It happens that desperadoes hold groups of people hostage — for instance in planes or banks. Sometimes the police or military take some quick action or try some ruse to remove the danger. Sometimes they refrain from moving an inch for fear that hostages will be killed or some disastrous explosion set off. They may seek to talk the desperado out of his corner, perhaps offer to fly a plane hijacker to another destination after releasing his hostage. In many cases, they simply wait. Often — but not always — tiredness and exhaustion bring an end without drama.
Are we in a similar situation with North Korea? The big powers recognize that the threat or use of military power is not an option. Actions against key targets in North Korea could hardly be quick enough to prevent the regime inflicting horrible damage on South Korea and perhaps Japan. It need not use nuclear weapons. Seoul is within artillery range from the North. A sudden collapse of the North Korean state would also be a nightmare.
So what about talking? It has been done with varying success for many years and will no doubt be continued. The US has sometimes voiced threats and increased pressures, and usually thereby made the situation more dangerous. However, even during former US president George W. Bush’s second term, the US seems to have concluded that, to talk North Korea out of its nuclear program, the regime must be offered something that is more useful to it than nuclear weapons and missile programs. Conversely, the regime knows that for doing away with these programs, it can demand a great deal.
Over the years, the North Korean regime has had good reasons to fear efforts to eliminate it through actions from outside — military attacks or subversive activities. It seems wise, therefore, that guarantees against such actions may have been placed on the table. For the North Korean government, the question may be what offers the best security — nuclear weapons of their own or a piece of paper.
Perhaps a piece of paper could be made more attractive if it were signed by the great powers and combined with a peace treaty. Perhaps it would also be more credible if it were offered in the margin of the revival of international nuclear disarmament. While allowing civilian nuclear power and guaranteeing access to uranium fuel, it would have to comprehensively ban nuclear weapons, enrichment of uranium and reprocessing on the whole Korean peninsula.
The North Korean regime has often been isolated and ostracized. Although there have been good reasons for this, the country may well have felt humiliated. Against that background, the offer of diplomatic relations with the US and Japan, and normal relations with the world at large, may have considerable value as a part of a quid pro quo for dismantling the nuclear weapons program and for other forms of engagement — for instance, against the proliferation of nuclear and missile technology.
Many other offers can and are already part of the sweet talk: food and economic assistance of various kinds and energy assistance (oil and perhaps a resumption of the construction of two light-water reactors that were part of the 1994 agreed framework). There may be limits to the persuasive power of the Chinese government, but it is significant and there can be no doubt that Beijing has an enormous interest in using it. A nuclear-capable North Korea shooting missiles over Japan could push Tokyo in a direction that would sharply increase tensions with China.
So while the security council and everybody else will condemn the latest North Korean missile tests, a resumption of the talks will be sought rather than more sanctions. Perhaps former US president Jimmy Carter will go to Pyongyang again, reminding North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and the regime of the wishes of his father, Kim Il-sung. We must hope that in the six-power talks, formulas are found that can bring sufficient benefits to all sides. Such formulas are unlikely to include sufficient inspection to guarantee that no undeclared fissile material is hidden, but must have guarantees against any capability to produce more such material.
And what if nothing is enough to persuade the North Korean regime? What if it fears that nothing but a continued demonstration of its nuclear weapons and missile power will guarantee its existence? Then we shall have to be patient, seek to prevent proliferation and wait for another day.
Hans Blix is chairman of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission and former head of the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
RSS