In the days right after North Korea signed an agreement that would supposedly require its nuclear disarmament, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il made clear that he had no intention of giving up those weapons.
The consequences of that stance are likely to be far-reaching.
US President George W. Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, both having labeled the agreement a step toward getting North Korea to abandon nuclear arms, will most likely be shown to have been naive or, worse, deceptive.
No political leaders seem to have any idea what they will do if they are forced to accept North Korea into that small circle of nations with nuclear arms, a development that will change the balance of power in Asia.
Nor has anyone confronted the crack that a nuclear North Korea will cause in the nuclear non-proliferation regime that has stayed afloat for four decades. In particular, the example of North Korea will complicate negotiations with Iran on similar issues.
The agreement that North Korea signed in Beijing at the six-party talks with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US on Feb. 13 says Pyongyang "will shut down and seal for the purpose of eventual abandonment" its nuclear facilities and provide the other five with "a list of all its nuclear programs."
On that same day, however, the North Koreans, through their official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), said Pyongyang had agreed only to a "temporary suspension of the operation of its nuclear facilities." Further, North Korea ignored most of the other provisions of the agreement, such as denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula.
That began a steady drum roll of belligerent statements asserting Pyongyang's right to and need for nuclear arms. An official newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, charged that the US sought to dominate Asia "through preemptive nuclear attack."
KCNA said North Korea's "status of a full-fledged nuclear weapons state successfully realized the long-cherished desire of the Korean nation to have matchless national power."
In another dispatch, KCNA said: "Kim Jong-il punctured the arrogance of the US imperialists with a powerful nuclear deterrent."
On Kim Jong-il's birthday, a national holiday on Feb. 16, a Communist Party committee lauded him thus: "You have turned the homeland ... into a power having nuclear deterrent for self-defense and made the Korean nation emerge a nuclear weapons nation which no force can ever provoke."
At a banquet that evening, which was aired by the Korean Central Broadcasting Station, the president of the Supreme People's Assembly, Kim Yong-nam, toasted Kim Jong-il for, among other things, turning North Korea into "a military power that even possesses a self-defensive nuclear deterrent."
Still more: The North Koreans fell back on a time-worn argument -- the Americans made us do it. Using North Korea's proper name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), KCNA asserted: "US policy compelled the DPRK to have access to nuclear deterrence for self-defense."
Some observers question the value of statements from Communist officials. Experience has shown, however, that Communist leaders, when addressing their home audiences as in this case, tell the public what they really want their people to believe.
Former South Korean foreign minister Han Sung-joo has published an assessment of the reasons the North Koreans want nuclear arms. Writing in Time magazine, Han said:
● "Nuclear status is a political trophy for Kim Jong-il."
● "The nuclear program is intended to deter a possible external attack."
● "North Korea's nuclear capability gives it an upper hand in relation to the South."
● "The nuclear program is seen as a key to survival -- a way to block and prevent any outside attempts at regime change."
● "Nuclear weapons represent a powerful bargaining tool."
Han was politically correct in contending that this agreement was "better than no deal at all," which kept him reasonably in line with his government's position. He went on, however, to demolish any thought that Kim Jong-il will move toward abandoning his nuclear arms.
Instead, he points to "what North Korea sees as compelling motives to possess nuclear weapons."
He doubts that Kim Jong-il's regime will "agree to completely rid itself of nuclear equipment and material," including the eight to 12 nuclear warheads it is thought to have already produced.
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past