Archives

Jason T. Shaplen, Policy Adviser at the Korean Peninsula Energy Organization (KEDO) from 1995-1999, and James Laney, U.S. Ambassador to South Korea from 1993-1997, write: “In Iraq, we had the luxury of destroying the regime first to bring about the change we sought. In North Korea the opposite is true. We must engage the regime first to end and ultimately reverse its nuclear program. We must therefore hold our noses in seeking to bring the North into the world community, including securing its membership in security forums, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank etc.”

Ruediger Frank, Professor of East Asian Political Economy at the University of Vienna, writes: “The recent efforts of South Korea’s president Roh Moo-hyun to establish the country not only as a mediator, but as a balancing power in Northeast Asia to prevent possible disputes in the region are an expression of the dissatisfaction with the progress made under the current arrangement and could be interpreted as a change of the Status quo that benefits Beijing at the expense of the alliance with Washington, which will nevertheless not be given up. Quite remarkably, this position of being an independent actor in international relations corresponds very well with the North Korean position and opens one more field of possible future cooperation of both Koreas.”

The International Crisis Group, an independent, non-profit, multinational organization, working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly conflict, writes: “North Korea will not and should not receive significant international development assistance until it gives up its nuclear weapons, but it would be worthwhile trying already to develop a better understanding of the country’s economy and what it will require in the way of help. Whether the regime survives or not, North Korea will need officials who are better versed in economic matters and have a greater exposure to the world.”