At the end of last year, North Korea launched a satellite that was misinterpreted as the launching of a long-range missile. This caused a standoff between the US and North Korea and as a result, North Korea carried out a third nuclear test. Outside observers began emphasizing the military threat posed by the North and decided that the country was preparing to start a full-fledged war.
Of the countries on the UN Security Council, China and Russia have already implemented appropriate economic sanctions against North Korea.
However, the US has not given up and continues its military containment of the North with the intention of using strong measures to address the issue of its nuclear weapons.
North Korea will not submit to the US’ military threats nor make any concessions.
It has now adopted every countermeasure possible and has fully prepared itself for war. The country has made it clear that if its enemies attack with nuclear weapons, it will also respond with nuclear weapons.
However, some outside observers have interpreted this as meaning that North Korea plans to launch a nuclear attack on the US first.
When any side declares war, the ramifications need serious consideration and there is no way that North Korea would first attack the US with no provocation. If the US makes a pre-emptive strike on the North, it would have to consider a possible war with China and Russia. It is therefore clear that both sides have many factors to consider.
The US must consider that if war breaks out on the Korean Peninsula, the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty and the Moscow Declaration both stipulate that China and Russia would provide North Korea with military assistance.
Also, while directly attacking North Korea’s nuclear facilities may be the most effective way for the US to solve the North Korean nuclear problem, this would also mean that the US would have to consider the issue of radioactive contamination.
It is commonly assumed that North Korea is using nuclear weapons to force the US into talks as a way of gaining more economic assistance.
However, when the North conducted its previous nuclear tests, the US did not enter into negotiations and instead convinced international powers to increase economic sanctions on Pyongang.
Now that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons, the US would be giving the North official recognition of its nuclear-power status if it were to enter into negotiations.
The US has also made it clear that it will not engage in dialogue with North Korea before it gives up its nuclear weapons. However, given the current situation, there is no way that the North can back down and abandon its nuclear weapons.
Since the US continues to keep large numbers of troops on the Korean Peninsula in an attempt to use military force to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, and given the US’ continued tough attitude, North Korea has even less reason to give up its nuclear weapons.
When viewed in this light, using the six-party talks framework to bring about a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula will become increasingly difficult.
The current level of tensions between the US and North Korea, have not been seen since the 1950 to 1953 Korean War, and are not likely to subside until after the US and South Korea finish joint military exercises at the end of the month.
Lee Kyung Hee is an assistant professor at National Chin-Yi University of Technology.
Translated by Drew Cameron
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
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US