between the Taepo Dong 2 test and the nuclear test, North Korea also 
launched at least five shorter range missiles. Intelligence reports 
also indicate another long-range test is in the offing for later this 
month or early July.
  So far, world response to this latest illicit behavior has been one 
dimensional, with leaders around the globe issuing condemnations of 
varying strength. President Obama issued a clear condemnation of North 
Korea's action, stating:

       North Korea's ballistic missile programs pose a great 
     threat to the peace and security of the world and I strongly 
     condemn their reckless action.

  Secretary Clinton echoed the President's remarks and emphasized, as 
the President did in his April speech in Prague that--and I am 
quoting--``there are consequences to such actions.'' The question is, 
it is unclear what consequences the administration has in mind. And 
Susan Rice, our Ambassador to the United Nations, has been reluctant to 
commit U.S. support for the inclusion of sanctions in the U.N. 
resolutions currently being drafted.
  Despite North Korea's detonation of a nuclear device and test of 
long-range missiles designed to threaten us, the relationship between 
the United States and North Korea has not substantially changed. There 
are, however, several things that the United States could do to back up 
its condemnation of North Korea's reckless actions. Thankfully, we have 
a number of options available to us, and we are not faced with the 
``shoot first, ask questions later'' approach that former Secretary of 
Defense William Perry advocated in a 2006 Washington Post editorial, 
when he argued that the United States had no other option than to 
destroy North Korea's missiles on their launching pads.
  First, the United States could return North Korea to the state 
sponsor of terrorism list. North Korea was removed from this list when 
it agreed to a series of measures related to the disablement of its 
plutonium production at the Yongbyon reactor. Now that North Korea has 
renounced that agreement and restarted its nuclear program, there is no 
reason it should not return to that list.
  President Obama indicated his support for this type of strategy on 
the campaign trail, saying:

       If the North Koreans do not meet their obligations, we 
     should move quickly to reimpose sanctions that have been 
     waived, and consider new restrictions going forward.

  Second, the United States could reimpose financial sanctions on high-
level North Korean officials and banks affiliated with the North Korean 
Government. In March 2007, the U.S. Treasury ordered U.S. companies and 
financial institutions to terminate their relationships with Banco 
Delta Asia over alleged links between the bank and the Government of 
North Korea and froze certain funds of high-ranking North Korean 
officials.
  Third, the United States could expand defense and nonproliferation 
initiatives. President Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen 
recently argued in the Washington Times for reversing President Obama's 
deep cuts to missile defense programs. I agree with Secretary Cohen 
that the President's $1.4 billion of cuts do not send the right signals 
to those who seek to threaten us, especially those who tout ballistic 
missiles as the chief element of their threats.
  President Obama, in direct support of U.N. Security Council 
Resolutions 1695 and 1718, could also expand interdiction and 
intelligence cooperation under the Proliferation Security Initiative 
with our new partner, South Korea.
  As the President said in Prague:

       Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words 
     must mean something.

  These commonsense steps would send a clear message to the North 
Koreans and their partners in proliferation that the United States is 
serious when it repeatedly refers to consequences and is willing to 
employ all measures and its full leverage in order to influence North 
Korea and avoid conflict.

[[Page 13911]]

  Of course, the United States should work with the international 
community to enlist its support for increasing pressure on the North 
Koreans, and the administration has signaled its support for a 
multilateral approach through its focus on working through the United 
Nations. But this approach is already limited by North Korea's history 
of disregarding U.N. action and by continued Russian and Chinese 
waffling. I am not convinced new U.N. resolutions would be treated any 
differently by North Korea than the ones it has already ignored. Its 
record has led some to question whether a regime so willing to wreak 
famine and destruction on its own people is not beyond the traditional 
application of ``carrot and stick'' diplomacy.
  Moreover, our effort to work with other nations does not excuse us 
from the responsibility to act ourselves. If Russia or China will not 
sanction North Korea, is that any argument that the United States 
should not? Of course not. We can offer nations attractive terms for 
their support, such as help in dealing with increased flow of North 
Korean refugees, trade incentives, or enhanced military-to-military 
cooperation, such as revoking the misguided Obey amendment and allowing 
Japan to purchase an export variant of the F-22 fighter. However, if 
other nations conclude that holding North Korea accountable is not in 
their interest, then we must not let that prevent us from doing what is 
best in our interest.
  The gravity of events in North Korea is only increased by the similar 
disagreement between the international community and Iran on the 
subject of its nuclear program. If strong words are followed by weak 
and ineffective action toward North Korea, why should Iran expect 
different treatment? Conversely, if we display resolve and fortitude in 
confronting a belligerent North Korea that uses nuclear explosions and 
ballistic missiles as foreign policy tools, we send a powerful message 
to the rest of the world of our sincere commitment to nonproliferation 
and regional stability. This is doubly important considering the well-
known cooperation between North Korea and Iran on a variety of illicit 
programs.
  While some debate the proper U.S. response, I believe one thing is 
certain: Past negotiations have not been successful. North Korea has 
not been an honest negotiator, preferring to use, instead, ``missile 
diplomacy'' to spark international panic and extract a concession--
typically fuel or grain shipments--from a worried international 
community. This process, in various permutations, happened in 1993, 
1994, 1998, 2006, 2007, and it may repeat itself in 2009.
  For those who would not repeat the blunders of the past, North 
Korea's actions have forced an unwelcome choice on the world: either 
North Korea is a threat and we must take actions across all fronts to 
isolate the regime and defend our Nation and our allies against its 
considerable capabilities or these actions are the benign outbursts of 
a misunderstood regime.
  The President has clearly said that North Korea poses a threat to 
world peace and security. It is now a question of matching action to 
rhetoric.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________