Policy Forum

Mark J. Valencia, a maritime policy analyst based in Kaneohe, Hawaii, writes, “US government arguments and immediate follow up actions regarding the incident seem to constitute a ‘might makes right’ approach that only increases the damage being done to the US image in Asia. Real change is needed in US maritime diplomacy in Asia and elsewhere.”

Paul Carroll, Program Director at the Ploughshares Fund, writes, “Depending on how the U.S. responds to any DPRK action, as well as our partners in the region, we may be in for rough stretch of road for some time. The alternative could be that if the responses are creative and bold, we may just be able to snatch some victory from the jaws of defeat and make some progress toward the goals of denuclearizing the peninsula and transforming the regional security situation.”

Greg Scarlatoiu, Director of Public Affairs and Business Issues of the Korea Economic Institute, writes, “Dissent at the top or within the military ranks may seem unlikely for as long as Kim Jong-il is in power, given the authority he seems to wield, in particular after the establishment of the military first policy after his father’s death. However, previous reports of a couple of failed attempted coups in the early to mid-1990s indicate that the North Korean military has not always thought favorably of hereditary succession. In a post-Kim Jong-il scenario, developments may unravel in a way reminiscent of Romania 1989.”

Peter M. Beck, is a Professor at American University in Washington, D.C. and Ewha Womans University in Seoul, writes, “Working closely with Seoul, Washington must make an irresistible offer – normalization, completion of the two light water reactors scrapped by Bush and economic assistance. A ‘shotgun wedding’ may just be the most effective way of testing the North’s intentions. However, there’s one catch. We must be prepared for a possible rejection by the North. In which case, we must be prepared to use the shotgun.”

Read a discussion of this article here.

Tong Kim, Adjunct professor at SAIS, a research professor with the Ilmin Institute of International Relations, and a visiting professor of the Graduate University of North Korean Studies, writes, “As the North Koreans rewrite their talking points for future meetings, it is important for them to refrain from creating new problems either by launching a missile or even a satellite at this point or by making new unreasonable demands. Now the ball is back in Pyongyang’s court to join international efforts to move the denuclearization process forward, and to seek its own interest of security assurance and economic development.”

Mark J. Valencia, Visiting Senior Fellow at the Maritime Institute of Malaysia (MIMA), writes, “the real issue of course is China’s expanding blue water navy and its major submarine base on Hainan. Obviously it wants to protect its ‘secrets’ in the area including the activities and capabilities of its submarines and the morphology of the sea bottom. And just as intently, the US wants to know as much as it can about China’s submarine capabilities and the area it may one day need to do battle in. Thus such incidents are likely to be repeated and become more dangerous and they do not pertain to China and the US alone.”

Read a discussion of this article here.

Axel Berkofsky, Adjunct Professor at the University Milan and Advisor on Asian Affairs at the European Policy Centre (EPC) in Brussels, writes, “Sitting quietly on the sidelines of the process of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula, the EU has never been invited or made any clear efforts to become actively involved in the six-party North Korea nuclear talks. And while the US, Japan, South Korea, China and, of course, North Korea, call all the shots, Brussels waits for the right moment to step in.”

Read a discussion of this article here.

Yukio Satoh, Former President of the Japan Institute of International Affairs and Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations from October 1998 till August 2002, writes, “The time has come for the governments of Japan and the United States to articulate better the shared concept of extended deterrence, nuclear or otherwise, in order to assure the Japanese that deterrence will continue to function under changing strategic circumstances and with technological developments.”

Leon V. Sigal, Director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council, writes, “Pyongyang’s basic stance is that as long as Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul remain adversaries, it feels threatened and will acquire nuclear weapons and missiles to counter that threat. But, it says, if Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo move toward reconciliation, it will get rid of these weapons. Whether North Korea means what it says isn’t certain, but the only way to test it is to try to build mutual trust over time by faithfully carrying out a series of reciprocal steps that starts now.”

This article by Jia Xijin, Associate Professor at the NGO Research Center at Tsinghua University, and Zhao Yusi, Project Assistant of NGO Research Center at Tsinghua University, summaries several articles on the impact of China’s economic stimulus package on environmental protection organizations. The report concludes, “Obviously this investment plan will build the confidence of civil society environmental protection organizations… In China today civil society organizations are trying to both expand the role of environmental protection and provide rational guidance and the smart exchange of ideas to the public.”