Policy Forum

Aidan Foster-Carter, honorary senior research fellow in sociology and modern Korea at Leeds, writes: “The current stasis in inter-Korean ties partly reflects the fact that right now North Korea is no mood to talk seriously to anyone about anything. But there are also specific aspects to this always distinctive relationship between two halves of a divided land… One is the refugee issue… The other is the one field of cooperation that Pyongyang is still keen on, doubtless because there is money in it. The first goods made by an ROK firm in the Kaesong Industrial Zone (KIZ) – saucepans, as it happens – hit the stores in Seoul just in time for Christmas, and sold out in two days. So maybe an otherwise bleak New Year is not wholly without hope after all.”

Scott Snyder, Senior Associate, Pacific Forum CSIS/The Asia Foundation, writes: It is still premature to say that the six-party process is dead, but the lengthy pause raises some dilemmas for all parties concerned. The challenges for Chinese diplomacy may be the most interesting and complex.

Balbina Y. Hwang, Policy Analyst for Northeast Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, writes: The United States has much to gain from maintaining its formal alliance with the Republic of Korea, as well as the broader bilateral relationship. However, to do so, both sides must work to overcome the serious gap in public perception that has emerged in recent years.

Jon Wolfsthal, deputy director for Non-Proliferation at Carnegie, writes: “North Korea’s nuclear program cannot be eliminated, then the other members of the six party talks will have a difficult 2005and beyond. Can South Korea accept a nuclear neighbor to the North and if not, what will it do to respond over the long term? This is the questions that will increasingly occupy the minds of American experts in the years to come unless 2005 surprises many and leads to a negotiated end to North Korea’s nuclear program.”

Bruce Cumings, history professor at the University of Chicago and author of several books on the DPRK, writes: “What was indelible about it [the Korean war of 1950-53] was the extraordinary destructiveness of the United States? air campaigns against North Korea, from the widespread and continuous use of firebombing (mainly with napalm), to threats to use nuclear and chemical weapons, and the destruction of huge North Korean dams in the final stages of the war.”

Wade L. Huntley, Program Director at the Simons Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Research, Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia, writes: We cannot know whether a peaceful non-proliferation solution in Korea has already become impossible. We can know that, at this late stage, such an outcome will require bold innovation, tough engagement, and a sense of urgency in negotiations.

Andrei Lankov, senior lecturer at the Australian National University, writes: “the North Korean economy has indeed come a long way from its Stalinist ways. Now the government has neither money nor support nor the political will to revive the Stalinist-style central economy. There is no way back, only forward. Stalinism is dead. Welcome to capitalism, comrades!”

Brent Choi, a North Korea Specialist at the the Joongang Daily in the ROK, writes: By the end of 2005 Kim [Jong-Il] must improve ties with the U.S. through resolving the nuclear crisis and induce Japanese capital to his state. At home he must re-organize his ruling party and establish a strong basis to revive its economy by promoting investment from Japan and other countries. But if Kim fails to address those problems in timely manner he will not only be heir-less but also under serious military threat from the outside. Time is definitely not on his side.

Gary Leupp, Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion, writes: the neocons only want to cooperate in a scenario that destroys the North Korean regime, discredits forever anyone in the South who feels any sympathy with it, and suppresses the anti-American attitudes of those who want to negotiate with someone they label a tyrannical dictator.