Policy Forum

In this article Mark J. Valencia, a maritime policy analyst based in Hawaii and the author of “The Proliferation Security Initiative: Making Waves in Asia”, writes, “such interdictions, without the permission of the flag state, on or over the high seas, could be considered an act of war. Some thought North Korea was bluffing when it said it would launch ballistic missiles. They thought it was bluffing when it said it had a nuclear weapon. They also thought it was bluffing when it said it would test a nuclear weapon. Now it has threatened war if its vessels or aircraft are interdicted. Given this history of miscalculation on both sides, the United States and its friends in the region need to carefully consider if hey want to contribute to the cause of a possible Second Korean War.”

Sheila Miyoshi Jager, Associate Professor of East Asian Studies at Oberlin College and the author (with Rana Mitter) of “Ruptured Histories: War, Memory and the Post- Cold War in Asia”, writes, “Washington must come to terms with the emergence of pan-Korean nationalism in South Korea in which ending the Korean War is the main goal. In practical terms, this will require that the United States engage North Korea in direct bi-lateral talks aimed at finally settling the hostile relations between the two countries with the ultimate goal of concluding a peace treaty and establishing diplomatic relations.”

Alexandre Y. Mansourov, Associate Professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu, writes, “The Taoist “Way” out of the current nuclear standoff between North Korea and the United States is based on four simple Tao wisdoms – “small steps together,” “use help from others when in trouble,” “know when enough is enough,” and, finally, “doing less is doing more.” It may look paradoxical and even heretic, but the Taoist conclusion is that the less we do in our quest to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis at present, the more we will achieve in the end and the safer we will all be in the meantime.”

John J. Tkacik, Jr., Senior Research Fellow in China Policy in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, writes, “The new and mature tenor of China’s diplomatic rhetoric may signal a real change in Beijing’s policies on North Korea – or it may reflect a Chinese tactic of ‘soft on the outside’ but ‘hard on the inside’ when engaging Washington. How receptive Beijing is to the U.S. call for enforceable sanctions on North Korea will reveal how serious China really is about being a responsible stakeholder.”

Jungmin Kang, Science Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) at Stanford University, and Peter Hayes, Nautilus Institute Executive Director, write, “Having tested and failed, the DPRK can no longer rely on opacity as the basis for having a credible nuclear force, at least sufficiently credible to threaten its adversaries with a nuclear explosion. The DPRK might believe that a half kilotonne “mininuke” still provides it with a measure of nuclear deterrence and compellence; but it could not rely on other nuclear weapons states to perceive it to have anything more than an unusable, unreliable and relatively small nuclear explosive device.”

Jungmin Kang, Science Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) at Stanford University, and Peter Hayes, Nautilus Institute Executive Director, write, “Having tested and failed, the DPRK can no longer rely on opacity as the basis for having a credible nuclear force, at least sufficiently credible to threaten its adversaries with a nuclear explosion. The DPRK might believe that a half kilotonne “mininuke” still provides it with a measure of nuclear deterrence and compellence; but it could not rely on other nuclear weapons states to perceive it to have anything more than an unusable, unreliable and relatively small nuclear explosive device.”

Bennett Ramberg, who served in the State Department during President George H.W. Bush’s administration and is the author of three books on international security, writes, “Finally, give the North a greater stake in its financial future – and reduce its isolation and paranoia – by encouraging the South’s efforts at economic engagement. Economic intercourse may deliver another benefit. It could abate Pyongyang’s incentive to sell military equipment – including nuclear materials, or even weapons – to generate hard currency. However, we cannot rely on this tack.”

Alexandre Y. Mansourov, Associate Professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu, writes, “The day after the nuclear test, we are all somewhat less secure, worse off, and closer to the second Korean War. This notwithstanding, the international community can attempt to turn this crisis into a unique opportunity to resolve the Korean question writ large once and for all through a multinational peace-making effort aimed at extending the benefits of secure and prosperous life in a free and open society to all Koreans living on a united peninsula, while establishing the foundations for a genuine regional multilateral security architecture capable of coping with the most difficult security challenges in Northeast Asia in a cooperative, effective, and mutually acceptable manner.”

Peter Hayes, Nautilus Institute Executive Director, and Tim Savage, Nautilus Institute Senior Associate, write, “The United States and China should also avoid falling into the “blame game” about who failed to prevent North Korea from testing. The Six Party Talks are now dead. As the two great powers involved directly with the North, they have to work together to develop a viable strategy to engage North Korea and restart negotiations, possibly in a new tripartite forum. If the United States baulks at engaging North Korea, then China and Russia will simply cut their own deals with Kim Jong Il in order to re-stabilize the situation.”

Dr. Strangelove in Pyongyang Dr. Strangelove in Pyongyang Policy Forum Online 06-85A: October 10th, 2006 Dr. Strangelove in Pyongyang Essay by Peter Hayes and Tim Savage CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Essay by Peter Hayes and Tim Savage III. Nautilus invites your responses I. Introduction Peter Hayes, Nautilus Institute Executive Director, and Tim Savage, Nautilus Institute […]