Policy Forum

Georgy Toloraya, Visiting Fellow at the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institute, writes, “If the hard-line approach persists on both sides, the future is predictable. It would likely be a repetition of the past: after a series of mutual steps increasing tensions and driving relations into yet another dead-end, the opponents (probably with a changed administration on the U.S. side) will get back to discussing the same issues from square one, again discovering there is no alternative to engagement and small-step tactics leading to gradual solutions, one by one.”

David C. Kang, Professor in the Government department and Adjunct Professor at the Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, writes, “Evidence suggests that even without the U.S.-ROK military alliance instability and change on the Korean peninsula would be less dramatic than some observers have predicted. The absence of an alliance might under certain circumstances, such as continued progress in the six-party talks, have relatively little impact. Under other circumstances, such as increased tension between the United States and China over regional issues, the absence of the alliance might be more consequential.”

Daniel A. Pinkston, Senior Analyst for the International Crisis Group, writes, “North Korea has a significant infrastructure and institutional arrangement to sustain its missile program. The country is nearly self-sufficient in ballistic missile production, but still relies upon some advanced foreign technologies and components, particularly for guidance systems. Pyongyang has established foreign entities and front companies to acquire inputs, but international export controls and denial strategies have made it increasingly difficult to procure dual-use items and technologies.”

This Report is the product of a multiyear, bipartisan, bi-national “strategic dialogue” to candidly discuss the strengths and address the weaknesses in the U.S.-ROK alliance, place them in a regional and global context and look ahead to identify ways to ensure its future success. It concludes, “The US-ROK partnership should be reaffirmed but it should also be modernized and redefined… In this Report, we chart a path of strategic cooperation between the United States and South Korea for this new era.”

Mark J. Valencia, a maritime security analyst in Kaneohe, Hawaii, writes “emerging from one of the most conflict prone regions of the world is a conflict avoidance regime – in short, an expectation of self-restraint and sharing in such situations. But these regimes are not multilateral nor have they evolved in that direction despite the hopes and recommendations of policy analysts and practitioners. Nevertheless, they can be expanded and have a spillover effect on relations in general and maritime regime creation in particular.”

Leonid Petrov, Research Associate in the Division of Pacific and Asian History at Australian National University, writes, “If Moscow, Pyongyang and Seoul reach a mutual understanding, coordinate their policies, and preclude their rivals from destroying this unity, many hopes of the Russian and Korean peoples have a good chance of materializing in the coming four to five years.”

Suzy Kim, former international secretary of MINKAHYUP Human Rights Group in Seoul, Korea, and a visiting assistant professor of East Asian Studies at Oberlin College, and John Feffer, co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, write, “What’s at stake is an end to more than half a century of hostilities in U.S.-North Korea relations, 20 million North Korean lives, and a peaceful and prosperous East Asia. The United States has to commit to the long haul. It’s time to give engaged diplomacy a chance.”

Aidan Foster-Carter, honorary senior research fellow in sociology and modern Korea at Leeds University, England, writes, “South Korea’s real problems run deeper than soundbites. They include jobless graduates – too many study the wrong subjects – and, above all, how to create a growth model to meet China’s challenge. That entails boosting services, which means more FDI. Mr Roh, to his credit, saw this. Does Mr Lee?”

Mark J. Valencia, a Maritime Policy Analyst and Nautilus Institute Associate, writes, “But if the mighty U.S. Navy vessels truly felt threatened by the lightly armed speedboats, then they should have argued they were engaging in self-defense or have even taken the issue to the UN Security Council. But to claim and pursue transit passage in a provocative manner while refusing to ratify the Convention-and then crying ‘foul’ –smacks of hypocrisy or worse.”

Richard Tanter, Director of the Australia office of the Nautilus Institute, writes, “While the violence of the attempted coup is shocking, it should not be a surprise. East Timor has been moving into multi-dimensional crisis for several years. For a variety of reasons, most foreign observers have been averting their eyes from this growing crisis, leaving their audience surprised when violence finally broke out again.”