Policy Forum

Andrei Lankov, a lecturer in the faculty of Asian Studies, China and Korea Center, at Australian National University who is currently on leave, teaching at Kookmin University, Seoul, writes “active intervention in North Korea will undermine the remarkable goodwill toward China, which can be seen among many neighbors as the rising giant. So, it is more likely that the Chinese will avoid political adventurism and limit themselves to gaining economic advantages in the northern part of the Korean peninsula.”

Col. Jiyul Kim, Director of Asian Studies at the US Army War College, writes “South Korean politics is in a profound period of transition as the result of a generational shift, the end of the Cold War, democratization, and growing self-confidence. Among the emerging political forces, those that are creating the most important political fault lines are the ideologies of pan-Korean nationalism and anti-Great Power-ism. These trends could well mark the end of the U.S. — South Korean alliance as we know it.”

Ruediger Frank, Professor of East Asian Political Economy at the University of Vienna, writes, “If pressure exerted through economic, political, or military means increases to a level that is high enough to trigger a qualitative change such as regime collapse, we might end up with a successful surgery, but a dead patient. Both sanctions and assistance naturally involve a great deal of uncertainty and risk. But while we can still change the engagement therapy after the failure of one type of medicine, the failure of a hard-line approach will leave us with irreversible damage.”

Ruediger Frank, Professor of East Asian Political Economy at the University of Vienna, writes, “There is nothing mystical about North Korea; it is just a highly intransparent case of ordinary development – as easy or as hard to understand as any other example. It can be expected that the closer the institutional structure in North Korea comes to the international mainstream, the easier it will get to integrate this case into standard theoretical models and to compare it with other examples.”

CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Essay by Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland I. Introduction Stephan Haggard, a professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego, where he directs the Korea-Pacific Program, and Marcus Noland, senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics, Washington, write“a revival of the failed socialist model would not only […]

David Kang , associate professor of government, adjunct associate professor and research director at the Center for International Business at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, and co-author of Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies, writes “The United States can improve its position in East Asia, as well as solidify its alliance with South Korea, by widening its focus beyond North Korean denuclearization and coming out strongly and enthusiastically in favor of Korean unification.”

Mark J. Valencia, Maritime Policy Analyst and Nautilus Institute Senior Associate, writes “Most of the PSI’s shortcomings stem from its ad-hoc, extra-UN, US-driven nature. Bringing it into the UN system would rectify many of these shortcomings by loosening US control, enhancing its legitimacy, and engendering near universal support.”

Ruediger Frank, Professor of East Asian Political Economy at the University of Vienna and Korea Foundation Distinguished Visiting Professor at Korea University, writes “International support will continue to be an important and effective policy, as it obviously was in the past, although its nature might change and the impact will not always be directly measurable. However, it works. The few millions spent on projects in North Korea are a low price for regional security and improved living conditions.”

Lee Junkyu, Coordinator of Policy Planning at the Civil Network for a Peaceful Korea, writes “The US inconsistent attitude toward its nuclear policy becomes more visible when we look into the differences of policies applied to Israel, Pakistan, India and to North Korea and Iran. North Korea and Iran are the states that are ‘suspected’ to develop nuclear weapons while Israel, Pakistan and India are mavericks of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, armed with nuclear weapons. However, the U.S. has never been stingy in supporting them.”

Andrei Lankov, a North Korean studies specialist from the Australian National University, currently teaching at Kookmin University in Seoul, writes. “Stopping all aid could lead to renewed famine, especially in those areas of the country closed to foreigners. But excessive and unconditional aid is likely to halt all reforms, since the Pyongyang government would simply reverse to its old policies, using foreign aid to pay for the system’s inherent inefficiencies.”