Welcome to Dr Lincoln's blog

Welcome for visiting my blog. Hope you enjoy the visit and always welcome back again. Have a nice day!


Achieving real results: Balanced versus one sided approaches to nuclear and missile issues on Korean Penisula

Comments on Hitoshi Tanaka, JCIE: "Breaking the impasse with North Korea", 6/07/2017

While this post contains some good analysis of and proposals for resolving the nuclear issue on the Korea peninsula, I am afraid it still runs the risk that it remains in the realm of largely one-sided western thinking.
There are at least two areas to support such a conclusion. One is that it argues that China is able to apply much harsher sanctions but it has so far not done so. This may prove to be quite false. One could argue that that simply ignores the huge effort that China has made and is probably a handy excuse to use China as a scapegoat and for the US to take measures against china at will. Do people really think that North Korea will yield to harsh sanctions and gives up its nuclear and missile programs?
Further, is it right to ignore the effects on the ordinary people in North Korea of a complete cut off of trade by the international community that may starve the people and harden the resolve of the North Korean regime but may not be able to stop its programs?
Secondly, it only asks the North Korea to change but does not ask the side that the North Korea would argue and think to threaten or post threats to its security and existence to justify the development of its nuclear and missile programs as a response.
In comparison, it seems the joint proposal by China and Russia that demands both North Korea and the US/South Korea to make some compromise is more balanced and superior.
It is illogical and possibly irrational to only ask one side to compromise aimed at seeking a real solution, because that is unlikely to be a real solution and that may only prolong the resolution.
While we can argue that North Korea has been at fault for illegally developing its nuclear and missile programs, we run the risk of ignoring that continuing the same and one-sided approach may have been a significant factor that has so far prevented a successful resolution that we have been trying to achieve!

No comments:

Post a Comment