Second comments on David Kelly “Costs of maintaining stability in China”, 23/05/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/05/23/costs-of-maintaining-stability-in-china/
After some thought about the article, I think the title might be more pertinent if it is called "Costs of maintaining stability in a wrong way in China".
The current title gives the impression that the costs outweigh the benefits, but implicitly implying no costs of not maintaining stability.
The post on Thailand's recent unrests following is a useful and timely reminder the costs of not maintaining stability.
And the potential costs in China would be much far greater by some factors.
Of course, I am not saying the way the Chinese government has relied on is a good one.
Clearly it can do better with much lower costs.
The last paragraph may be unfortunately misinterpreted by some:
“The Tsinghua report indicates that concern about the negative impact of institutionalised state paranoia is rising in influential, even official, circles. The time has clearly come for the pendulum to swing of in favour of seeking long-term reductions in tension rather than quick fixes. The international policy community needs to develop thinking and strategies that are sympathetic to this trend.”
Showing posts with label peace and stability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peace and stability. Show all posts
2010-05-25
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.
2009-05-27
Strategic thinking needs to be really strategic
Comments on Han Sung-joo “North Korea: strategic thinking, strategic response”, 27/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/27/north-korea-strategic-thinking-strategic-response/
While Han Sung-joo's article is very much focused on Republic of Korea (RoK) and its alliance with the US in response to the North on the Korea peninsular peace and stability issue, the issue is really very much beyond that context. Indeed it is much wider and broader.
North Korea has so far successfully explored the weaknesses of the other members of the six party group. It appears that the North gained substantial concessions from the group and at the same time has kept and further developed its nuclear capacity and capability. In the end, it slapped at everyone’s face through the recent test of a second nuclear device and the defiant lunch of missiles. This has made the whole processes of the six party talks in the past years laughable.
North Korea’s escalation on its nuclear and missile development to defy the international community is serious and cannot be tolerated. The whole international community must act and act urgently.
If the Republic of Korea is to think and respond strategically, it needs to go beyond the conventional US alliance as a passive response to the North nuclear issue. It should consider more strategically about the security issue not only in the Korea peninsular, but also in the broader Northeast Asia, at the least.
I am not a security expert, but the North appears to have used the US presence in Korea as pretence for many things, including its development of nuclear and missile capability. Now the North has declared that it will no longer be bound by the armistice accord made to end the Korea war in the early 1950s, following Korea’s decision to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
A long term solution to the peace and stability of the Korea peninsular will need to consider the impact of the alliance issue and create an environment that both Koreas will feel secure. In that context, a collective security guarantee for both Koreas by the six parties will be needed. Any alliances will need to be recast in that context.
While Han Sung-joo's article is very much focused on Republic of Korea (RoK) and its alliance with the US in response to the North on the Korea peninsular peace and stability issue, the issue is really very much beyond that context. Indeed it is much wider and broader.
North Korea has so far successfully explored the weaknesses of the other members of the six party group. It appears that the North gained substantial concessions from the group and at the same time has kept and further developed its nuclear capacity and capability. In the end, it slapped at everyone’s face through the recent test of a second nuclear device and the defiant lunch of missiles. This has made the whole processes of the six party talks in the past years laughable.
North Korea’s escalation on its nuclear and missile development to defy the international community is serious and cannot be tolerated. The whole international community must act and act urgently.
If the Republic of Korea is to think and respond strategically, it needs to go beyond the conventional US alliance as a passive response to the North nuclear issue. It should consider more strategically about the security issue not only in the Korea peninsular, but also in the broader Northeast Asia, at the least.
I am not a security expert, but the North appears to have used the US presence in Korea as pretence for many things, including its development of nuclear and missile capability. Now the North has declared that it will no longer be bound by the armistice accord made to end the Korea war in the early 1950s, following Korea’s decision to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
A long term solution to the peace and stability of the Korea peninsular will need to consider the impact of the alliance issue and create an environment that both Koreas will feel secure. In that context, a collective security guarantee for both Koreas by the six parties will be needed. Any alliances will need to be recast in that context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
