Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Thursday, March 8, 2001Bush takes tough stand
on North Korean policyThe issue: President Bush has expressed skepticism about North Korea and concern about its weapons buildup.
Since the leaders of North and South Korea met last June for the first time in 50 years and vowed to work for peace and reunification, relations with the Communist North have been suffused with a euphoric glow.
It appeared that under the mysterious Kim Jong-il the Pyongyang regime had suddenly abandoned belligerence in favor of coexistence with the South. For his part, the new leader of South Korea, Kim Dae-jung, adopted a "sunshine" policy of friendship and cooperation.
The Clinton administration picked up on that theme and came close to normalizing relations. Clinton even considered visiting North Korea, although it didn't happen.
The Bush administration has a different view. In his meeting with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung yesterday, Bush said bluntly but factually that the United States considers North Korea to be a threat to its security.
Bush said he is skeptical of the North Korean leadership and wary of the Communist regime's abilities to build and spread weapons of mass destruction. He said the United States would not immediately resume negotiations with Pyongyang.
The president said Washington expects to have a dialogue with North Korea "at some point in the future" but "any negotiations would require complete verification of the terms."
To this, Secretary of State Colin Powell added that negotiations would wait until the administration completed its review of U.S.-North Korean relations. He said Bush would not be "fooled" by North Korea.
Pyongyang's tactics have featured blustering threats alternating with vague pledges of cooperation with U.S. efforts to shut down its nuclear weapons and missile programs. In return North Korea has received thousands of tons of food aid -- needed to relieve widespread starvation -- plus fuel oil and a pledge to construct a nuclear power plant.
The June summit was followed by reunions of carefully selected Koreans who had been separated since the 1950 Korea War and by a few economic measures.
But neither North nor South has withdrawn its heavy concentration of troops along the Demilitarized Zone that has divided the two Koreas since the 1953 truce.
In the latest of a long series of threats, North Korea recently spoke of ending its suspension of missile tests, complaining that Bush was assuming a tougher posture toward Pyongyang and that the U.S. had failed to fulfill commitments under a 1994 nuclear agreement.
Bush's comments yesterday indicated that he had not been intimidated and would not be pressured into negotiations before he was ready.
That candor is welcome. The United States should not try to appease North Korea. Nor should it trade insults and threats with Pyongyang. In due course, Washington should advance proposals to reduce tensions on the Korean Peninsula, but they should not consist of unilateral concessions in return for unverified promises.
Communist North Korea is a bankrupt regime, but a dangerous and unpredictable one. Dealing with it calls for firmness and skepticism, coupled with a willingness to make concessions on a quid pro quo basis.
Rules on workplace
injuries are under fire
THE post-election honeymoon is over. The opening shot in what threatens to be protracted political warfare in Washington has been fired with the Senate's vote Tuesday to repeal new rules dealing with workplace injuries. The House followed last night with a 213-206 vote.
The Bush administration, which supported repeal, should get to work promptly on regulations that satisfy business' most serious objections while serving the purpose of worker protection.
The upper house voted along largely partisan lines to scuttle rules addressing injuries that often result from repetitive motion or strenuous lifting, such as carpal tunnel syndrome and back sprains.
Six Democrats joined all 50 Republicans to repeal the rules, which were issued by former President Clinton just four months ago. The action served notice that the Bush administration and its thin Republican majorities in both houses fully intend to advance their pro-business agenda over Democratic protests. But the administration may pay a price for such hard-ball tactics in terms of winning Democratic cooperation when it is needed.
Congress has conceded too much rule-making authority to administrative agencies and assertions of its authority to countermand onerous regulations are healthy.
The issue is whether this particular action is justified, and opinions differ widely. Republicans argued that the regulations were prohibitively expensive for business while Democrats termed them essential protection for workers.
Business' concerns about being saddled with expensive, excessive regulations are warranted and should not be ignored. Nonetheless, workers need protection from injury stemming from repetitive motions.
Perhaps there are advantages to starting off afresh on this issue, but Republicans can't get away with pretending that the problems do not require attention.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
Frank Bridgewater, Acting Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
