The detonation of what North Korea claimed was a nuclear device last week should not have been a surprise as it has been evident for many months that the "Dear Leader," Kim Jong-il, had no intention of giving up his nuclear ambitions.
The New York Times reported that the explosion had given the administration of US President George W. Bush and much of Washington a "strategic jolt." But that was because official Washington hasn't been paying attention, consumed as it has been with Iraq, the Middle East, and the coming elections.
The critical question now is what the US and its allies should do next. None of the options is promising.
The North Koreans have been demanding direct talks with the US while the administration insists on dealing with Pyongyang through the so-called six-party talks in Beijing. Bilateral meetings have taken place during those talks, at the UN in New York, and could wherever the US and North Korea both have ambassadors.
All has been futile because the North Koreans are not serious about negotiating. What they want is evident: A peace treaty ending the Korean War of 1950-1953, which the US is willing to sign. Beyond that, they want a non-aggression pact, diplomatic relations with the US, a lifting of sanctions, an abrogation of the US-South Korea security treaty and all US troops off the Korean Peninsula.
Further, the North Koreans want to end the US-Japan security treaty and US forces withdrawn from Japan. Pyongyang has demanded that the Seventh Fleet be withdrawn from the Western Pacific. And they demand some sort of restrictions on US nuclear forces based at sea or on the US mainland.
For the US, most of those demands are not negotiable. And even if they were, there is no guarantee that North Korea, with its record of broken agreements, would give up nuclear weapons.
The US has already imposed trade and financial sanctions on North Korea; not much more could be done because Pyong-yang's economy is flat on its back. The North Koreans have already dismissed the threat of UN sanctions as meaningless.
While the US Army and Marine Corps are tied down in Iraq, the US Navy and Air Force have ample means to punish North Korea. Cruise missiles launched from submarines or B-52 bombers, all several hundred kilometers offshore, could severely damage North Korea's nuclear installations.
A small-scale "shot across the bow" warning or a large salvo fired for effect should be accompanied by an unambiguous US pledge that any North Korean move toward attacking South Korea would bring about the destruction of Pyongyang. That US assault could be conventional or nuclear. The danger of employing military force is that it could unleash the "Law of Unintended Consequences." Kim might become so desperate that he would order an attack on South Korea, causing untold casualties before his regime and forces could be destroyed.
The US and its allies have learned to live with Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, plus Britain and France, as nuclear powers. US adversaries have come to understand that a nuclear attack on the US would lead to retaliation and their destruction; thus they have stayed their hands. The same deterrence could be applied to North Korea.
In addition, North Korea would be roundly ignored by the US. No peace treaty, no non-aggression pact, no diplomatic relations, no trade or financial transactions, nothing. The authorities in Pyongyang would be given a telephone number and told to call when they are ready to talk seriously.
In short, this would take away Kim's favorite tactic, which is brinkmanship.
The ripple-out effect of the North Korean detonation will take some weeks to become clear. China has surely lost face because of the failure of the six- party talks that Beijing initiated. South Korea is in a quandary as Seoul's policy of appeasing North Korea has failed.
Tokyo, on the other hand, has acted decisively in line with its newly assertive international posture, banning North Koreans, North Korean ships, and North Korean goods from entering Japan.
Moreover, it seems likely that the Japanese will seek to tighten their alliance with the US.
A great unknown is the effect on Iran, which is seeking to be the next nation to cross the nuclear threshold. The campaign against nuclear proliferation has been weakened but how much is a question mark.
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under