Archives

Shen Dingli, the Executive Deputy Director of the Institute of International Issues at the Fudan University, the director of the US Study Center of the Fudan University, and the director of the arms control and regional security research project, writes, “the DPRK considers its national interests to be greater than its relations with China. It will not give up the independent guarantee of national security gained through nuclear tests just because of China’s concerns and the possibility of China applying pressure on it. Therefore the DPRK is bound to hold that the advantages of conducting a nuclear test outweigh the disadvantages; hence it will proceed with a nuclear test.”

Marcus Noland, Senior Fellow at the Institute for International Economics (IIE), writes “In short, the economic implications of a nuclear test for the region while not catastrophic, would not be benign. However, the likelihood of adverse economic repercussions is unlikely to pose a significant constraint on North Korean actions, and it is not difficult to come up with a scenario in which North Korean behavior does indeed convey large negative economic spillovers to its neighbors. This simply underscores the importance of cooperation to deter provocative behavior on the part of North Korea.”

Shen Dingli, Executive Dean of Institute of International Studies, and Director of Center for American Studies at Fudan University, Shanghai, and Tatsujiro Suzuki, Visiting Professor of Graduate School of Public Policy at University of Tokyo, Japan, write, “The history issue is an important issue of justice but should not hold the relationship hostage. As a former brutal colonizer, Japan has the moral responsibility to be sensitive and behave honestly while Beijing needs to develop a firm policy that is not subject to nationalism.”

Robert Carlin, former Chief of the Northeast Asia Division in INR at the State Department, presented this speech given by DPRK First Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok Ju to a meeting of North Korean diplomats held in Pyongyang over the summer. The speech states, “On the nuclear question, the guidance is quite clear and you will stick to it, no matter how often you are pestered. Whether or not we will test is not for us to know. I can tell you this-the situation in Pyongyang is where we never wanted it to be. We have no standing at all, no weight, no credibility any longer to influence the decision.”

Suh Bohyuk, a former expert advisor at the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRC) and now instructor of HUFS and other university, writes, “Sino-North Korea relations may be neither strongly attached nor completely broken, standing between such geographical reasons and different political decisions of the two countries. More profound discussions are needed about what significances such two-faced Sino-North Korea relations would have on peace on Korean peninsula.”

Lee Jong-won, Professor of International Relations at Rikkyo University, writes, “He [Abe] still tends to invoke China as a threat, and he has been calling for a long-term strategy linking ‘democratic nations’ such as Australia and India together, based on the U.S.-Japanese alliance. Perhaps by intention, Korea – with the most dynamic democracy in the region – is not mentioned in that initiative… Even if the issue of Yasukuni is resolved, there will still be major factors producing instability in the Korea-Japan relationship that will have to be dealt with. Korea’s policy toward Japan needs to be proactive and comprehensive enough to consider the diversity and changes in Japan.”

James Cotton, Professor of Politics in the University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy campus, Canberra, writes, “North Korea’s rejection of UN authority is unprecedented in modern times; it is also a serious reverse both to multilateral diplomacy as well as to the prospects for confidence-building in Northeast Asia. Reviving the Six-Party process and a return to the path of diplomacy will require Pyongyang to take a much more constructive approach to regional and global concerns regarding missile and WMD proliferation.”

Åshild Kolås & Stein Tønnesson of the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) note that offshore natural gas is now the major source of income for the Burmese military regime. A wider concern is “the current Sino-Indian rivalry over Burmese natural gas from the Shwe field”, which, they suggest, “may give rise to further competition to assist the Burmese.”

Moo-jin Yang, a Professor of Economics at the Graduate School of North Korean Studies who writes widely on the North Korean Economy in both English and Japanese, writes, “South Korea has to take decisive steps in response to the provocative behavior of North Korea, but must also prepare an “exit” too. To stop the tension from rising further on the peninsula, we have to find ways to resolve the problems peacefully through dialogue. That is, we must maintain the basic dynamic force of inter-Korean relations and strengthen solidarity within the international community for the quick return to the Six-Party Talks.”

Chung-in Moon, professor of political science at Yonsei University, writes, “…the most pressing matters of the present are two-fold. One is the stable and effective management of the alliance by resolving American field officers grievances, such as the provision of air-to-ground test firing sites as well as a smooth resolution of the return of polluted American military bases. The other is a more in-depth and candid exchange of views on an increasingly divergent common threat perception, namely North Korea, upon which the true future of the ROK-US alliance may hinge.”