In October 2000, all seemed possible in US relations with North Korea. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made a groundbreaking visit to Pyongyang for discussions with Kim Jong-il on a possible missile deal. There was even talk of a follow-up visit by president Bill Clinton.
Almost six years later, the memory of Albright and Kim raising glasses to one another seems almost surreal as the two countries head toward what might be a serious showdown.
President George W. Bush has labeled as "unacceptable" North Korea's underground nuclear weapons test. He said the test "constitutes a threat to international peace and security."
In diplomacy, such wording often foreshadows decisive action against the offending party. In the long and usually frosty history of US-North Korean relations, the current tensions may be comparable to any period since the 1950-1953 Korean War, which ended with an armistice. Efforts by the North and South Koreans to reach a peace agreement have failed.
The Albright visit clearly was a rare high point but nothing came of her discussions on a possible missile deal and Clinton never made his proposed end-of-term visit to Pyongyang.
Any hopes for reconciliation with Pyongyang under Bush dissipated quickly, highlighted by his inclusion of North Korea in early 2002 in an international "axis of evil," along with Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
The sense of unease in Washington on Monday over the North Korean atomic test, apparently in the northeastern part of the country, evoked memories of the spring of 1994 when Pyongyang systematically curbed UN monitoring activities at its main nuclear site.
"We all thought we were going to war," said Lieutenant General Howell Estes, the senior US Air Force officer in South Korea at the time.
He was quoted by Don Oberdorfer, a veteran Korea watcher, in his book The Two Koreas. A hastily arranged, calm-the-waters visit to Pyongyang by former president Jimmy Carter in June 1994 helped ease tensions.
A breakthrough occurred in October 1994 when US negotiators persuaded North Korea to freeze its nuclear program, with onsite monitoring by UN inspectors. In exchange, the US, with input from South Korea and Japan, promised major steps to ease North Korea's acute energy shortage.
These commitments were inherited by the Bush administration, which made clear almost from the outset that it believed that the Clinton policy ignored key elements of North Korea's activities, especially the threat posed by the hundreds of thousands of troops on permanent duty along the Demilitarized Zone.
Trust between the two countries, never high to begin with, hit a low point in October 2002 when the State Department charged that North Korea had violated the 1994 agreement by secretly pursuing nuclear weapons through a uranium enrichment program.
In the ensuing months, North Korea defiantly ejected UN nuclear monitors, withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and restarted a nuclear reactor that US officials said was designed to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
There was an undercurrent of partisanship over the issue. Democrats blamed administration policies for the increasing tensions in Asia. They insisted on direct US-North Korean talks. The administration countered that direct US-North Korean discussions in 1994 under Clinton ended with an agreement that was brazenly flouted by Pyongyang not long after it was signed.
In 2003, the administration began seeking North Korean nuclear disarmament through a six-nation negotiation. In September last year, the six countries seemed to make substantial progress on a deal for the verifiable dismantling of North Korea's nuclear program in exchange for help to ease the country's economic isolation.
But Pyongyang has been boycotting the talks since the following November, blaming financial sanctions imposed by Washington for alleged criminal activity.
James Lilley, a Ronald Reagan-era ambassador to China and South Korea, said Bush would not respond to the current crisis the way Clinton did to the one in 1994.
The difference, he said, is that people now are not thinking of "buying them off, so much as thinking of making them pay a price."
Daniel Poneman, a senior National Security Council official under Clinton, said direct talks without conditions are in order.
"I believe that it's very much in our interest to express our views directly, especially to a regime as isolated as this one," he said.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with