Comments on Geoffrey K. See “An East Asian development fund for North Korea?” 25/07/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/07/25/an-east-asian-development-fund-for-north-korea/
The issue of North Korea has been in a vicious cycle: it is weak and becomes weaker and weaker and worries about its own security and survival; as a result, it has been developing nuclear weapons; its nuclearisation led to sanctions; any dialogues have not assured North Korea's fear of its security.
It is unlikely that a North Korea development fund would be able to allay its security fears in the current international circumstance.
There is currently no mechanism for North Korea to believe its security can be guaranteed.
Until it really feels that, it is unlikely to trust such a development fund. It may feel threatened by that.
Is there any way to assure North Korea’s security and leads to its giving up nuclear weapons and programs?
Maybe the parties involved in the six parties should make a collective guarantee of the security of both Koreas and the US then withdrawal its forces from the Korea peninsular as a gesture.
The international community including global and regional powers have tried various methods and so far they have shown unsuccessful. A collective security guarantee may be the only pragmatic way to successfully resolve the tension in the Korea peninsular.
A denuclearised and stable Korea peninsular is in every party’s interest.
Once North Korea feels no external threats to its security, it may see the benefits of trade and engagement with the outside world. That may lead to its integration with the international community.
Showing posts with label denuclearisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label denuclearisation. Show all posts
2009-07-06
Respect the six party forum
Comments on Chung-in Moon “Obama’s North Korea policy and the June 15 South-North Joint Declaration”, 5/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/05/obamas-north-korea-policy-and-the-june-15-south-north-joint-declaration/
If the current situation if that "the deep concern is that any military escalation might not end in a conventional military conflict as North Korea nears the possession of operational nuclear weapons", then imagine what would hold for the future if North Korea's nuclear programs are more advanced and it becomes a full nuclear power? What could international community do then if North Korea continues to act in the way as it has done recently?
The summit diplomacy by US, the two Koreas only is unlikely to work in the long term, but only generates short term confusions. While there have been short comings of the six party talks, that forum may be the only effective way to further progress the denuclearisation issue in the Korea peninsular, because Japan, China and Russia will also be affected by what will happen to North Korea and in the Korea peninsular.
It seems a little too early and premature to specify how the two Koreas should be unified at this moment. As the article states already, North Korea views the US stated support of unification on those conditions as a hostile move to foster regime transformation in the North and to facilitate ‘Korean reunification through absorption’ a la mode Germany. It is unlikely to accept that in the short term.
The issue of unification should be deferred until the denuclearisation issue has been resolved successfully. The unification issue should be left for the two Koreas to decide, but for the foreseeable future, the interests of the two sides need to be respected.
If the current situation if that "the deep concern is that any military escalation might not end in a conventional military conflict as North Korea nears the possession of operational nuclear weapons", then imagine what would hold for the future if North Korea's nuclear programs are more advanced and it becomes a full nuclear power? What could international community do then if North Korea continues to act in the way as it has done recently?
The summit diplomacy by US, the two Koreas only is unlikely to work in the long term, but only generates short term confusions. While there have been short comings of the six party talks, that forum may be the only effective way to further progress the denuclearisation issue in the Korea peninsular, because Japan, China and Russia will also be affected by what will happen to North Korea and in the Korea peninsular.
It seems a little too early and premature to specify how the two Koreas should be unified at this moment. As the article states already, North Korea views the US stated support of unification on those conditions as a hostile move to foster regime transformation in the North and to facilitate ‘Korean reunification through absorption’ a la mode Germany. It is unlikely to accept that in the short term.
The issue of unification should be deferred until the denuclearisation issue has been resolved successfully. The unification issue should be left for the two Koreas to decide, but for the foreseeable future, the interests of the two sides need to be respected.
2009-06-18
New thinking and new strategies to denuclearisation the Korea peninsular
Comments on Ken Jimbo “Rejecting high-risk coexistence with North Korea”, 17/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/17/rejecting-high-risk-coexistence-with-north-korea/comment-page-1/
This is an excellent article and Ken Jimbo has really injected new strategic thinking into considering practical options to deal with the North Korea regime and the denuclearisation in the Korea peninsular.
However, the six-party framework is important and Russia should be included as an important partner in the process, although some matters could be decided among if others if they only concern them.
There is an urgent need for a new approach to the six party talks to achieve denuclearisation in the Korea peninsular. We need practical and pragmatic strategies that really work.
The most important isue is to assure China that the other party members are with it in dealing with any challenges. If China’s is really resolute and the five are a united front, the denuclearisation issue should not be too difficult.
This is an excellent article and Ken Jimbo has really injected new strategic thinking into considering practical options to deal with the North Korea regime and the denuclearisation in the Korea peninsular.
However, the six-party framework is important and Russia should be included as an important partner in the process, although some matters could be decided among if others if they only concern them.
There is an urgent need for a new approach to the six party talks to achieve denuclearisation in the Korea peninsular. We need practical and pragmatic strategies that really work.
The most important isue is to assure China that the other party members are with it in dealing with any challenges. If China’s is really resolute and the five are a united front, the denuclearisation issue should not be too difficult.
2009-06-08
Hard and effective sanctions against DPRK are the only way left
Comments on Ron Huisken “Is Pyongyang reacting to or shaping events?” 6/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/06/is-pyongyang-reacting-to-or-shaping-events/
It is disappointing that the UNSC has been so slow in coming up with a new sanction resolution. The slowness and indecisiveness of UNSC may create an impression that the international community is unable to effectively deal with DPRK and its missile and nuclear tests. That is unfortunate, no matter who have been holding up the UNSC process.
China should realise that it has lost its kind and subtle influence over DPRK and continue its past strategies will not work. DPRK appears to have got an upper hand over whatever China’s strategies in the six party talks have been. It can only be forced to the negotiation table through hard and effective sanctions. So China needs to fundamentally reconsider its approaches. Fearing the implications of the collapse of DPRK can only encourage it to act more reckless and ignore anyone’s advice.
There should no longer be any illusions over the current DPRK leadership. The solidarity of the international community is the only way to deal with DPRK reckless gambles to take the advantages created by any inconsistency within the international community.
It is disappointing that the UNSC has been so slow in coming up with a new sanction resolution. The slowness and indecisiveness of UNSC may create an impression that the international community is unable to effectively deal with DPRK and its missile and nuclear tests. That is unfortunate, no matter who have been holding up the UNSC process.
China should realise that it has lost its kind and subtle influence over DPRK and continue its past strategies will not work. DPRK appears to have got an upper hand over whatever China’s strategies in the six party talks have been. It can only be forced to the negotiation table through hard and effective sanctions. So China needs to fundamentally reconsider its approaches. Fearing the implications of the collapse of DPRK can only encourage it to act more reckless and ignore anyone’s advice.
There should no longer be any illusions over the current DPRK leadership. The solidarity of the international community is the only way to deal with DPRK reckless gambles to take the advantages created by any inconsistency within the international community.
2009-05-26
The North Korea regime must change its behaviour to survive
Comments on Mark Jacobs and Shiro Armstrong’s comments on “Roos to Japan” by Tobias Harris, 25/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/25/roos-to-japan/
I think the members of the six parties may all have failed on the NK nuclear issue.
The world must be tired of being held as hostage by the current NK leadership. The carrot era is gone and now stick must be used. Many have been so frustrated by its missile tests, now the second and more powerful nuclear test, after it was supposed to have dismantled its facility.
China needs to realise that the NK cannot be accommodated in any other way except that all parties must act together and be prepared to use all measures, including the last resort, to denuclearise the Korea peninsular, and to prevent any further proliferation.
China needs also to prepare itself for the worst that it may have to open its borders with NK for receiving many millions of refuges, and other countries, especially the US, Japan and Russia must be prepared to help China and Korea if that ever happens.
The UN Security Council should decide three things now. The first is to authorise the six parties for any measures they decide are appropriate to achieve the denuclearisation of the Korea peninsular, so there is no need for any future delay. The second is a call for sanctions against NK, except basic humanitarian aid. The six party members should immediately enforce the sanctions.
Lastly, the UN and the six party members should be prepared for the worst that there might be a need for a regime change, if NK were to continue its reckless provocations.
Besides, the US, China, Russia and the two Koreas must establish a new arrangement for the peace and stability of the Korea peninsular. Some key components of such a new peace agreement need to include the collective guarantee of the security of the two Koreas, if that is what the two sides want and the consequential withdrawal of the US forces from the peninsular. The withdrawal of the US forces is premised on the security guarantee of the South side from the agreement.
Only this will create a long lasting peace and stability in the North East Asia region. How the two Koreas achieve their unification will be a matter for them to sort out.
I think the members of the six parties may all have failed on the NK nuclear issue.
The world must be tired of being held as hostage by the current NK leadership. The carrot era is gone and now stick must be used. Many have been so frustrated by its missile tests, now the second and more powerful nuclear test, after it was supposed to have dismantled its facility.
China needs to realise that the NK cannot be accommodated in any other way except that all parties must act together and be prepared to use all measures, including the last resort, to denuclearise the Korea peninsular, and to prevent any further proliferation.
China needs also to prepare itself for the worst that it may have to open its borders with NK for receiving many millions of refuges, and other countries, especially the US, Japan and Russia must be prepared to help China and Korea if that ever happens.
The UN Security Council should decide three things now. The first is to authorise the six parties for any measures they decide are appropriate to achieve the denuclearisation of the Korea peninsular, so there is no need for any future delay. The second is a call for sanctions against NK, except basic humanitarian aid. The six party members should immediately enforce the sanctions.
Lastly, the UN and the six party members should be prepared for the worst that there might be a need for a regime change, if NK were to continue its reckless provocations.
Besides, the US, China, Russia and the two Koreas must establish a new arrangement for the peace and stability of the Korea peninsular. Some key components of such a new peace agreement need to include the collective guarantee of the security of the two Koreas, if that is what the two sides want and the consequential withdrawal of the US forces from the peninsular. The withdrawal of the US forces is premised on the security guarantee of the South side from the agreement.
Only this will create a long lasting peace and stability in the North East Asia region. How the two Koreas achieve their unification will be a matter for them to sort out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
