Archives

Mark J. Valencia, maritime policy analyst and Nautilus Institute Senior Fellow, writes, “The joint survey could relieve tension and even be a step towards joint development of resources such as fish, gas and minerals thought to be situated in the disputed area. North Korea should not be excluded from such a cooperative effort and any eventual joint development arrangement. Indeed, rather than ignore North Korea’s claims and concerns and thereby further isolate and antagonize it, the two should invite it to join the survey.”

The Stalker State POLICY FORUM ONLINE 06-82A October 4th, 2006 “The Stalker State: North Korean Proliferation and the End of American Nuclear Hegemony” By Peter Hayes CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Article by Peter Hayes III. DPRK Foreign Ministry Statement IV. Nautilus Invites Your Responses I. Introduction Peter Hayes, Nautilus Institute Executive Director, writes “If as […]

The Stalker State The Stalker State POLICY FORUM ONLINE 06-82A October 4th, 2006 “The Stalker State: North Korean Proliferation and the End of American Nuclear Hegemony” By Peter Hayes CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Article by Peter Hayes III. DPRK Foreign Ministry Statement IV. Nautilus Invites Your Responses I. Introduction Peter Hayes, Nautilus Institute Executive Director, […]

Peter Hayes, Nautilus Institute Executive Director, writes “If as I have suggested, the DPRK has become a nuclear stalker state that seeks to redress past wrongs and use nuclear leverage to force the United States to treat it in a less hostile and more respectful manner, then the United States will have to ask itself whether continued isolation and pressure on the regime is more likely, or less so, to ameliorate stalking behaviors in time of crisis, when the risk of nuclear next-use becomes urgent. Like a repeat offender, the DPRK is likely to continue to use nuclear threat to stalk the United States until it achieves what it perceives to be a genuine shift in Washingtons attitude. Unlike an individual who stalks, there is no simple way to lock up a state that stalks another with nuclear threat.”

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.”