Policy Forum

Lee Jong-won, Professor of International Relations at Rikkyo University, writes, “He [Abe] still tends to invoke China as a threat, and he has been calling for a long-term strategy linking ‘democratic nations’ such as Australia and India together, based on the U.S.-Japanese alliance. Perhaps by intention, Korea – with the most dynamic democracy in the region – is not mentioned in that initiative… Even if the issue of Yasukuni is resolved, there will still be major factors producing instability in the Korea-Japan relationship that will have to be dealt with. Korea’s policy toward Japan needs to be proactive and comprehensive enough to consider the diversity and changes in Japan.”

James Cotton, Professor of Politics in the University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy campus, Canberra, writes, “North Korea’s rejection of UN authority is unprecedented in modern times; it is also a serious reverse both to multilateral diplomacy as well as to the prospects for confidence-building in Northeast Asia. Reviving the Six-Party process and a return to the path of diplomacy will require Pyongyang to take a much more constructive approach to regional and global concerns regarding missile and WMD proliferation.”

Åshild Kolås & Stein Tønnesson of the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) note that offshore natural gas is now the major source of income for the Burmese military regime. A wider concern is “the current Sino-Indian rivalry over Burmese natural gas from the Shwe field”, which, they suggest, “may give rise to further competition to assist the Burmese.”

Moo-jin Yang, a Professor of Economics at the Graduate School of North Korean Studies who writes widely on the North Korean Economy in both English and Japanese, writes, “South Korea has to take decisive steps in response to the provocative behavior of North Korea, but must also prepare an “exit” too. To stop the tension from rising further on the peninsula, we have to find ways to resolve the problems peacefully through dialogue. That is, we must maintain the basic dynamic force of inter-Korean relations and strengthen solidarity within the international community for the quick return to the Six-Party Talks.”

Chung-in Moon, professor of political science at Yonsei University, writes, “…the most pressing matters of the present are two-fold. One is the stable and effective management of the alliance by resolving American field officers grievances, such as the provision of air-to-ground test firing sites as well as a smooth resolution of the return of polluted American military bases. The other is a more in-depth and candid exchange of views on an increasingly divergent common threat perception, namely North Korea, upon which the true future of the ROK-US alliance may hinge.”

Li Dunqiu, Director of Division of Korean Peninsular Studies at the Institute of World Development Center of Development Studies, writes, “Sino-DPRK economic cooperation is growing in depth and width but both sides adopt a low-profile and practical attitude… In fact Chinese enterprises, both private and state-owned, are looking for greater room for their future development as a result of the constantly improving market economy in China. Amid such backdrop, the DPRK naturally becomes their target… It is not difficult to see that laws of the market economy are the most fundamental reason behind Chinese enterprises investment in DPRK.”

Yi Kiho, Director of the South Korea office of the Nautilus Institute, writes, “What we can understand from the responses of each sector of civil society is that neither group is focused on the military threat posed by the missile launches… Instead of using the missile tests just to criticize the North Korean policies of the United States (in the case of progressives) or South Korea (in the case of conservatives), it would be more productive for South Korean NGOs to provide constructive alternatives. It is high time for South Korean civil society to put aside long-standing ideological differences and work together on building a peaceful future for the Korean Peninsula.”

Policy Forum Online 06-66A: August 10th, 2006 North Korea’s Missile Launches and South Korea’s Response Essay by Moo-jin Yang CONTENTS I. Introduction  II. Essay by Moo-jin Yang  III. Nautilus invites your responses   I. Introduction   Moo-jin Yang, a Professor at the Graduate School of North Korean Studies who majored in international politics and specializes […]

The ROK Ministry of Unification released this statement on the Gaesong project and the current status of Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation. “Most of cash that flows into the complex is the wages and U.S. $ 0.5 million are paid on a monthly basis to cover living expenses for estimated 30,000-40,000 people including 8,000 workers and their family members. Given that number of people, is there something to be left for diversion?”

Kim Tae-kyung, a staff writer at OhmyNews specializing in Northeast Asia regional issues, writes “Thus, this event should be an issue between North Korea and the U.S. Of the many concerned countries, Japan has taken the hardest stance in response to North Korea’s missile launch. Indeed, Japan acts as if it had been attacked by North Korea.”