Hearts are fluttering once again among the disarmament folks over renewed hopes that North Korea will finally take the first step toward giving up the nuclear ambitions of its leader, Kim Jong-il.
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have visited Yongbyon, site of North Korea's primary nuclear facility. The US negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, has been received in Pyongyang. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (
Skeptics, however, have cautioned that not everything will go well. The Pyongyang regime has a long history of reneging on promises to other nations while keeping promises to the North Korean people, foremost of which is Kim's pledge to retain nuclear arms to deter what he sees as a US threat.
Graham Allison, who specialized in arms control as an assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton Administration and is now at Harvard, wrote recently that even if the Yongbyon plant is disabled, much remains to execute an accord reached in February by the Six Parties -- North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, and the US. It calls for Pyongyang to shut down all of its nuclear sites.
Allison warned: "Expect lengthy slogging through incomplete records, all in Korean script, missed deadlines, disputes about who can visit where, and all the other antics" that have frustrated those who have dealt with North Korea.
Confronted with this likelihood, the US appears to have evolved a new strategy, which is to play for time by adopting the North Korean tactic of talk, talk and more talk until Kim either gives up his nuclear weapons or his regime collapses. Whiffs of dissent have recently been wafting from Pyongyang, making regime change a possibility.
Said a US insider privy to this scenario: "The US will take note of North Korea's nuclear weapons but we will never accept North Korea as a nuclear nation. We will never tolerate a North Korea armed with nuclear weapons."
The game afoot has ruled out military action to destroy Pyongyang's nuclear sites. Bombs and cruise missiles could do enormous damage but would most likely trigger a North Korean attack on South Korea. Tens of thousands of South Koreans would die in artillery barrages before South Korean and US forces could overrun North Korean positions.
Instead, in this developing strategy, US negotiators will continue talking while implementing what might be called the five "Nots." The US will not:
■ extend diplomatic recognition to North Korea, thus depriving it of a status that Kim is said to be eager to attain;
■ sign a treaty replacing the truce that ended the Korean War of 1950 to 1953 because North Korea will not give assurances it will reduce its forces along the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas;
■ remove the threat of US nuclear weapons that could strike North Korea from submarines in the Pacific or with ballistic missiles or bombers based in the US;
■ offer substantial economic aid to a North Korea that has been stricken with famine, limping industrial output and financial disruption for a decade;
■ open trade and investment relations with a nation that, like China, could benefit from access to US markets, technology and capital.
The Bush Administration has already drawn fire over this strategy and can expect more, especially from China.
John Bolton, US President George W. Bush's former ambassador to the UN, echoed the so-called neo-cons in an article last week, asserting: "The Bush administration has effectively ended where North Korea policy is concerned, replaced for the next 18 months by a caretaker government of bureaucrats, technocrats and academics."
Chinese leaders have long said they will keep North Korea afloat. David Frum, of the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank, wrote that Beijing dreads a North Korean breakup.
"Chinese leaders know that such a collapse would unify the peninsula under a democratic government based in Seoul and aligned with the US and Japan -- for them, a terrifying outcome," he wrote.
Nor will North Korea roll over easily. Rodong Shinmun, a government mouthpiece in Pyongyang, said last week that North Korea's "mighty war deterrent for self-defense has become an invincible shield for curbing reckless war provocations of the bellicose forces at home and abroad."
Doesn't sound much like a nation ready for nuclear disarmament.
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers