Tough Talk on North Korea
BBC World Service
8 February 2015
KEVIN RUDD: I think we are looking at a step change. We’ve been on the railway tracks, if you like, towards a crisis for some time now. But if you stand back from it all and see this as the fourth North Korean nuclear test in a decade, when we look at the nature of the ballistic missile technology now being tested and the long range reach of such ballistic missiles, this is not business as usual. And, while it drops in and out of international news media coverage, the bottom-line is, against any rational analysis, this is one of the gravest emerging threats to global peace and security and deserves the utmost focus of the international community.INTERVIEWER: Now what’s interesting is that what hasn’t changed is the balance of powers and the fact that there doesn’t appear to be, does there, any mechanism to make North Korea listen, to put pressure on them, without, for example, punishing the vast majority of the people? What would you want to be done now?RUDD: So on the question of diplomacy and the question of actions – what next – a core element of this has to be is there any credible assurance, security assurance, that can be given to the DPRK to ensure regime survival? It’s difficult, it’s hard – some would say impossible. But that’s the position from which Pyongyang is coming from.INTERVIEWER: Now that’s interesting because that would suggest not so much involving China – so often described as the only ally, the only lever. But actually it’s America that has to do that. Therefore, America and South Korea have to once again get out the olive branch and offer it to Pyongyang?RUDD: I think the reality is we are looking at two dimensions of policy. One is what the United Nations Security Council did in an emergency session yesterday in New York and that is to provide a universal condemnation of the ballistic missile test, on top of its condemnations of the four nuclear tests. And remember that brings around the table Russia, China and countries even like Venezuela who are currently President of the Council. At the same time that does not preclude the possibility of: one, further sanctions activity; and two, further diplomacy with Pyongyang in terms of identifying whether there is a way out. These approaches are not mutually exclusive.INTERVIEWER: Exactly, they might not be mutually exclusive but, despite your very cogent argument for reasonableness and détente, there’s going to be very strong voices for stronger meat – for action, for self-protection. And you immediately get into the war of words that can escalate. It’s self-defence isn’t it? What’s the danger of that, where does that lead?RUDD: The reality is, when you look at the nature of the ballistic missiles being tested and the potential range of this long-range missile – previously called the Taepodong-2, going out to some 9000 kilometres. And if that is accurate then that puts countries like the west coast of the United States, northern Australia, western Europe as well as most of the countries of Asia within range. This is a common concern of the global community, not just the neighbours of the DPRK. The bottom-line is major powers historically involved in what’s called the ‘Six-Party Process’ must continue to deploy maximum bilateral pressure with the North Koreans. Secondly, the UN Security Council cannot break solidarity on this. But thirdly, understand this: that the regime up until now has indicated that it is impervious to diplomacy, impervious to the pressures applied so far because it sees it as axiomatic for regime survival. I think the most important statement made on this was when US Secretary of State Kerry went to Beijing and said the policy pursued so far by all of us engaged in quiet diplomacy with the North Koreans is not working. This is not marginal. I mean, for goodness sake, this is a threat and a problem infinitely greater than what we’ve been focussing on in Tehran in recent times.