Policy Forum

This essay, “The Role of Medium Sized Powers in the Normalization Process on the Korean Peninsula: An Australian Perspective,” was written by Tim Dunk, an official at the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and John McKay, a professor at the Asia Institute at Monash University in Australia. The authors argue that the end of the Cold War affords middle powers a new opportunity to contribute to the normalization process on the Korean peninsula. While they acknowledge that middle powers, like their larger counterparts, have their own interests vis-a-vis the Korean peninsula, the authors nonetheless feel that middle powers can play an important role in promoting the opening of the DPRK as well as facilitating inter-Korean dialogue. The essay continues discussion of the prospects for peace on the Korean peninsula begun in previous NAPSNet Policy Forums.

Without stronger political winds, APEC’s environmental agenda will be propelled more by drift than by steady progress on a charted course. The question of where the winds might come from is the central question for environmental policymakers and activists alike.

This essay, “Prospects and Implications of Korean Unification,” was written by Colonel William M. Drennan, USAF, presently Senior Military Fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies of the National Defense University in Washington DC. Colonel Drennan is an Asian specialist, with primary emphasis on Korean issues. His previous positions include professor at the National War College; Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; and Chief of Strategy and Policy, J-5, US Forces Korea. He has served in the White House and the Pentagon and has published works on Korean international and domestic politics. The essay assesses current views on the prospects of Korean unification, taking issue with both the “hard” and “soft” landing scenarios often taken to comprise the only possible outcomes of contemporary circumstances. Colonel Drennan’s essay continues discussion of the prospects for peace on the Korean peninsula begun in previous NAPSNet Policy Forums.

This essay, “Russian Perspective On A Post-Armistice Order In Korea,” is by Evgueni Bajanov, Director of the Institute of Contemporary International Problems (ICIP) in the Russian Diplomatic Academy in Moscow, Russian Federation. Prof. Bajanov’s essay offers a provocative look at Korean affairs from the point of view of the Russian Federation, tracing Russia’s historic and contemporary interests in the region, examining the evolution of its relations with the principal countries in the Northeast Asia region, and assessing the role that Russia seeks to play in promoting peace and security on the Korean peninsula. In particular, Prof. Bajanov explains the critical position that Russia has taken toward the US-ROK proposed “four-party” peace talks, and describes the alternative process advocated by Russia which, he argues, would be more effective in solving the problems underlying present tensions and in laying the groundwork for eventual Korean unification. Readers may wish to note the parallels between Prof. Bajanov’s articulation of the “Russian proposal” to achieve Korean peace and security, envisioning a normalization of relations among the principal involved states followed by a convening of an international conference with broader participation, and the proposal discussed by Robert Bedeski in PFO 97-16.

This essay, “Arms Control Inspections, the Armistice Agreement, and New Challenges to Peace on the Korean Peninsula,” is by Robert E. Bedeski, professor of political science at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. Prof. Bedeski’s essay examines the difficult relationship between the interests of the international community and those of Korean nationalists that underlie all efforts either to find short-run means to stave off violent conflicts on the Korean peninsula or to forge long-run solutions to the problems that give rise to the enduring tensions and rivalries. Prof. Bedeski offers a detailed assessment of many dimensions of the present situation, and concludes with a proposal for a four-step process to achieve a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula.

This essay, “Arms Control Inspections, the Armistice Agreement, and New Challenges to Peace on the Korean Peninsula,” is by Robert E. Bedeski, professor of political science at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. Prof. Bedeski’s essay examines the difficult relationship between the interests of the international community and those of Korean nationalists that underlie all efforts either to find short-run means to stave off violent conflicts on the Korean peninsula or to forge long-run solutions to the problems that give rise to the enduring tensions and rivalries. Prof. Bedeski offers a detailed assessment of many dimensions of the present situation, and concludes with a proposal for a four-step process to achieve a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula.

Earlier this year, The Washington Post carried two opinion articles offering contrasting assessments of the 1994 US-DPRK agreement — the “Agreed Framework” — under which the DPRK is to suspend its nuclear program in exchange for the provision of two new light-water nuclear reactors. The first article, by Victor Gilinsky and Henry Sokolski, argued that interpretation of the terms of the Agreed Framework has changed over the course of its implementation, to the degree that the agreement now excessively favors the DPRK and so no longer serves US interests. The second article, by Howard Diamond, argued that Mr. Gilinsky and Mr. Sokolski mischaracterized the agreement and thereby overlooked its significant and ongoing benefits.

This essay, “Rethinking Arms Control and Peace on the Korean Peninsula: Search for Alternatives,” is written by Moon Chung-in, professor of political science and associate director of the Institute for Unification Studies, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Prof. Moon writes that examining the dynamic interplay of international, regional, domestic, and perceptual variables suggests alternative ways of thinking about peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. The current policy lines of both Koreas that focus on the realignment of external ties, he argues, are not likely to produce major breakthroughs in stalled inter-Korean relations. Neither recent proposals for four-party talks with the United States and the PRC nor the proposed Pyongyang-Washington peace treaty will yield positive dividends until the domestic and peninsular patterns that continue to reinforce inter-Korean differences are addressed.

Baseline Assessment of Acid Deposition in Northeast Asia Gregory R. Carmichael and Richard Arndt Gregory R. Carmichael is a Professor in the Department of Chemical & Biochemical Engineering at the University of Iowa, where he is also the co-director of the Center for Global & Regional Environmental Research, a large multidisciplinary research center focused on […]

Energy and Acid Rain Projections for Northeast Asia David G. Streets David Streets is a Senior Scientist in the Decision and Information Sciences Division of Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439. This paper was prepared under a private consulting arrangement, and the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Argonne National Laboratory or the […]