The negotiations intended to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear arms have all but collapsed and the finger-pointing to affix blame is under way.
At the same time, the conventional wisdom says the issue has been passed to US president-elect Barack Obama to resolve after he takes office on Jan. 20. Nowhere is it carved in stone, however, that he need do so. Walking away is a realistic option.
Cutting through the diplomatic verbiage enveloping what is known as the Six Party Talks, there’s enough fault to go around:
• North Korea has no intention of giving up its nuclear program, has tested a weapon, and has indicated that it plans to test again. Pyongyang’s purpose has been to string out the negotiations to see what it could get in oil and other economic bribes.
• China, praised for hosting the talks, has done little to press North Korea. Rather, Beijing has allowed the talks to muddle along while claiming that China has little influence over North Korea. That contention from a rising power is increasingly hard to believe.
• The US has negotiated as if North Korea were governed by rational people susceptible to Western logic. Instead, the North Koreans have scorned US pledges of diplomatic recognition, economic benefits and a peace treaty to replace the truce that ended the Korean War of 1950 to 1953.
• South Korea, no matter what government is in power, has been lukewarm toward the talks because (a) a large majority believes that their North Korean cousins will not use nuclear weapons against them and (b) reunification would mean the South would inherit the North’s weapons.
• Japan, although anxious about North Korean belligerence, nuclear weapons and missiles, has been hampered by weak governments and an obsession with North Korean abductions of Japanese snatched from their homeland.
• Russia, a patron of North Korea in the days of the Soviet Union, has been trying to reestablish itself as an Asian power by cleaning up its rusting navy, promoting arms sales and fostering trade and economic aid. So far, however, that has not translated into political influence.
US President George W. Bush held out hope last week that the Six Party Talks could be revived. While flying from Iraq to Afghanistan, he told reporters: “A success of this administration is to put a framework in place that has China, the United States, and South Korea and Russia and Japan all at the table, all saying the same thing.”
The president asserted that the process of the negotiations had been reversed.
“It used to be, we will give you what you ask for and hope that you respond,” he said. “Now it is, here’s what you must do if you want our help,” adding that North Korea leader Kim Jong-il “is trying to test the process.”
Bush acknowledged, however, that the Six Party Talks are over for his administration and would be passed to Obama.
“The key,” the president said, “is to be firm and patient with a structure that will enable the next President or the next President after that to be able to solve the problem diplomatically.”
Obama has been cagey about North Korea’s nuclear weapons, perhaps to avoid responsibility before he moves into the White House. He says on his Web site, www.change.gov, that “the gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes.”
Obama says his administration “will pursue tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions with all nations, friend and foe.” He pledges he “will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea.” No direct mention of resuming the talks.
Considering everything with which the new president must cope, such as the economy, energy, immigration, the environment, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, Russia, relations with the European Community and NATO, Israel and the Middle East, Canada and Mexico, and finding a new dog for his daughters, setting aside the North Korean issue might be tempting.
He could tell the North Koreans quietly that they appear not to be interested in negotiating in good faith. If they change their minds, let him know. Meantime, a threat to US forces, allies, and friends would be met with a forceful response in time, place, and method of American choosing.
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS