However, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is, after all, not Iraq, the Korean nuclear problem is far more complicated than the Iraq issue. The problem would not be settled smoothly by whatever means.

Moral situations are different.

Iraq first launched a war against Iran because of border disputes, later it invaded its neighboring country Kuwait, so morally, not any country in the world stood on the Iraqi side. The American use of force against Iraq violated the Charter of the United Nations, most countries in the world did not approve of the US action, but "punishment" of Iraq implied that the attitudes taken by many countries against the American use of force were not so clear-cut. The DPRK has not committed aggression against its neighbors, nor has it launched wars, so there is no moral basis for the United States to use force against the DPRK.

Causes of disputes are different.

The United States claimed that Iraq used chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran War and in its suppression of the Kurdish people, under the related resolutions passed by the United Nations after the Gulf War, Iraq was not allowed to develop and possess arms of mass destruction, otherwise it will constitute threats to its neighbors and the entire world. The case of Korea is different. The DPRK has not used any weapons of mass destruction. Korea holds that like any other sovereign states, it has the right of self-defense, no other country has the right to interfere. In media publicity, Iraq argues that it has no weapons of mass destruction, while Korea stresses its own rights and from time to time it announces the progress of its development and the circumstances regarding the tests of these weapons. The US Congress would, in most cases, strongly react to Korea's words and deeds, and would even give the utterance of threats. But since it is publicity and reaction to publicity, there would invariably be something exaggerated, no matter it is done out of whatever motives, so the outsiders need not take it to be rain when they see the wind.

The mindsets of neighboring countries are different.

In the process of US threat and attack on Iraq, the Middle East countries, except Iran and Syria, actually extended their support overtly or covertly, indirectly or directly, irrespective of their official attitudes. Although these countries worried that the United States would take advantage of the opportunity to expand in the Middle East its influence on and control of Iraqi oil, they all hoped to get rid of Saddam Hussein through US force, because Saddam posed more direct and actual threats to them. The question of the Korean Peninsula is quite another thing. Guaranteeing that the peninsula is nuclear free, solving Korea's security issue and safeguarding the peninsula's peace and stability are in the interests of all countries in the region. Perhaps even the Republic of Korea (ROK) would not support possible US "pre-emptive" attack on the DPRK, not to say China, Russia and Japan.

Potential consequences are entirely different.

During the Gulf War, the United States already badly battered Iraq, greatly sapped its vitality militarily and put it in a state of devastation economically, in the ensuing decade, Iraq gained its recovery and development under the watch of UN inspectors and the surveillance of US satellites and reconnaissance planes, Iraq's strength is no longer what it was before and is simply no match for the United States, Iraq's capability of retaliating its neighboring countries is extremely limited. Although militarily Korea is no match for the United States, its strength is much stronger than Iraq. According to reports from foreign News Agencies, Korea has a million-strong regular army and its weaponry and equipment are rather advanced. Seoul with a population of over 10 million is only 60-odd km from the 38th Parallel, once Korea was forced into a blind alley, the consequence would be inconceivable.

In reviewing history, people will discover that there is divergence between the US government and the two Parties in their views and tactics on the DPRK nuclear issue. In the eight years during the Clinton administration, US-Korean relations improved gradually. The US-Korean framework agreement on the Korean nuclear issue reached in 1994 greatly relaxed the Koran nuclear crisis, and cooled down the Korean nuclear issue for quite a period of time. In the later period, Clinton even planned to make a breakthrough in the Korean-US relations so as to build up his image, the visit to the DPRK by the former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made important progress, later Clinton's plan couldn't be realized due to the intervention by the Congress under the control of the Republican Party.

After Bush came to power, the relations between the two countries tended to become cold. It is until last year when Bush listed the DPRK as part of the "axis of evil" that both sides adopted a series of steps and caused the Korean nuclear problem to stand out again.

At present, the views inside the Bush administration were not entirely the same: Rumsfeld adopts a tough attitude, while Colin Powell reacts mildly, there are quite a few people in the academic circles who favor negotiation and those who favor war. The reversals and internal differences in US policy toward the DPRK have increased not only Korea's distrust of the United States, but also difficulties for the United States to use force against Korea.

Clearly, if the United States launched "pre-emptive" military attack on Korea, it would not have the moral support from the international community, and militarily it will take great risks. We should soberly ponder over the attitudes expressed respectively by the DPRK and the United States, over the process of contacts between the two sides and over the reversals emerged in the relations between the two countries.

It can be predicted that the tripartite (China, the United States and the DPRK) talks, in the first step they will try to get to know about each other, the negotiation will not succeed at one go; even if it breaks down once it starts, the situation will not become tense immediately, it is still too early to talk about US possible use of force against Korea.

(People's Daily April 26, 2003)