The recent six-nation talks held in Beijing were mainly aimed at resolving the nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula. Concrete outcomes were not achieved in the meetings because of discrepant views between Washington and Pyongyang, the two main parties in the dialogue. Leaving the unwavering North Korea behind, the other five countries came to the modest consensus that the Korean peninsula should be denuclearized, thus making dismantling North Korea's nuclear arms the theme of the talks. But is denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula even feasible?
First of all, we need to understand why Pyongyang wants to develop nuclear weapons. It has been attempting to do so since the Cold War, when it was still under the protection of China and the USSR. After China successfully tested its first nuclear weapon, Kim Il-sung twice asked Mao Zedong (毛澤東) to help his country develop nuclear arms, but Mao turned him down. Later, North Korea was found by US intelligence to have secretly run nuclear programs beginning in 1979. Toward the end of the Cold War, faced with Russia's retreat from East Asia and China's drawing closer to South Korea politically, Pyongyang speeded up its nuclear weapons program, resulting in the first North Korea nuclear crisis in 1994. Even after it signed the Agreed Framework that year, Pyongyang risked losing economic support because it continued to pursue its nuclear development.
North Korea developed nuclear weapons not as a threat to gain economic benefits; rather, it was the country itself that felt threatened. Despite being a communist country, Pyongyang lost financial support from the USSR, while China began using fuel and food as a control mechanism after the Cold War. Faced with economic bankruptcy and isolation in the international community, developing a nuclear program thus became an important security option for North Korea, because by doing so, it could deter Washington, curb Beijing's oppression and, furthermore, sabotage the Japan-US alliance by being a menace to Japan and fomenting Korean nationalism.
Under such circumstances, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula seems unlikely. First, we can follow the India-Pakistan model penned in 1998 and allow North Korea to have a limited number of nuclear weapons while preventing their export and cutting off all economic support before the International Atomic Energy Agency is allowed to execute intrusive and regular inspections. Formally entitled to possess nuclear arms, Pyongyang would not be able to blackmail for economic benefits with its unfinished nuclear programs anymore. Second, we can pursue democratization in the region. If we are reluctant to pursue democratization of the Korean Peninsula because we are afraid Kim Jong-il might feel threatened and therefore pursue a policy that would destabilize the region, we'd just be going backward in time. This would mean the bankruptcy of the Non-proliferation Treaty and the possible rampant nuclearization of Northeast Asia.
Liberalization and democratization of North Korea are not a part of current discussions about the nuclear crisis. If we exclude them from the agenda simply because we are worried that their impact on Pyongyang would endanger the stability of Northeast Asia, then not only denuclearization of the Korean peninsula would be impossible but the whole of Northeast Asia might pursue nuclear programs. Therefore, a political agenda set to democratize the peninsula in addition to the security agenda is essential to resolving the nuclear crisis and to establishing a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
Lai I-Chung is director of Foreign Policy Studies, Taiwan Thinktank.
Translated by Jennie Shih
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS