Archives

Victor Cha, Director of Asian studies at Georgetown University and a Senior Fellow at the Pacific Council, writes, “if North Korea keeps its word, John McCain or Barack Obama should inherit a situation in which U.S. and international nuclear experts are on the ground in North Korea learning more about Kim Jong Il’s nuclear secrets while slowly disabling and degrading his nuclear capabilities.”

Peter M. Beck, Professor at American University in Washington, D.C., writes, “there is a much greater likelihood that the North will come to resemble Burma rather than South Korea or China. A collective leadership system dominated by the military will likely emerge. However, it could be months or even years before the North’s elites sort out who is in and who is out of the new ruling junta. The military will clearly be in the driver’s seat. The only question is whether it will use a member of the Kim Royal Family as a hood ornament.”

Scott Thomas Bruce, Director of US Operations at the Nautilus Institute in San Francisco which is affiliated with the USF Center for the Pacific Rim, writes, “Removing North Korea from the list of terror sponsoring nations no longer offers a way forward… The Bush Administration could send one or both of George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter to meet with Kim Jong Il and put together the icebreaker… It would also make the overture bipartisan in US presidential politics, thereby signaling the gravity with which the US views the situation in the DPRK. Incidentally, it would also force the DPRK leadership to produce Kim Jong Il or admit that he is in bad shape.”

Tong Kim, Research Professor with Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University SAIS, writes, “One thing that the experience of the reports on Kim’s health issue reminds us is the realization of how little we know about North Korea’s leadership. The past decade of engaging the North has enabled the South to learn more about North Koreans. In this context, it is more imperative now to resume inter-Korean dialogue.”

Rudiger Frank, Professor of East Asian Political Economy at the University of Vienna, writes, “There is always the possibility that a power-hungry family clan of one of Kim Jong-il’s wives, or of another line in the family, or an ambitious leader from the military will try to grab power without considering the long-term consequences for political stability in North Korea… However, collective leadership is the most likely, the most logical option for North Korea’s political future, simply because dynastic succession will not work.”

Rudiger Frank, Professor of East Asian Political Economy at the University of Vienna, writes, “There is always the possibility that a power-hungry family clan of one of Kim Jong-il’s wives, or of another line in the family, or an ambitious leader from the military will try to grab power without considering the long-term consequences for political stability in North Korea… However, collective leadership is the most likely, the most logical option for North Korea’s political future, simply because dynastic succession will not work.”

Haksoon Paik, North Korea specialist at the Sejong Institute in South Korea, an independent think tank devoted to the study of national strategy of Korea, writes, “Complete denuclearization of North Korea will come only with full-fledged trust. North Koreans appear to regard the U.S. demand for a “complete” verification mechanism as a trap set up by the hardliners in Washington D.C. to undermine not only the hitherto gained achievements in the nuclear negotiations, but also the North Korean regime itself.”

Steve Noerper, Senior Fellow, Asia Pacific and Director, worldwide issue networks, for the EastWest Institute, writes, “These challenges require considerable international coordination – a growth of efforts beyond the current denuclearization dialogue. The mandate of the Six-Party talks could be expanded to include other security and development questions. Participation in the talks could also be expanded to include contributors like Mongolia, Canada and Australia, and prove more effective by forming mini-laterals – groupings of two or three concerned nations – to tackle specific problem areas.”

Leonid A. Petrov, Research Associate at the Australian National University, writes, “Australia’s DPRK policy has for too long been copying the US policy toward North Korea and has finally reached the same dead end. Driven to this by the previous government, it now needs urgent attention and adjustment. If neglected, Australia risks loosing many lucrative opportunities still available for our exporters and investors.”