Policy Forum

Rudiger Frank, Professor of East Asian Economy and Society at the University of Vienna, writes, “The government in Seoul is yet in a position to develop strategies for the future. A law on property rights in North Korea, on tax breaks, other investment incentives, the fate of the elite and welfare benefits for the weak is overdue. There still is time for a discussion and for finding the best option, but the clock is ticking. Once events start to follow in quick succession, politicians and chess players alike either act according to their prepared strategy, or they simply react. At least in chess, the latter often leads to defeat.”

James Goodby, nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution and former US Ambassador to Finland, and Markku Heiskanen, Senior Expert Associate at NIAS-Nordic Institute of Asian Studies in Copenhagen, write, “Energy cooperation between China, Japan, North and South Korea and Russia could be a first step towards building broad international and institutionalized cooperation between these countries. The United States and the European Union should be fully participating members of an energy community in Northeast Asia.”

Aidan Foster-Carter, Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Sociology   Modern Korea at Leeds University, writes, “This is an astonishing episode, which history may record as pivotal. If the leadership learns its lesson and finally accepts that the market economy is as ineluctable as gravity, then the DPRK might conceivably survive on a reconstituted economic base and social contract, like today’s China or Vietnam. But if Kim Jong-il (or whoever) keeps trying to square the circle, under the delusion that correct politics is a substitute for sound economics, there is no hope.”

John W. Lewis, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, and Robert Carlin, Visiting Scholar at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, write, “Over the past several months, the North has signaled publicly and privately that it is in engagement mode. In Washington, arguments abound about whether or not this is a stall tactic or a trick, but we’ll never know if we don’t move ahead with serious and sustained probing of the North’s position. So long as our government sticks to an all-or-nothing approach in terms of Pyongyang, the opportunity to advance vital U.S. security interests in northeast Asia could be lost.”

Tsuneo “Nabe” Watanabe, Senior Fellow at the Tokyo Foundation, writes, “if mutual trust were created between the leaders of both sides, it would not be impossible to find solutions to overcome future troubles as well as the current impasse without damaging the alliance itself… The complex and difficult management of bases in Okinawa should not be a litmus test for support of the general Japan-US alliance.”

U.S.-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) issued this analysis of the DPRK’s recent statements which notes, “By focusing on the dynamic as a cause of the problem rather than blaming the U.S. (or the ROK or Japan) as the culprit, Pyongyang has given itself room to consider a fairly broad range of options for moving the negotiating process ahead. Similarly noteworthy was the statement’s unusually balanced portrayal of the accomplishments of the Six Party Talks, citing examples of ways in which both sides gained. That allows the North to move forward in talks while maintaining its position that the way ahead rests on give or take or, more precisely, the principle of ‘action for action.’”

Mark Valencia, Nautilus Institute Senior Associate, writes, “It seems inevitable that warships, submarines and military aircraft of the two will increasingly confront each other in and over the South and East China Seas. Needed urgently is at least an Incidents at Sea Agreement if not an informal set of agreed guidelines regarding the operations of US military vessels and aircraft in China’s claimed waters. Otherwise, the seas of East Asia may become increasingly dangerous for all concerned -both politically and otherwise.”

Every so often in history a technological innovation emerges that has a transformative effect on human civilization. As the world ponders how to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change, Nautilus Institute Director Peter Hayes looks at some of the possible technological breakthroughs that could pave the way to a sustainable future.

Siegfried S. Hecker, Co-Director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation, writes “Not only have we not been able to negotiate effectively, but also we have allowed Pyongyang to cross with impunity every red line we have drawn. The U.S. negotiating position has also been hampered by our inability to sustain consistent policies through transitions in administrations. Pyongyang has taken advantage of our political divisions to play a weak hand with success. Unless we learn from the lessons of North Korea, others may be able to do the same.”

Rudiger Frank, Professor of East Asian Economy and Society, University of Vienna, writes, “The ban on the use of foreign currencies in North Korea is not only a return to pre-reform orthodoxy, but also to normality as it exists in most countries of the world. It marks one step in the multi-staged strategy of the North Korean state to regain control over its society and economy… In any case, a system of multiple exchange rates will help the North Korean state to follow the developmental path of its neighbors in the hope of becoming part of the East Asian miracle – or, as North Korean media put it, to open the gate to a new era.”