Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I think the main action initially is really going to be through the U.N. Security Council
and in fact we've already seen a strong statement released earlier today
condemning North Korea's
actions. What we don't know yet is whether or not that condemnation
will lead to a stronger
resolution that might be passed by the Security Council and what
specific implementation
measures the Security Council might authorize as really essentially punishment for
North Korea's
defiance of past Security Council resolutions. One thing about the Security
Council resolutions that has been the case in the past is that
they're necessary as a
means by which to express disapproval, but they're clearly not sufficient in advancing
our efforts to come to grips with the challenge posed by North Korea's nuclear program and
its development and its continued development. So I think that the really hard part of the
puzzle surrounding North Korea at this point for policy makers is figuring out where the
space might be to fashion a strategy that would actually prevent further development
of the program. North Korea has removed a lot of this space
for diplomacy and response
to the test by taking a rather strong and
condition based approach to renewed diplomatic
engagement. They've laid down their conditions for what they would like to achieve in renewed
diplomacy with the United States. Those conditions are really not acceptable from a U.S. point
of view. I think the most challenging and difficult and sobering part of this is how
do you bridge the gap that might enable diplomacy
to be renewed alongside some of the coercive
measures that the Security Council will have to authorize.