Archives

In this article Mark J. Valencia, a maritime policy analyst based in Hawaii and the author of “The Proliferation Security Initiative: Making Waves in Asia”, writes, “such interdictions, without the permission of the flag state, on or over the high seas, could be considered an act of war. Some thought North Korea was bluffing when it said it would launch ballistic missiles. They thought it was bluffing when it said it had a nuclear weapon. They also thought it was bluffing when it said it would test a nuclear weapon. Now it has threatened war if its vessels or aircraft are interdicted. Given this history of miscalculation on both sides, the United States and its friends in the region need to carefully consider if hey want to contribute to the cause of a possible Second Korean War.”

Sheila Miyoshi Jager, Associate Professor of East Asian Studies at Oberlin College and the author (with Rana Mitter) of “Ruptured Histories: War, Memory and the Post- Cold War in Asia”, writes, “Washington must come to terms with the emergence of pan-Korean nationalism in South Korea in which ending the Korean War is the main goal. In practical terms, this will require that the United States engage North Korea in direct bi-lateral talks aimed at finally settling the hostile relations between the two countries with the ultimate goal of concluding a peace treaty and establishing diplomatic relations.”

Alexandre Y. Mansourov, Associate Professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu, writes, “The Taoist “Way” out of the current nuclear standoff between North Korea and the United States is based on four simple Tao wisdoms – “small steps together,” “use help from others when in trouble,” “know when enough is enough,” and, finally, “doing less is doing more.” It may look paradoxical and even heretic, but the Taoist conclusion is that the less we do in our quest to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis at present, the more we will achieve in the end and the safer we will all be in the meantime.”