Washington and Seoul Presuppose the Collapse of North Korea

Published in The People's Daily
(China) on 30 September 2014
by Yongji Song (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Darius Vukasinovic. Edited by Nicholas Eckart.
Since nuclear weapons are undeniably considered terrifying omens of mass destruction, it is the mutual desire of all members of human society to see them reduced, eliminated and to also see their proliferation stopped. It was on this basis that, in 1970, the “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty” (NPT) was put into effect. It can be said that the NPT is a solemn pledge to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, but that the true effectiveness of the treaty to date has left little for people to be optimistic about.

The United States shows two sides in its attitude toward the NPT. The first is tacit approval toward Israel’s nuclear development programs. The other is to enact economic sanctions against the nuclear development programs of countries like North Korea and Iran. It ought to be said that, if this treaty seeks fairness at the most basic level, then those countries with nuclear capabilities shouldn’t threaten those countries seeking to become nuclear-capable, and in return those without nuclear capabilities wouldn’t need to seek nuclear weapons in the first place. By the same token, nuclear-capable countries should seek ways to assist those without nuclear power to develop peaceful nuclear technologies — this is especially true where cooperation on medical advancements is concerned. But the truth is that North Korea believes itself and other non-nuclear countries, like Iran, are under threat from nuclear-capable nations. I think that this is a violation of spirit of the NPT.

Since the disintegration of the Soviet bloc, North Korea has never sought the protection of a “nuclear umbrella” from either Russia or China. Moreover, the DPRK’s original mutual defense treaty has long been dead and buried. The Chinese-North Korean relations of today, as well as North Korea’s relations with Russia, are far from the cordial state they entertained during the Soviet Cold War period. North Korea also cannot establish relations with either the United States or Japan. South Korea continues to maintain its military treaties with the United States, and the U.S. has provided a “nuclear umbrella” to protect it. South Korea has also been able to establish normal foreign relations with Russia and China, and has even been able to build various strategic partnerships with these countries.

A huge economic gap exists between North and South Korea. The GDP of South Korea is 42 times that of North Korea’s. Under these conditions, with the DPRK opposing the threat that the alliance between the U.S. and Seoul presents, Pyongyang can only concede that there is no possible way for them to maintain their traditional military equilibrium along the DMZ. The consequence is that North Korea now thinks the only way it can defend itself is by developing nuclear capabilities. In fact, North Korea is actually acting upon an economic policy of full nuclear dependency. It is also probably worth pointing out that the DPRK’s nuclear push will be unlike what we have seen previously in India and Pakistan. Here, the DPRK’s push for nuclear capabilities is very likely to trigger nuclear arms programs within South Korea and Japan as well. When this happens, we can expect any hostile outbreak within the North Asia region to eventually drag the rest of the world into peril along with it.

We ought to act upon the North Korean nuclear issue immediately. Six-way talks over the DPRK’s nuclear program were held from 2003 to 2007, though after disagreements between Washington and Pyongyang flared up, the talks have been on a seven-year hiatus. The problem now is that the Obama administration wants to rely upon a policy of strategic patience. It wants to just put economic sanctions on the country, and pressure China into exerting its influence over Pyongyang. The U.S. is doing nothing of its own accord to try to resurrect the six-way dialogue process. Sitting back and just being patient on the issue is about as useful as setting the issue aside for good, or having no plan at all. Some people are even beginning to suspect that the United States’ real motives in this waiting game with the DPRK are actually part of its overarching plan to strategically encircle China.

Behind both the Obama administration’s “strategic game of patience” and the Park Geun-Hye government’s "realizing a new unified Korea that ensures everyone's happiness" theory also lies the “North Korean collapse theory.” These leaders think that if they can just go on applying the appropriate amount of pressure, then before long North Korea will simply cave in and fall apart. But it’s difficult to achieve any outcome on the international foreign politics front when one has no hopes for being able to negotiate with the party they’re having issues with. And when one’s military force is insufficient to overthrow an enemy government, then it’s difficult to force any kind of regime change. Of course, even minor spats between North and South Korea are likely to deteriorate into a full-scale war, and so any military solution to changing the DPRK’s government are completely out of the question. The only thing that can be done here is for everyone to return to the table and talk.

The United States, North Korea and South Korea all want change. North Korea has often made clear that the wishes of its deceased Chairman Kim Il Sung were that he never wanted to see nuclear weapons in the North Korean peninsula. North Korea should put its cards on the table and openly discuss its national defense issues, and the steps it should take to eradicate its nuclear materials. It should also seek to genuinely reopen six-way dialogue with the United States and other countries. At the same time, China and South Korea should begin to discuss the matter of establishing full free-trade agreements and the development of the Kaesong industrial zone. Such trade talks should also include not only Russia and China, but also North Korea — especially so where matters of bilateral economic cooperation and ways to reintegrate the country into the international arena are concerned. I hope that during the November meeting between Presidents Xi Jinping and Barack Obama, we will see some concrete progress on resolving the North Korean nuclear issue.


核武器作为致命的大规模杀伤性武器具有可怕的威力,因此,削减核武器,废弃核武器及禁止核扩散就成为人类社会的共同目标。在这一背景下,《不扩散核武器条约》于1970年开始生效。可以说,《不扩散核武器条约》在一定程度上对禁止核扩散有所贡献,但实际效果并不令人乐观。

美国在这方面表现出双重态度,一方面默认以色列的核开发,另一方面对朝鲜和伊朗的核开发采取制裁行动。该条约如果想要体现最起码的公平性,核国家就不该对无核国以核武器进行威胁,那些无核国就难找到拥核的动因。与此同时,核国家应该帮助无核国和平发展核技术,并提供医疗技术方面的合作。现实却是,朝鲜认为自己和伊朗等无核国受到核国家的核威胁,它认为这违反了《不扩散核武器条约》的精神。

谈到朝鲜,它在苏联解体以后不仅没能从中俄等获得“核保护伞”,而且其共同防卫条约实际上早已失效。现在的朝中、朝俄关系远不如冷战时期的中苏友好同盟关系,朝鲜还未能与美日建立外交关系。而韩国与美国维持着军事同盟关系,美国为其提供“核保护伞”,韩国还与中俄建立了正常外交关系,并在向战略伙伴关系发展。
朝鲜的GDP和韩国相差42倍,南北经济悬殊。在这种情况下对抗韩美联合,朝鲜判断,以传统兵力找寻均衡是不可能的。正因如此,朝鲜认为,为了保护国家安全,核开发是必须的,进而它也在计划和推进核经济并进政策。不过,正像印度的核开发引发巴基斯坦核开发一样,朝鲜的核开发很可能诱发日本和韩国进行核开发。这样,东北亚的核军备竞争将对东北亚乃至世界和平带来巨大威胁。

我们应尽早解决朝鲜核问题。为了解决朝鲜核问题,六方会谈曾于2003年至2007年举行,后因朝美意见分歧,会谈被中断7年之久。其间,奥巴马政府以战略性忍耐为由,要求对朝鲜进行经济制裁,并敦促中国发挥作用,但是它自己并不积极尝试重启六方会谈和韩美对话。与其说是战略性忍耐,不如说是无战略性搁置。人们甚至怀疑,美国对朝鲜的战略性忍耐是为了使包围中国的战略合理化。

奥巴马政府的“战略性忍耐”、朴槿惠政府的“统一鸿运论”背后都预设了“朝鲜崩溃论”的前提。它们以为,继续对朝施加压力,朝鲜不久就会崩溃。国际外交基于行为规范和茫然的希望来推进,难以取得预计效果。没有军事进攻难以实现政权更替,然而对与韩国唇齿相连的朝鲜进行军事攻击,将导致全面战争。因此,不能选择军事攻击,还是要回到对话上来。

朝鲜、韩国、美国都需要同时变化。朝鲜曾阐明过金日成主席的遗训是实现朝鲜半岛非核化,朝鲜应该开诚布公地磋商核废弃程序和自身的国家安全保障问题。有必要再度开启朝美间实际接触的六方会谈。同时,韩中自贸谈判应追加开城工业区原产地认证规定,并通过俄罗斯、韩国和中国,与朝鲜北方地区的经济合作,促使朝鲜与国际社会接轨。期待今年11月举行的习奥会谈能够取得朝鲜核问题的具体进展。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Luxembourg: Thanks, Daddy: Trump Is Imposing Putin’s Will on Europe

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Turkey: Pay Up or Step Aside: Tariffs in America’s ‘Protection Money’ Diplomacy

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Topics

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Related Articles

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

India: Will New US Envoy Help to Repair Ties under Threat?

France: Global South: Trump Is Playing into China’s Hands

Zimbabwe: What the West Doesn’t Understand about China’s Growing Military Might

Sri Lanka: Trump Is Very Hard on India and Brazil, but For Very Different Reasons