July 18, 2003
DPRK: THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY 'CANNOT AFFORD
TO WAIT'
KEY FINDINGS
** The U.S.' "moderate
reaction" to DPRK threats reflects either "arrogance" or
"caution."
** Commentators worldwide
favor a "peaceful and diplomatic resolution."
** China is playing an
"irreplaceable role" in the "tense situation."
** The "new
crisis" could "easily slide toward war."
MAJOR THEMES
Skeptics assail the U.S. policy of 'containing and isolating'
Pyongyang-- Although some writers
praised the U.S.' "calm and relaxed" attitude towards the DPRK,
critics alleged Bush sought to "liquidate Kim Jong-il's regime." While Russia's liberal Novye Izvestia
appreciated the U.S.' "quite reasonable and balanced" behavior,
Seoul's left-leaning Hankyoreh Shinmun accused the U.S. of
"refusing to talk to North Korea."
Singapore's Straits Times added the U.S. has not offered
sufficient "inducement or guarantees." Japan's moderate Yomiuri warned,
"without pressure, dialogue may soon result in deadlock."
A 'comprehensive deal through negotiations' is the 'most viable
way out'-- A "diplomatic
initiative" is necessary to end the crisis. South Korea's government-owned Daehan
Maeil proposed: "The
North would...give up its nuclear ambitions and return to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, while the U.S. would...provide security guarantees and economic
aid." China's official Global
Times predicted "the international community's mediation" will
avert war, while Japanese and South Korean papers urged Pyongyang to accept
"multilateral talks." Seoul's
moderate Hankook Ilbo supported a "face-saving compromise that
makes it easier for Pyongyang to renounce its nuclear ambitions."
China's 'proactive and constructive cooperation is
essential'-- Beijing is a key player because
it holds the "economic lifeline to the poverty-stricken North." South Korean papers urged China to "play
a more active role." Thai, Japanese
and Russian writers called China the "ideal mediator" given its
"more conciliatory" approach.
Hong Kong's independent South China Morning Post argued that
Beijing mainly wanted to avoid "the potential demise of a key buffer
state." Britain's conservative Times
contended China's main goal is to prevent "American intervention in
Beijing's backyard."
The North's 'threatening rhetoric' is 'too serious to
dismiss'-- South Korean papers
split regarding Pyongyang's threats.
Progressive papers agreed the "North is bluffing to bring the U.S.
to the dialogue table," but independent Joong-Ang Ilbo advised the
U.S. not to "diminish the significance of North Korea's statements as
bluffing." Papers can't decide
whether Kim Jong-il is a "complete crackpot" suffering
"political megalomania" or a "hardened poker player" whose
"ghastly regime" doesn't "operate according to normal levels of
international rationality."
EDITOR: Ben Goldberg
EDITOR'S NOTE: This
analysis is based on 62 reports from 18 countries over 1 - 18 July 2003. Editorial excerpts from each country are
listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "North
Korea's Menace Finally Has China's Full Attention"
The conservative Times took this view (7/16): "Beijing is acting at the increasingly
insistent urging not only of the Bush administration, but of Japan and South
Korea. The main impetus, however, comes
from China's altered perception of its own national interest. North Korea is a much sharper thorn in its
side than Beijing has cared to admit....
The reluctance to intervene has always courted the risk of American
intervention in Beijing’s backyard.
China has always had more leverage than it claimed; by suspending oil
shipments for only three days last March, it pushed Pyongyang into
negotiations. The Korea crisis will only
be resolved if China continues to exercise good judgment in dealing with its
erratic neighbor."
FRANCE: "Korean
Nuclear Roulette"
Right-of-center Les Echos editorialized (7/16): “Washington is hard-pressed to interpret
North Korea’s latest nuclear activity....
The CIA has not yet been able to determine whether Kim Jong-il is hiding
a few trump cards or whether he is telling the truth. Meanwhile the international community cannot
afford to wait.... Everyone is waiting
to see whether President Bush will follow the example of his predecessor and
sign a nuclear agreement with Pyongyang.
This new crisis is a serious one than can easily slide towards war, as
William Perry warned. And the
probability is that Kim Jong-il, who is at the head of a country in ruins, will
be tempted to sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations and other enemies
of the U.S.”
GERMANY: “China Increases
Pressure On North Korea”
Roland Heine wrote in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung
(7/18): “Beijing has apparently decided
to exert more pressure on Pyongyang to achieve a resumption of negotiations
between the parties to the conflict. For
an escalation of the crisis would not remain without consequences for
China. The wave of refugees, which could
set in, would be a grave problem; there are already 300,000 North Korean
refugees in the northeast of China.
Neither can China wish for a U.S. troop buildup in front of its
doorsteps...nor has nuclear power China an interest in that neighbor North
Korea also gets itself a nuclear weapons arsenal. Whether Chinese influence is sufficient to
defuse the crisis, is unclear. China
wields an important trump card though: North Korea receives three quarters of
its oil and one third of his food imports from China.”
“Movement”
Center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine editorialized
(7/18): “Worldwide, machine gun
ammunition is usually not regarded as a herald of negotiations. North Korea is different though. The incident at the inner-Korean border,
therefore, should not be exaggerated.
For elsewhere, it is plainer that there has been movement in the conflict
over the North Korean nuclear (weapons) program.... China’s deputy foreign minister is now in
Washington. China’s initiative is a sign
that Beijing is worried. The situation
in North Korea is not getting better, which holds risks. Washington is worried that North Korea could
build nuclear weapons in order to use them as a source of foreign exchange
revenue and sell them possibly to ‘non-state activists.’ Therefore, Washington, too is interested in a
solution. In the view of the U.S.
government, it should be a diplomatic one, for the world power is currently
engaged in other parts and to such an extent that it deems a military
confrontation in the Far East as inappropriate.”
RUSSIA: "War May Start
In The Fall"
Vasily Golovnin held in reformist Izvestia (7/17): "In spite of all the appeals for a
peaceful settlement of the crisis over Pyongyang's nuclear program, the US and
North Korea are on a collision course. A crushing American strike on the DPRK
may be launched within months. Such scary forecasts were made yesterday in
Seoul and Washington. For experts the question is not if, but when the clash
will occur.... Obviously, the US is not
yet ready for a compromise. Indeed, there is a struggle among the people
surrounding President Bush between those who want to pacify Pyongyang and the
hawks who are sure that as long as Kim Chong Il's regime is in place the source
of danger will not be eradicated."
"Pyongyang Challenges Bush"
Maxim Makarychev stated in official Rossiiskaya Gazeta
(7/17): "After recent North Korean
statements the hawks in the Bush administration who come out for a drastic
solution of the 'North Korean nuclear problem' are sure to gain greater
influence."
"Beijing, Not Moscow"
Vitaly Portnikov opined in reformist Vremya MN (7/17): "The U.S. would be extremely reluctant
to fight in North Korea. In spite of threatening tones--which become more
threatening by the day--Washington is surely aware of this. Americans have
their hands full sorting things out in post-war Iraq.... And now the looming prospect of a conflict in
the Far East. Americans would like to save face, that is, deal with Kim Chong
Il without starting a war. But apparently they cannot achieve that
single-handed. They need a predictable ally. China seems to fill the
bill.... And it is prepared to tackle
the task because it would enable it to gain the position of geopolitical leader
in the region, and that with the full consent of the United States. China has
not yet shown itself to be a country that the United States can be afraid of in
its foreign policy. Though it often speaks out 'against', it usually prefers to
abstain when it comes to the vote. In other words, it occupies the position of
an ideal mediator. And the new America does not need friends, or rivals, or
vassals. It needs predictable mediators, such as Beijing is and Moscow is not,
alas."
"I See Nothing, I Hear Nothing"
Maria Seleznyova wrote in liberal Novye Izvestia
(7/15): "Washington's behavior,
quite reasonable and balanced, still causes surprise. The US has traditionally
stuck to an aggressive view of Pyongyang and the current calm reaction is not
characteristic of the Bush administration. The matter possibly is that now the
White House simply has more important things on its mind than the DPRK. The
peace settlement process in a dead end, the instability in Iraq--are the main
foreign policy priorities of the United States. To seriously get down to North
Korea means getting involved in a lengthy and undiplomatic conflict with it.
Before the election that is coming, Bush does not need a new war, even if it is
only diplomatic."
"U.S. May Upset Balance Of Fear"
Vladimir Skosyrev contended in reformist Vremya MN
(7/2): "Writing off North Korea's
threats as rhetoric seems like the wrong policy. After
all, the DPRK is no Iraq and, in the event of a conflict, may cause enormous
damage to the South Koreans, if not to the Americans. They keep hundreds of artillery pieces in
tunnels dug in the hills next to the demilitarized zone. Seoul is within their effective range. A 'balance of fear' has helped to maintain
peace. But it looks as if the Americans,
enjoying overwhelming superiority in firepower, may try to upset it. The Pentagon has leaked to the press that the
United States has developed a new type of tactical nuclear weapon that can
destroy targets hidden underground, without letting much radiation into the
atmosphere."
"U.S. Looks For Excuse To Punish Kim Jong-Il"
Andrey Ivanov held in reformist business-oriented Kommersant
(7/2): "Russian experts say that
you can't create an effective plutonium warhead without testing it. Just as you can't build a more or less
accurate long-range ballistic missile without test-launching it. A nuclear exploding device is what the North
Koreans may have, at most. But even if
they do they don't have a truck big enough to carry it to the border with South
Korea. With all that hubbub over North
Korea's nuclear threat, it seems that Washington is just looking for an excuse
to liquidate Kim Jong-Il's regime."
"Anything May Happen"
Yevgeniy Verlin noted in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(7/2): "The opinion among observers
is that the situation in the Korean Peninsula is steadily moving to the point
beyond which anything can happen."
AUSTRIA: “Payday In The
Nuclear Conflict”
Markus Bernath observed in liberal Der Standard
(7/17): “The nuclear conflict in the Far
East, with its unsaid certainties, has been dragging on for months: North
Korean leader Kim Jong-Il probably isn’t crazy enough to start a nuclear war,
so he’ll be he left to amuse himself a while longer with threats of new nuclear
bombs. At the end, the US will give some sort of political guarantee, which
will ensure North Korea’s survival in an international community where they
really don’t belong anymore. For a while, it was possible to simply ignore the
Bush administration’s cold-war rhetoric on the issue. But now, it’s payday. The
cards for a solution of the conflict are already on the table, they only need
to be reshuffled. US Secretary of State Colin Powell already introduced the
idea of “five plus five” negotiations at an earlier point (the five members of
the security council, North and South Korea, Japan, the EU and Australia).
Within such a framework, there would be room for a North Korean-American
special declaration. China could function as a signpost.”
"Kim, The Crackpot, Or Kim, The Bluffer?"
Security affairs writer Burkhard Bischof contended in centrist Die
Presse (7/16): “Either Kim Jong Il
is a complete crackpot, a specialist for Russian roulette; someone who suffers
from political megalomania and doesn’t care two straws about the fate of the
oppressed, starving millions of people in his country. Or Kim is a hardened political poker player, who
raises the stakes at every round in order to get to the jackpot at the end:
Millions of dollars or yen, paid to buy his solemn promise--again--to give up
his nuclear weapons program.... North
Korea’s neighbors, the U.S. and the western intelligence services are still
looking for answers to old questions: What does Kim actually want? And how far has North Korea got with its
construction program for nuclear weapons?....
The Americans and the British claimed that Iraq had WMDs that would be
ready for use in less than an hour--they occupied the country, and until now
they haven’t found anything. North Korea
might already have nuclear weapons ready for action, and the necessary delivery
technology as well--however, the Bush administration is holding back with
threats and warnings. Does the U.S.
government know more than they are letting on, and is that the reason for their
moderate reaction to the alarming reports from North Korea? Really, President Bush should know by now:
Intelligence estimates don’t always have a lot to do with intelligence.”
CROATIA: "Espionage
Fabrication"
Inoslav Besker noted in Zagreb-based mass-circulation Jutarnji
list (7/18): "At this moment,
sharpening the crisis with North Korea seems inevitable. It could be the only trick to close ranks of
the American public and world conservatives around Bush. Kim's ghastly regime is, allegedly,
extracting fission-material. It could
make bombs out of it, and launch them against America. Even if by DHL, because it cannot throw them
far enough.... It remains to be seen if
the U.S. public opinion will get enraged after the Korean threat just like it
got enraged at the Iraqi threat of atomic bombs, which later on turned out to
be fabrications."
CZECH REPUBLIC: "Czech
Initiatives In Korea"
Zbynek Petracek observed in intellectual weekly Respekt
(7/6-11): "Fifty years after the
end of war in Korea, Prague has ambitions to influence the state of affairs on
the peninsula.... Czech Premier Spidla
agreed with South Korean Premier to open a Czech Embassy in North Korea. Why should we want to do that in a country,
which is infamous for harboring one of the most abhorrent regimes in the
world?.... Such a gesture might bring
some advantage to the local and neighboring civilians, who are threatened by
the North Korean regime. And since the
country owns nuclear weapons, it is only in our interest to try to establish
some form of communication if we cannot pacify the regime by force."
SWEDEN: "Bombs For
Peace Are No Alternative"
Conservative Stockholm-based Svenska Dagbladet
editorialized (7/17): "President
Bush has, not least in Sweden, received hard criticism for the U.S. policy of
seeking unilateral rather than multilateral solutions.... However, North Korea is an example of the
weakness of a multilateral approach; the fact that scoundrels do ignore entered
agreements whenever it suits them....
When North Korea the other day announced that it soon can add another
half a dozen atomic devices to its present arsenal of one or two atomic bombs,
the level of the ongoing conflict was dramatically escalated.... The Bush administration has all the time
emphasized its willingness to seek a diplomatic solution. However, after Bill
Clinton's failed efforts to use carrots it has used the stick. But North Korea
has, on the other hand, pushed for a higher price to adhere to already entered
agreements.... Negotiations can open the
path to a solution, even if such must not include U.S. "security
guarantees." Should North Korea decide to say no to negotiations a
military solution is, for military and political reasons, no alternative.
Instead the U.S. must increase pressure on North Korea by taking action in the
UNSC to enforce strict isolation of the outcast state. But should his blackmail
policy fail, one cannot rule out that Kim Jong Il choses the bomb; Bush's 64
thousand-dollar question therefore is where to draw the line in his willingness
to pay off (the blackmailer)."
ASIA-PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA:
"Confronting Kim Jong-il Is About Security"
Hugh White from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute wrote in
the liberal Age (7/16):
“Australia is right to support American plans for international
cooperation to intercept exports of WMD.
If it is handled the right way, this idea could help reduce the risk of
war with North Korea. To understand why,
we need to recognize that North Korea is not the next target for unilateral
pre-emption in George Bush's war on terror, and the 'proliferation security
initiative' is not a pretext or a provocation for war. It is much more an old-fashioned diplomatic
ploy in a traditional game of power politics.... The UNSC will need to be involved. If all these problems can be solved,
Australia could well find itself sending ships or aircraft to help enforce the
quarantine. Our stake in the stability
of northeast Asia makes that an easy choice.
It's got little to do with John Howard's political alignment with George
Bush, and everything to do with Australia's long-term strategic interests.”
"How Far Would Howard Go On North Korea?"
Political correspondent Michelle Grattan opined in the liberal Age
(7/16): “The problem with 'rogue' states
is they don't operate according to normal levels of international
rationality. By the start of the Iraq
war, Saddam Hussein presumably had got rid of most of his weapons of mass
destruction, but couldn't or wouldn't demonstrate this sufficiently to prevent
an invasion. Korea might be bluffing in
threatening neighbors. Then again, it
might not. The American hawks may be
bluffing in talk of provocative action such as spy flights closer to North
Korean air space. Then again, they may
not.”
“How To Handle North Korea”
The liberal Sydney Morning Herald declared (7/11): “The 11-nation Proliferation Security
Initiative meeting in Brisbane this week represents a broadening--diplomatic
and multilateral--of the United States war on terrorism.... An early question is how much, under US
leadership, the PSI might be the starting point for new, low-level applications
of force, by its members, including Australia.... For all the tough talk of interdiction of
North Korean arms shipments, the PSI represents a welcome shift in the US
approach to the deepening crisis on the Korean peninsula. The previous US
approach of threats and abuse were not going to work in the face of President
Kim Jong-il's extreme brinkmanship. The multilateral but firm approach promised
by the PSI is worth trying.”
“Bush Has More Crisis Than Is Good For Him”
Peter Hartcher wrote in the business-oriented Australian
Financial Review (7/11): “Expect
steady U.S. pressure on Iran and North Korea to continue until the end of next
year, but no war. Of course, that
presumes that the US can control the crises.
And it means that if Bush is re-elected, the political constraints on
more assertive US action could fall away.”
CHINA: "The U.S. Made
A New Plan To Attack The DPRK: Allowing Fighter Planes to Provoke the Opponent,
Intending to Exhaust DPRK's Troops"
Ren Yujun and Li Wen commented in official Communist Party-run
international Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao) (7/16): "The international consensus thinks that
China is playing an irreplaceable role in the more and more complicated
situation on Korean peninsula....
Recently, the DPRK issue became more complicated. The U.S. and DPRK always adopt tit-for-tat
measures against each other. We should
see that all parties concerned hope for a peaceful resolution.... President Bush wants to avoid a tense
military confrontation, and hopes to resolve the issue through diplomatic means
so that he can earn support for his election.
Thus, on the one hand, the U.S. has put more pressure on DPRK; on the
other hand, it has also started to promote the 5-way talks. The U.S. intends to work on the both fronts to
lead the DPRK nuclear issue."
"The U.S. And Japan Want To Make An Issue Of DPRK's Nuclear
Reprocessing"
Pei Jun declared in official Communist Youth League-run China
Youth Daily (Zhongguo Qingnianbao) (7/16): "As for the U.S. mild attitude this
time, analysts think the Bush administration has realized that if it stipulates
a bottom line the DPRK may bargain about it and pull the U.S. into the frame of
bilateral dialogue and propose a guarantee of Kim Jong Il's regime or seek
economic assistance. So, the Bush administration did not stipulate a base line,
which is different from the Clinton administration's handling of the DPRK
nuclear crisis 10 years ago.... Since
Bush's final goal is to change the current DPRK regime, until the DPRK exports
its nuclear technology to the Middle East and it succeeds in producing
low-yield nuclear weapons that can be loaded on a long-range missile warhead
that might reach the U.S. homeland, the U.S. may ignore the DPRK's nuclear
threats."
"The U.S.' Plan To Blockade The DPRK Was Frustrated"
Wu Jia held in official, China Radio International-sponsored World
News Journal (Shijie Xinwenbao) (7/14): "Analysts think that the U.S.' urgent
intention to build up an international blockade alliance to deal with alleged
'rogue countries,' especially its plan to blockade the DPRK, have temporarily
failed."
“Subtle Changes Occur to China’s Policy Toward DPRK"
Bao Ying commented in official Xinhua News Agency-run
international International Herald Leader (Guoji Xianqu Daobao)
(7/11): “China has sped up its
diplomatic pace in the face of the U.S.’ tough stance.... China prevents a tough policy toward DPRK in
order to relieve the tense situation....
China’s new policy (of playing the role of mediator in order increase its
influence on the international affairs) will play a key role.”
“Why Does The U.S. Insist On Pulling Out Others’ ‘Nuclear Teeth’”
Jia Gan commented in official Communist Youth League-run China
Youth Daily (Zhongguo Qingnianbao) (7/9): "The U.S. has shifted its concerns about
nuclear non-proliferation from Iraq to the DPRK and Iran. Analysts think that the nuclear
non-proliferation mechanism has become a tool of the U.S. to realize its
strategic interests.... The U.S. aimed
at its own security interests in dealing with the three countries’ nuclear
non-proliferation issues; it’s for its own private interests rather than public
interest. As the superpower country that
leads international security affairs, the U.S. is using an international
multi-lateral treaty as a tool and is weakening the treaty’s solemnity and
uniformity and would finally make ‘The Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons’ decline to the point of being invalid.
Both of the fact that the DPRK withdrew from the treaty and that India
criticized the treaty has been adopted as a sort of ‘double standard’ and [the U.S.] has insisted
on crossing the nuclear threshold without being restricted, are the best proof
of the statement made above.”
“DPRK Prepares A ‘Merciless Revenge’”
He Jian held in China Radio International-sponsored World News
Journal (Shijie Xinwenbao) (7/7):
"A representative of the DPRK’s People’s Army stationed at the UN
truce village of Banmentian...indicated the U.S. increasing its fighting
capability, assembling forces and taking sanctions against the opposite side of
truce are virtual ‘actions of war'....
He warned, if the U.S. goes its own way, the DPRK will prepare to quit
the truce.... If the U.S. tries to take
sanctions against the DPRK and increases its military threats ‘we will
immediately take powerful, merciless revenge'.... Analysts think, both the U.S and ROK have a
clear assessment of the DPRK’s military strength at present. Hearing the warning of ‘merciless revenge’
from DPRK People’s Army, Bush administration will not go too far in building a
deterrence force against the DPRK.
Otherwise, the U.S. would have to swallow the bad result it made for
itself.”
“The U.S. and DPRK Are Sharply Confrontational in Their Attitudes:
Peninsula’s Situation Become Tense and Many Countries Speed Up Negotiation”
Ren Yujun and Ding Gang maintained in official Communist Party-run
international Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao) (7/7): "The central news agency of DPRK issued
a commentary on July 4, criticizing the U.S. ‘air-dropping’ mini-radios and
starting a psychological war, aimed at overthrowing the DPRK from the
inside. The commentary indicated the
U.S. psychological war is the prelude to its military action. However, the ‘U.S. action’ will not work. It can only enhance the unification between
the DPRK army and its people and increase their indignation toward the
U.S.... Qi Baoliang (researcher of
Modern International Relations Institute of China) thinks that there is great
possibility that the U.S. and DPRK will resume talks since firstly the two sides
don’t want war; secondly the international community’s mediation will work; and
thirdly the U.S. and DPRK have been keeping bilateral contacts.”
"DPRK Warns That It Might Free Itself From The Fetters Of The
Truce"
Ji Xinlong and Zhang Jinfang reported in official Xinhua Daily
Telegraph (Xinhua Meiri Dianxun) (7/3): "A representative of DPRK's People's
Army stationed in the U.N. truce village of Panmunjom remarked here on July 1
that the DPRK regards any U.S. action to enhance the military capacity of its
troops deployed in ROK, and any actions to blockade or sanction the DPRK as
actions violating the truce. If any of these actions appear DPRK would free
itself at once from the fetters of the truce.... A senior government official of the ROK expressed
on July 2 in Seoul that the New York Times report on the newly
discovered DPRK nuclear testing field is not based on facts, and it is just a
conjecture.... Another senior official
of the ROK also denied the report, stressing that he had no idea about the report
and was never informed of this kind of intelligence."
"Disastrous End Of The Nuclear Crisis Between The U.S. And
DPRK Might Be Triggered by Unexpected Accidents"
Zhu Xingfu commented in Shanghai-based official Wen Hui Bao
(7/1): "Facing the complicated
situation on the Korean Peninsula, experts indicate that what the U.S. worries
about the most at present are the unexpected accidents and conflicts triggered
by the severely intensified situation whether or not the DPRK gives up its
nuclear weapons. In that case, Bush will launch a military attack arbitrarily
regardless of the stances and feelings of ROK, Japan and China. The consequence of a war on the Korean
Peninsula will be disastrous. So, a peaceful and diplomatic resolution to the
U.S.-DPRK conflict and crisis, using economic and mediation means to prevent a
nuclear arms race and war would abide by the common interests of all North East
Asian nations and other nations of the world. Experts indicate that the process
will take a long time, and sufficient patience and joint efforts from the
countries concerned are required. If the U.S. cornered the DPRK without showing
any hope, the crisis would end unpredictably."
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR):
"A Strategy Fraught With Risk"
The independent English-language Standard editorialized
(7/14): "The aim [of the
Proliferation Security Initiative] eventually is to undertake interdictions and
to force North Korea to end its nuclear weapons program in return for aid. The strategy is fraught with risk as the
North Koreans have informed the United Nations that any interception of its
ships or attempt at a blockade would be viewed as an act of war, which would
result in retaliatory action on South Korea....
The Iraq experience tells us that we should be careful in assessing U.S.
policy, particularly when it concerns a state tagged by George W. Bush as part
of the so-called 'axis of evil.' It is
clear that North Korea has the means to make nuclear weapons because it has
told us so. What is not clear is how
much of a danger to the U.S. and others this represents. The margin for error is much finer in the
North Korean situation than with Iraq.
Given the justifiable suspicion surrounding U.S. policy, it would be a
comfort to us all if that nation erred on the side of caution with containment
and negotiation, rather than triggering a conflict that we later find is
unwarranted."
"Korean Knot"
Charles Lee remarked in the independent English-language South
China Morning Post (7/14): "In
reality, China has not shown the greatest sense of urgency (to diffuse the
Korean situation), frustrating hardliners in the U.S., Japan and South
Korea. China joined hands with Russia
this month to delay an American initiative at the UN Security Council to
denounce North Korea's nuclear program.
And China was conspicuously absent from a meeting of 11 nations this
week in Australia to discuss a U.S. proposal to intercept North Korean vessels
carrying illegal weapons and drugs on the high seas--to cut off the North's
financial lifeline. The charitable view
of China's go-slow approach is that it is all too aware, from its years of
dealing with the North, that the in-your-face tactic of the Bush administration
is not going to achieve much of anything, any time soon. But it is also a mistake to assume that
China's overarching national interest is to thwart a nuclear-armed North Korea
at all costs. While China certainly
would prefer that, it knows the North's nuclear-tipped missiles would all be
pointed towards South Korea and Japan.
What China wants to avoid above all else is another U.S.-involved war
and the potential demise of a key buffer state on the Korean peninsula,
historically a Chinese sphere of influence.
In other words, China will do all it can to prevent U.S. military action
against North Korea over its nuclear program, but it will not easily sell out a
still important client country in the name of nuclear non-proliferation."
"Hoping For Stability On The Korean Peninsula"
The independent English-language South China Morning Post
said in an editorial (7/5): "This
past week's flurry of diplomatic talks in Washington, and South Korean
President Roh Moo-hyun's visit to Beijing early next week, offer the best hope
the region has seen in months for ending the North Korean nuclear standoff.... Perhaps it was this week's news that the U.S.
claims to have intelligence about North Korean plans to develop miniaturized
nuclear warheads capable of being combined with the country's existing missile
technology that spurred the renewed activity.... The various states concerned
may not be able to agree from the start about how much pressure should be
exerted on Kim Jong-il and the North, but they all recognize their common
interest in keeping nuclear weapons out of North Asia. The prospect of a costly and destabilizing
nuclear weapons race in the region, as well as a probable refugee crisis
stemming from the collapse of a teetering North Korean government, should be
frightful enough to keep the negotiators focused on the need to end the
standoff."
JAPAN: "Pressure
Necessary To Counter North's Nuclear Provocation"
Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri editorialized
(7/15): "A USG source has confirmed
that the DPRK recently reprocessed spent nuclear fuel rods. This is the latest
proof of the North's nuclear weapons development. The U.S. also has reportedly
detected Krypton 85, radioactive gas, in air samples taken near North Korea's
nuclear facilities. This finding also shows the North's increased production of
weapons-grade plutonium. Under these circumstances, the world community should
take steps to deal with a worst-case scenario.
The North needs to abandon its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable
and irreversible manner. The first step toward this end is for the North to
hold multilateral talks on its nuclear development program with not only the
U.S. and China, but also with Japan and South Korea. This is the only way to
reach a peaceful solution to the issue....
As soon as the UNSC adopts a U.S.-drafted chairman's statement denouncing
the North's nuclear development, the North Koreans should accept a proposal for
holding multilateral talks."
"DPRK Must Stop Provocation And Return To Talks"
Liberal Asahi stated (7/13): "The U.S. has reportedly detected
Krypton 85, radioactive gas produced in the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel
roads, over the DPRK's Yongbyon nuclear facilities. If the reported finding is
true, we cannot help but call the North's move a reckless act that could not
only deal the coup de grace to the already moribund 1994 Agreed Framework, but
also nullify diplomatic efforts by Japan, South Korea and China to find a
peaceful settlement to the North's nuclear problem. Pyongyang must halt its
reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods immediately.
While the North's nuclear development is to be severely criticized, the
world community also needs to deal with it in a cool-headed manner. The
question is whether the world community can avoid becoming provoked by the
North's nuclear brinkmanship and determine how to pave the way for Kim Jong Il
to abandon his nuclear ambitions peacefully. Beijing has an important role to
play in getting Pyongyang to accept multilateral talks. During recent informal
North-South Korean ministerial talks held in Seoul, the North Korean side
reportedly posed their South Korean side this question: 'If we suspend nuclear
development, will the U.S. start talks with us in a serious manner?' Japan can certainly do more to help the U.S.
and DPRK change their mutual distrust into mutual trust."
"China's Dialogue And Pressure Approach More Conciliatory To
DPRK?"
Liberal Asahi editorialized (7/10): "Chinese President Hu and South Korean
President Roh agreed during talks in Beijing to find a peaceful settlement of
North Korea's nuclear problem through dialogue.... South Korea seems to be taking a dual
approach.... Unlike the 'dialogue and
pressure' approach adopted by the leaders of the U.S., Japan and South Korea in
May, this 'Hu-Roh' approach appears to be more conciliatory to the North. Despite
this, Beijing has already been quietly applying pressure on Pyongyang by
temporarily suspending oil supplies to show what was said to be their
displeasure with the North's nuclear development. Now that the U.S. has halted oil shipments to
North Korea, any future punitive measure from China, which holds the economic
lifeline to the poverty-stricken North, will undoubtedly deal a fatal blow to
the Pyongyang leadership. Yet China's 'dialogue and pressure' approach is far
more conciliatory than the U.S.-Japan-South Korea position that some critics
link to a 'stick and carrot' policy. Members of the world community should do
their part to end the North's nuclear ambitions. China should intensify its own
approach to bring a halt to the North's nuclear program."
"KEDO Project Should Be Suspended"
Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri declared (7/9): "What measures--aside from applying
pressure--are most effective in dealing with the DPRK, a nation that is posing
a nuclear threat to the world? Differences of opinion have arisen among the
U.S., Japan and South Korea concerning the KEDO project to construct two
light-water reactors for North Korea....
The North has declared that it is developing nuclear weapons. Now that the
1994 Agreed Framework has collapsed, it is only logical to suspend the LWR
project. If light-water reactors are
built, according to schedule, the North Koreans are likely to put these
reactors and their related facilities to military use.... South Korea is distancing itself from the
U.S. and Japan, preferring to stick to its appeasement policy, based on former
President Kim Dae Jung's 'sunshine policy' toward the North. But the North has
repeatedly flouted the Agreed Framework. South Korea should face up to this
fact. Nobody would oppose a peaceful solution to the North's nuclear crisis.
But without pressure, dialogue may soon result in deadlock. North Korea must
suspend its nuclear development program in a verifiable and irreversible
manner."
INDONESIA: “Chinese And
South Koran Leaders Again Talk About North Korean Nuclear Crisis”
Leading independent Kompas observed
(7/9): “China, which feels no threat
from North Korea’s program, has taken substantial initiatives. Just last April China held a tripartite
meeting with Washington and Pyongyang.
Now China is seeking to hold a second meeting aimed at binding the U.S.
to a peaceful solution. For the U.S.'
part, the superpower demanded that the North Korea’s nuclear program ‘be ceased
with no resumption and that this should be verified.’ If the demand could be adjusted to the
interests of North Korea, this could serve as a foundation for the next steps
in efforts to reunite the two Koreas.”
PHILIPPINES:
“Drifting To War”
The editorial in the independent Manila Times read
(7/18): “The warning of Mr. William
Perry, former Secretary of Defense, that the United States is ‘drifting toward
a war’ with North Korea could not have been given at a worse time. American soldiers are fighting an organized
guerrilla war in Iraq.... The
credibility of the CIA has ebbed to a new low.... For these reasons, it would be difficult for
the Bush administration to convince the U.S. Congress--and, more important, the
American public--to wage another war.
The decision to go to war would be based crucially on information that
North Korea now has plutonium bombs. Can the CIA and other intelligence
agencies be trusted this time? The U.S.
Defense and State Departments cannot continue characterizing Pyongyang’s
bellicose statements as crude attempts at blackmail. It was the United States that did not live up
completely to its part of the 1994 agreement. The light-water reactors that
were to have been supplied in 1995 have not materialized. Shipments of grain
were intermittent and not in the amounts agreed. But the most important part of
the agreement with President Bill Clinton was normalization of economic and
political ties. If at all, relations between the two countries have
worsened. North Korea’s demand of
bilateral negotiation with the U.S. was brushed aside. Instead a multilateral
approach involving South Korea, Japan, China and Russia was proposed. The
first, a trilateral meeting in China, was a failure. The latest American move is a blockade in
international waters of North Korean shipping. The purpose is to interdict
missiles, weapons and drugs on the grounds that they are threats to U.S.
security. Predictably, Pyongyang said it would consider a blockade an act of
war. No doubt in an all-out war the
forces of the U.S. and South Korea would win. But the cost would be
horrendous.... It’s time for Washington
to put together a coherent and realistic policy on North Korea. The
improvisation that we read about every day could only hasten the drift to war. Perhaps it’s time for the United States to
talk directly to North Korea. It would be worth it if only to avert a war that
nobody wants.”
SINGAPORE:
"Nervy Times Up North"
The pro-government Straits Times editorialized (7/17): "There are two inconsistencies in the
Bush approach which many critics aside from Mr. Perry feel have contributed to
the growing crisis. The first is the differing threat perception vis-a-vis Iraq
and North Korea. With Iraq, President George W. Bush insisted Saddam Hussein
possessed weapons of mass destruction, despite denials and inspections that
turned up nothing. He invaded Iraq primarily on that basis. But North Korea has
said variously it already has, is having, or will soon have a nuclear
capability. Last week, it informed the Americans it had scraped together
weapons-grade plutonium, good for a few bombs. It seems the US does not want to
know. It only says it has yet to 'verify' the claim. The disconnect is
troubling. Secondly, the US is forcing Pyongyang into talks without offering
inducement or guarantees. Pyongyang, for all its bluster, has been consistent:
it wants security guarantees, diplomatic recognition and aid. Quite how the
Bush people expect to resolve the arms-pre-emption bargaining without quid pro
quo is a mystery, unless a military strike is being held in reserve. Mr. Perry
had better not be proved correct. But he says 'time is running out and each
month, the problem gets more dangerous'."
SOUTH KOREA:
"Kim Must Learn From Saddam’s Mistakes"
Senior Reporter Kim Young-hie observed in the independent Joong-Ang
Ilbo (7/16): “Learning from Saddam
Hussein’s mistakes in underestimating the Bush administration’s firm resolve
[to deal sternly with threats of weapons of mass destruction,] North Korea must
accept China’s advice and come to the table for multilateral talks. This is because the promise of non-aggression
and the renunciation of nuclear ambitions are the objectives, not conditions,
for talks.”
"Russia Must Participate In Multilateral Nuclear Talks"
Hong Wan-seok, professor of international politics at Hankuk
University of Foreign Studies, opined in the moderate Hankook Ilbo
(7/16): “Why is the U.S. showing a
lackadaisical attitude toward the participation of Russia--a major party with
regards to the North Korean nuclear issue--in multilateral nuclear talks? First, it is because Washington is unhappy
with Russia’s opposition to the war in Iraq and, most recently, its opposition
to taking the North Korean issue to the UN Security Council. Second, the U.S. wants to lead multilateral
talks to its own advantage. Russia’s
comprehensive approach calling for a simultaneous resolution of the nuclear
issue through direct U.S.-DPRK talks is similar to Pyongyang’s position.
Therefore, Russia’s participation could undermine the U.S. strategy of
containing and isolating the North.
Third, Washington is wary of the expansion of Moscow’s influence on the
Korean peninsula.... However, considering
that Russia is the only country that can meet the North’s two demands--a
security guarantee and economic aid, especially a stable supply of energy--it
would be difficult to resolve the nuclear standoff without Russia’s
participation. If the U.S. policy of
pressuring the North is truly intended to make the Korean peninsula nuclear-free,
Russia’s participation in multilateral talks is not an option but a must.”
"Vicious Cycle Of Nuclear Crisis Must Be Broken”
Koh Yoo-hwan, professor of North Korea Studies at Dongguk
University, wrote in the moderate Hankook Ilbo (7/16): “Washington has been showing signs of
attempting to prolong the nuclear crisis by sometimes ignoring and sometimes
exaggerating the North’s nuclear capabilities to its advantage. If a recent report is true that the Pentagon
is devising a new war plan--known as ‘Operations Plan 5030’--to bring about
collapse of North Korea’s Kim Jong-il regime, it would explain U.S.
behavior. In order to resolve the North
Korean nuclear issue at an early date, we should guard against turning the
situation into an ‘engineered crisis.’...
Furthermore, the U.S. should not seek the implosion of the North Korean
regime but rather propose a face-saving compromise that makes it easier for
Pyongyang to renounce its nuclear ambitions.
Otherwise, the nuclear issue will be inevitably prolonged.”
"Don't Delay Mapping Out Response To North
Korea's Nuclear Weapons Development"
Paik Jin-hyun wrote in
independent Dong-a Ilbo (7/15):
"The ROK and the U.S. are displaying a surprisingly calm and
relaxed attitude toward North Korea's claim to have finished reprocessing its
8,000 spent fuel rods. This may be
because this kind of North Korean threat is nothing new, given the communist
state's frequent threatening rhetoric and propaganda.... However, if the current attitude of both
countries results from the lack of a common bilateral strategy, it is a
substantial cause for concern.... For
now, it is not sufficient for the ROK and the U.S. to repeat their commitment
to a peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear problem. It is time for both countries to work out a
realistic joint strategy for a peaceful resolution of the issue."
“North Korea Has Completed Fuel Rod
Reprocessing”
Independent Joong-Ang Ilbo remarked
(7/14): “Although North Korea in the
last few months has been moving forward much as it said it would, the U.S. has
stuck to the logic that time is against the North and has refused any
substantial talks with Pyongyang....
However, the situation has become too serious to dismiss the North’s
nuclear threat as mere tactics.... We
should not try to diminish the significance of North Korea’s statements as
bluffing or brinkmanship but rather take them at face value. There is nothing as foolish as finding
comfort through denial.... Even though
the official position of the U.S., ROK and Japan is that that information on
the North’s nuclear reprocessing remains undetermined, the ROK must prepare for
the worst. To this end, the ROK needs to
enhance information sharing with allies--notably the U.S. and Japan--and to
coordinate on the interpretation of information.”
“North Korea’s Claim To Have Finished
Reprocessing Fuel Rods Worrisome”
Moderate Hankook Ilbo argued (7/14): “If North Korea truly completed reprocessing
of its spent fuel rods, it would amount to Pyongyang crossing the red line, the
tolerance threshold established by the U.S. and the international community for
the communist state.... This North
Korean move, without a doubt, is designed to bring Washington to the table for
one-on-one talks. We worry that such
North Korean brinkmanship may turn the situation into a catastrophe,
particularly considering U.S. hardliners’ demands for surgical strikes on the
North’s nuclear facilities.”
“Urgent Need For U.S.-North Korea Talks”
Nationalist, left-leaning Hankyoreh Shinmun
editorialized (7/14): “It is unclear
whether Pyongyang’s claim to have completed the reprocessing of its 8,000 spent
fuel rods is true or not. Some analysts
speculate that the North is bluffing to bring the U.S. to the dialogue
table. However, this North Korean claim
will obviously give U.S. hawks fresh ammunition to apply more pressure on the
North. In the aftermath of the three-way
nuclear talks in Beijing, we urged Washington and Pyongyang to hold follow-on
talks as quickly as possible because we feel the substance of talks is much
more important than the format.... While
we welcome as a favorable development the two Koreas’ decision during recent
ministerial talks to peacefully resolve the nuclear standoff through
‘appropriate talks,’ we once again urge the U.S. and the North to quit
escalating the nuclear crisis and to immediately come to the negotiating
table.”
“Difference Between ‘Concerned’ Parties And
‘Multilateral’ Parties”
Independent Joong-Ang Ilbo held
(7/9): “The leaders of the ROK and China
agreed during their summit to work for a peaceful resolution to the North
Korean nuclear issue. However, the
Chinese leader made clear his opposition to the U.S. formula of putting pressure
on the North while pursuing multilateral talks on the issue. In addition, by using the phrase ‘talks among
concerned parties’ after the agreement, President Roh left himself open to
misunderstanding, despite a quick explanation by presidential foreign policy
advisor Ban Ki-moon that Mr. Roh meant multilateral talks and that the Chinese
side agreed to such a necessity....
Considering the urgency of finding a solution to the nuclear crisis, it
is understandable for the ROK to take the position of not minding the format of
talks – whether they are five-way or six-way.
However, flexibility must not bend our position to the point of using
words that could be interpreted in multiple ways, making our position unclear
to our allies.”
"ROK-China Summit Must Serve To Restart
North Korea Nuclear Talks”
Nationalist, left-leaning Hankyoreh Shinmun
opined (7/9): “It is noteworthy that
Chinese President Hu Jintao told a press conference following the ROK-China
summit that Pyongyang’s security fears should be earnestly addressed. It is even more so, considering that the
statement comes at a time when expectations for additional nuclear talks are
growing, with Seoul proposing a plan to settle the North Korean nuclear issue
in a phased fashion during the latest U.S.-ROK-Japan working-level talks and Washington
allegedly preparing its counterproposal.
These remarks by Mr. Hu should be seen as a request that removal of the
North’s security concern should be on the agenda for future talks.”
“Rosetta Stone For Resolution Of North Korea’s
Nuclear Problem”
Lee Seung-cheol maintained in independent Joong-Ang
Ilbo (7/9): "The most
fundamental reason why little progress is being made in resolving the North
Korean nuclear issue is because the U.S. and North Korea have conflicting
positions on the issue, refusing to budge an inch.... In this regard, it would be of great help in
resolving the current standoff to divide pending issues into groups and resolve
the categorized issues by stages while meeting both sides’ demands
simultaneously.... From this perspective,
a 10-point plan by a U.S. congressional delegation, which visited the North in
May, can be seen as the most realistic and desirable approach to eliciting
changes from Pyongyang and peacefully resolving the current crisis on the
peninsula.... We really hope that this
kind of phased and simultaneous approach will be the key to resolving the
nuclear issue, like the Rosetta Stone which was the key to decoding the meaning
of hieroglyphics."
“If President Roh’s China Visit Is To Be
Successful”
Conservative Chosun Ilbo noted
(7/7): “Considering that China’s
proactive and constructive cooperation is essential to peacefully resolving the
North Korean nuclear problem, President Roh should use his visit to China today
to convince Chinese leaders, including President Hu Jintao, to play a more
active role in getting Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear programs, and explain
that the North’s development of nuclear weapons is also against Chinese
national interests…. In addition,
considering that ROK diplomacy and security are based on the U.S.-ROK alliance,
Mr. Roh needs to exercise caution in order not to make unintended remarks or
actions that would make it look like the ROK is prioritizing China over the
U.S.”
“ROK-China Summit Should Focus On Finding A
Solution To The North Korean Nuclear Issue”
Independent Dong-a Ilbo contended
(7/5): “The North Korean nuclear issue
should be resolved based on global cooperation.
In other words, ROK-China collaboration should be made within the
framework of U.S.-ROK-Japan cooperation.
In this respect, Mr. Roh needs to make sure that agreements reached
during U.S.-ROK and ROK-Japan summits should not be damaged or changed during
his summit with Chinese President Hu Jintao.”
“U.S., North Korea Must Meet Irrespective of
Dialogue Format”
Government-owned Daehan Maeil
editorialized (7/5): “The U.S. and North
Korea should immediately hold follow-up talks irrespective of the format of the
talks. Even though it is important for
the two countries to put their cards on the table prior to talks, at the moment
it is more important to maintain the momentum of dialogue. We consider it a favorable development that
Pyongyang, which had initially opposed multilateral nuclear talks, proposed to
Washington four-way talks--which would include the U.S., China and the two
Koreas--through Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi. It is also notable that President Bush
suggested six-way talks including Russia in his recent telephone conversation
with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
We urge the ROKG to use the upcoming ROK-China summit and the 11th round
of inter-Korean ministerial talks to find a peaceful solution to the North
Korean nuclear crisis.”
“ROK May Become Greatest Victim Of North Korea’s
Nuclear Weapons”
Conservative Chosun Ilbo declared (7/3): “A recent U.S. media report that North Korea
may be developing nuclear warheads small enough to fit atop missiles is
ominous.... If this report proves true,
the Korean peninsula will be shadowed by the North’s nuclear power, and the
North will be in a strategic position from which it could threaten both the
U.S. and Japan with its nuclear warheads.
This would no doubt be a disaster for threatened countries, but it could
also lead to the collapse of North Korea because superpowers such as the U.S.
and Japan would not stand idle and watch the North take aim at their
territories.... Even at this critical
juncture, however, the ROKG seems to have been sidelined from U.S. and
Japanese-led efforts to pressure the North.
Should this trend continue, the ROK would be unable to take the
initiative in resolving the North Korean nuclear problem, and in the worst
case, would be the greatest victim of a nuclear crisis.”
“Intention Of U.S. Media in Reporting on North Korean Nuclear
Program Suspicious”
Kim Seung-il observed in moderate Hankook Ilbo (7/3): “Faced with an alarming CIA analysis that
North Korea is developing nuclear warheads small enough to put onto missiles,
we cannot help but express our doubts about the U.S.’ intention because the information
comes at a time when Washington is seeking the UNSC Chairman’s statement
denouncing Pyongyang’s nuclear programs while fleshing out its initiative to
prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.... Our doubts are not intended to defend the
North’s nuclear programs but rather to caution against the processing and
distortion of information in order to exaggerate the current nuclear
crisis. The U.S. is under fire for
overstating Iraqi threats of weapons of mass destruction to justify its war on
Iraq. We hope that the same thing will
not happen again with the North Korean nuclear programs.”
“U.S., North Korea Should Make Simultaneous
Concessions to Resolve Nuclear Standoff”
Government-owned Daehan Maeil commented (7/2): “In order to resolve the North Korean nuclear
issue, in our opinion, the ROK, the U.S., Japan and North Korea should set
their respective plans of action--for instance, the North would declare its
intent to give up its nuclear ambitions and return to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, while the U.S. would express its willingness to provide security
guarantees and economic aid to the North--and they should implement them
simultaneously. Toward this end,
Pyongyang, for starters, must accept five-way nuclear talks, and Washington--if
it really intends to resolve the nuclear issue through dialogue--should
exercise flexibility. It is not
desirable for the U.S. to seek the UNSC Chairman’s statement denouncing the
North’s nuclear programs and to consider halting the light-water reactor
project underway in the North. We
strongly urge Washington and Pyongyang to realize the urgency of finding a
solution to the nuclear problem and to exert more sincere efforts toward that
end.”
“There Is Still Hope”
Park Woo-chung wrote in nationalist, left-leaning Hankyoreh
Shinmun (7/1): “The safest and
surest way to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue is through
negotiations. However, the Bush
Administration is refusing to talk to North Korea arrogantly thinking that the
U.S., the world’s sole superpower, cannot make compromises with a ‘rogue state’
like the North. Should Washington
continue to reject talks with Pyongyang, risking the latter’s possessing of
large volumes of nuclear weapons, there would be no option but for the ROK,
China and Japan to actively mediate between the two countries. ROK-China cooperation at this juncture is
particularly important in resolving the nuclear issue. As they would be hit hard should the nuclear
issue deteriorate into a crisis, the ROK and China are entitled to raise their
voices.... Pyongyang is eager to strike
a comprehensive deal through negotiations....
According to a U.S. congressional delegation, which recently visited the
North, Pyongyang responded positively to the delegation’s 10-point package deal
that includes a demand that the North first give up its nuclear
programs.... The ROK and China must take
the lead in brokering a compromise between the U.S. and the North. Time is running out.”
“Three-Stage Process To Resolve The North Korean Nuclear Issue”
Baik Young-cheol opined in independent Joong-Ang Ilbo
(7/1): “At the first stage, the U.S. and
North Korea should work out a new accord beyond the 1994 Agreed Framework and
make simultaneous concessions in which the former would declare its intent to
not invade the North and the latter would make clear its denuclearization. At the second stage, Pyongyang should
dismantle its nuclear programs in a verifiable and irreversible fashion, with
Washington lifting economic sanctions on the North and removing it from a list
of states sponsoring terrorism.... At
the final stage, the U.S., Japan and the North should normalize their
diplomatic relations with each other, and the two Koreas should establish a
peaceful regime on the peninsula. If all
that happens, the Korean peninsula will not only overcome the current nuclear
crisis but also succeed in establishing a peaceful existence desirable for 21st
century Northeast Asia.”
THAILAND: “Now The U.S. Has
To Count On China”
Rachan Husen commented in conservative, Thai-language Siam Rath
(7/18): “After several months of
tensions and wars of words, the U.S. has finally conceded China’s prestige as a
mediator to lull North Korea back to the negotiating table with western nations
on nuclear weapons. This agreement
stemmed from a phone conversation between China’s Foreign Minister and U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell in an attempt to defuse tensions between the
U.S. and North Korea through diplomatic channels.... Since the U.S. outcry last October, North Korea
has been saying clearly it is conducting a nuclear program which is in
violation of the 1994 agreement to control nuclear weapons.... During the war of words (between the U.S. and
North Korea, the U.S., never budged or sent a signal that it would use force to
disarm North Korea as it did Iraq because it knew that its accusations against
Iraq were false but North Korea poses a real threat. Furthermore, North Koreas does not have oil
for the U.S. to plunder like Iraq. North
Korea also has strong big brother China on its side.... Facing a real obstacle, the U.S. is forced to
ask China for help.”
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
ARGENTINA:
"People Already Speak About Going To War With North Korea"
Jorge Rosales wrote in daily-of-record La Nacion
(7/16): "While the U.S. faces a
more complicated scenario in Iraq given the perspective that its troops may
remain there longer than expected, North Korea once again challenged the White
House by letting it know it already has enough plutonium to produce half a
dozen nuclear bombs.... The White House
emphasized yesterday that it wouldn’t yield to North Korea's blackmail
(bilateral negotiations with the U.S., similar to the ones that took place in
the 90's, during the Clinton administration, when NK froze its nuclear program
in exchange for assistance)."
"North Korea: Strategic Options"
Jorge Malena stated in business-financial InfoBae
(7/10): "The Pyongyang government's
surprising acknowledgment that it had a secret program of nuclear weapons based
on enriched uranium unleashed a new crisis in the Korean peninsula. Also, the
current international panorama of a victorious US launching war on Baghdad
based on 'suspicion' of the Hussein regime's possession of WMD worsens the
relative situation of the DPRK bearing in mind that the Jongil administration
has openly claimed its right to own nuclear weapons.... Common sense leads us to think that the
prospect of a nuclearization of the Korean peninsula is not the most viable way
out of the crisis. Therefore, one should consider other options. I personally
believe the US should take advantage of the 'momentum' of its victory in Iraq
to implement a diplomatic initiative including the Korean Republic, Russia,
China and its European allies aimed at putting an end to a 50-year-long
confrontation and attempting to reach an overall peace deal. This deal...should
call for the establishment of diplomatic relations between Japan and the DPRK,
Japan's payment of war compensation, the establishment of diplomatic relations
between the US and North Korea, the end of the US embargo, the commitment of
East Asian countries to favoring the economic development of the North, the
formation of a Korean Federation and the establishment of a North East Asian
Security forum that will contribute to maintain peace."
BRAZIL: "The North
Korean Case"
Liberal Folha de S. Paulo opined (7/17): "According to the White House, the North
Korean government has confirmed having completed a cycle of reprocessing enough
plutonium to produce half a dozen atomic bombs. According to former Secretary
of Defense William Perry, Washington is 'losing control' of the North Korean
situation, a fact that might lead to a war by the end of this year.... Despite the possibility that both sides [the
U.S. and DPRK governments] are bluffing, the worsening of the crisis involving
the North Korean arsenal is reason for apprehension. All avenues toward a
diplomatic way out must be explored. The Iraqi experience has taught us that
any information used to justify a possible attack must be viewed with
caution."
MEXICO: “Brisbane: Green
Light For The Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons”
Alejandro Nada argued in left-of-center La Jornada
(7/16): “Last week the nuclear
non-proliferation regime was buried in Brisbane. This story did not attract the
attention of the media, but this tragedy will have serious consequences for
national security.... In the beginning
of the year, the DPRK announced officially that it would violate the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Even when
Pyongyang adhered to it in 1985, it never signed the safeguards agreement with
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), charged with ensuring its
provisions. In January, North Korea
acknowledged the possession of nuclear weapons, and in April said that it
possessed bars of re-processed nuclear fuel that would be exported if the US
did not agree to bilateral negotiations.
In this way, the agreement signed between Pyongyang and Washington in
1994--which stipulated that North Korea would stop its nuclear program and
accept IAEA inspections--was struck down… The lesson is easy for countries like
Iran. If they want to escape from being
blackmailed by Washington, they just have to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as
possible."
##