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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS