Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Follow Carnegie
- Search
- Global Resources
Global Centers
Languages
North Korea's recent disclosure of an active nuclear weapons program has led members of the Bush Administration and many observers in Washington to suggest that the North's program constitutes a violation of four international agreements. The implications of these violations depend on the details of the North Korean program, many of which remain unknown. In particular, the question of how advanced North Korea's efforts have progressed must be answered in order to determine whether North Korea is actually in violation of the letter of the following four agreements.
North Korea’s admission that it has an active nuclear weapons program in direct violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the 1994 Agreed Framework with the United States and the 1991 North-South Korean Denuclearization Agreement is a stunning development. North Korea’s open pursuit of nuclear weapons has the potential to quickly and permanently destabilize the security situation in East Asia and beyond. While it is still not clear if North Korea is currently producing weapons-grade materials, its renewed and now open admission that it is seeking nuclear weapons requires the United States, its allies and the entire world to quickly develop ways to confront North Korea’s program and prevent it from continuing.
In recent weeks, several assessments of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs have been released to the public. The following analysis compares the report from the U.S. Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), the dossier released by the government of the United Kingdom, the report from the Institute for Interational Strategic Studies and the Iraq chapter from the Carnegie study <I>Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction.</I>
After initial consolidation and restructuring, Russian industry is on the verge of a big change. While the first steps to gain productivity required specific Russian skills, Russian businessmen understand that the future calls for foreign technologies and skills. Some are bringing in managerial and technical expertise, and others are selling their companies to foreign bidders.
The Bush Doctrine affirms the legitimacy of a preventive strike and emphasizes the notion that "if you are not with us, you are against us." U.S. foreign policy, therefore, is no longer just about containment or supporting freedom fighters, but about shedding the multilateralism favored by the Clinton administration. Is the Bush Doctrine a sound and effective strategy in the war on terror?
The neoconservatives of the Bush administration have remained surprisingly determined on going to war with Iraq, despite the British insistence on UN involvement and Saddam Hussein's agreement to weapons inspections. Anatol Lieven considers what they hope to gain.
America's security remains under constant threat today from the Al Qaeda terrorist network and other Islamic extremists. Recent statements by the Director of Central Intelligence affirm that hundreds or thousands of Al Qaeda members are dispersed throughout the world, have re-established communications and support networks, and are actively planning new attacks against the United States. This is an enemy that operates from dozens of countries, from Hamburg to Manila, Khartoum to Karachi, and Buffalo to Portland. The single most important strategic criteria for military action against Iraq is whether or not such a course will aid or hinder U.S. efforts to prevent terrorist attacks.