Special Reports

Eric Hagt and Chen Yali, World Security Institute China Program, writes: “China is a rising power, and the paramount task of both China and the United States is to adjust to that impending reality ­ in terms of economic and trade relations, but also in terms of Taiwan and the two nations’ strategic policies. A heavy responsibility falls on China to assure the region and the world that its rise won’t constitute a threat to others; that it is a force for stability rather than a revisionist power ? On the other hand, the United States must deeply reflect on its own policies toward China, as the latter evolves as a regional and potential world power.”

Frank Barnaby, Nuclear Issues Consultant to Oxford Research Group (ORG), and Shaun Burnie, Coordinator of Greenpeace International nuclear campaigns, write: “Treat nothing as inevitable is a good principle to live one’s life by. Unfortunately, in the case of Japan’s nuclear development, it may not be sufficient. The international community – read governments – will learn to live with Japanese nuclear weapons if that occasion arises. The consequences would of course be terrible for Northeast Asia. Pressure in South Korea to respond would be huge, relations with China could become disastrous, and the global nuclear non-proliferation regime centred around the NPT reduced to a historical footnote.”

This report by CSIS Pacific Forum collects the results of the forum’s Young Leaders Program which seeks to, “bring talented young professionals, working on the particular subjects of our meetings, to the table to enrich our discussions and to provide them with the opportunity to acquire on-the-job training and exposure to individuals and ideas that they might only otherwise encounter in books.”

South Korea President Roh Moo-hyun delivered this speech on the 60th anniversary of Korean liberation. President Roh said: “History now gives us another calling. It is none other than putting an end to the history of divisiveness and opening an age of national unity. It is also to build a springboard to overcome the age of national division and usher in a new age of national unification for peace and prosperity.”

Andrew Scobell, an Associate Research Professor at the Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Dickinson College, writes: “North Korea’s rulers are influenced by history, ideology, and notions of nationalism that produce what social scientists like to term a ‘bounded rationality.’ The author’s conclusion is that North Korea’s senior leaders are determined and confident that they will not only survive but that they will be able to restore and revitalize their regime.”

Hiromichi Umebayashi, President of the Peace Depot Japan, and International Coordinator for the Pacific Campaign for Disarmament & Security (PCDS), writes: “The objectives of a NWFZ include not only limiting nuclear weapons, but also making a significant contribution to maintaining international peace and security in areas with varied historical backgrounds, some with long-standing disputes.”

Donald S. Zagoria, Project Director for Northeast Asia Projects at the National Committee on American Foreign Policy (NCAFP), wrote this summary report from the 3rd Conference on Northeast Asian Security Co-sponsored by the National Committee on American Foreign Policy (NCAFP) and the DPRK Institute for Disarmament and Peace (DPRK IDP). The report states: “it is unclear whether North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons program. But in the next year or two, there will be an opportunity to test that country’s intentions through a serious diplomatic effort. A well-organized and well-focused Track 1.5 effort could play an important role in assisting the official U.S. effort.”

The Nautilus Institute released this report analyzing the ROK offer of 2 Gigawatts of energy aid to the DPRK as part of the six party talks. The report suggests, “that the participants at the six-party talks should consider the full scope of activities needed to implement the South Korean scheme; that they should explore an alternative approach that would link the Russian and South Korean grids, thereby achieving the same outcome at lower cost and lesser political risk; and that the six parties should consider adopting a short-term, alternative package rather than resuming HFO deliveries to the DPRK because this approach would provide more energy services, faster, and at lower risk and cost to give immediate substance to statements of longer-term intention to supply assistance to the DPRK. We further suggest that these issues be explored with the North Koreans at the six-party talks at a subsequent technical working group before major commitments are made to proceeding with the South Korean proposal.”

The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA) released this final report from their Multilateral Workshop, held in Shanghai and cosponsored by the Shanghai Institute for International Studies (SIIS), part of IFPA’s Building Six-Party Capacity Project (http://www.ifpa.org/projects/carnrok.htm). The report states: “Ultimately, it matters less exactly what form the capacity-building effort assumes. Instead the most important factor is that collective discussion be initiated and expanded among a wider range of functional activities, and preferably away from media attention and with minimal political interference.”

Robert Litwak, a National Security Council staff member in the mid-1990s and director of international studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, and Kathryn Weathersby, a senior associate of the center’s Cold War International History Project and coordinator of its Korea Initiative, which obtained the documents cited in this article, wrote: “The Bush administration cannot ground its negotiations with North Korea on the assumption — or vain hope — that the regime is in danger of imminent collapse. Despite economic implosion and famine, that regime has proved far more durable than anyone expected.”