Peace regime on the Korean Peninsula: Time is ripe for Japan to make “strategic decision”

The situation in the Korean Peninsula is coming to a crucial turning point. A year has passed since North Korea shocked the world by conducting its nuclear test. And the grim reality of “North Korea as a nuclear power” still remains. However “major diplomatic activities” toward finding a fundamental solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis are at the final stages.

The situation took a major turn when U.S.-North Korea talks made dramatic progress after the U.S. altered its policy on North Korea. The paradoxical truth is that North Korea’s nuclear test prompted the Bush administration to put a halt to the internal wrangling between its hard-liners and the moderates, and shift towards negotiations with North Korea. Ever since envoys from the two countries met in Berlin in January, it is a matter of note that the ensuing U.S.-North Korea accord was pivotal in creating a breakthrough in the six-party talks.

An “end-of-the-year” deadline has been set for North Korea to disable its nuclear facilities; and initial steps towards attaining the goal began in earnest this week. North Korea is also committed to the year-end timetable to disclose details of its uranium-enrichment program and plutonium extraction that are the key to North Korea’s nuclear capability. It was also reported that a “side understanding” between Washington and Pyongyang was struck in the form of a memorandum promising the removal of North Korea from a U.S. list of terrorism-sponsoring states by the end of the year, with a proviso that “progress” be made in regards to the abduction issue of Japanese nationals. (According to the Washington Post, Oct.3)

In fact, the contents as to how the “disabling” of North Korea’s nuclear facilities will be brought about remain insufficient. And there is a stream of criticism from skeptics against the Bush administration for putting political motive first in a rush to score diplomatic points. Having said that, in reflection, the move is fundamentally a demonstration of the Bush administration’s political will to quickly attain a final settlement in the form of “nuclear abolishment,” through political initiative. The administration’s stance to resolve the nuclear issue before Bush’s term expires, has not wavered in essence, strongly suggesting that a clear and precise guiding principle is in place. The outcome of success or failure is yet unclear, but we can safely say that the Bush administration is making pursuing the possibility in earnest.

There has been no precedence of a nuclear state that reached the stage of conducting a nuclear test ever giving up its nuclear weapons through diplomatic negotiations. And the opacity surrounding North Korea’s regime causes suspicion inviting deep-seated skepticism as to its actions. For North Korea, deep in international isolation, nuclear armament offers leverage as a secure military defensive measure; while internally, armament holds significance in allowing the regime to flaunt its authority and prestige. However, it is also a fact that developing nuclear weapons comes with a huge political price. And from that viewpoint there are hopes that North Korea will ultimately make a “strategic decision.” The voices within the governments of such interested countries as the U.S., South Korea and China that advocate a negotiating approach with North Korea are supported by this idea.

Ever since the regime conducted its nuclear test last year, economic sanctions against the country have been stepped up more than ever, and the framework is still being sustained. North Korea has been able to withstand many years of sanctions, and has built up a certain resistance. While depending on economic ties with South Korea and China the regime has managed to survive this long. However, the country suffers from a chronic energy shortage. And in order to rebuild its shrinking economy it is imperative that North Korea improves its relations with the international community.

Furthermore, last year’s nuclear test could not be called a complete success. The regime failed to conduct multiple tests which are considered indispensable in order to create fully operational nuclear arms. Thus there are voices that point out that North Korea’s “nuclear weapons” are still premature. The very fact that North Korea only managed to conduct a single test is proof enough that North Korea faces increasing pressure and constraints from international politics. Suffering from health concerns, and with no clear successor-in-waiting, objectively speaking, there is no denying that there has never been a time more pressing and more appropriate for North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Il to come to a “strategic decision” to improve relations with the U.S.--which has been a long-standing issue.

The Bush administration aims at a comprehensive settlement that is based on building a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, structured around such core items as declaring the end of the Korean War and the signing of a peace treaty. The plan was first outlined in the joint statement released at the September 2005 six-party talks. Hence, the issue was suddenly in the limelight here in Japan, too, when North and South Korean leaders released a joint statement on Oct. 4, after their summit meeting, pledging to push for an agreement involving “three or four heads of states.” The vision of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula has been deliberated among U.S., South Korea and China, at least since 2005.

In the U.S. State Department, Philip Zelikow, former advisor to the department, and the top lieutenant of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was reportedly instrumental in shaping the plan. In fact, it is possible to glean what the United States government envisions from the Atlantic Council of the United States report that was released in April. The Atlantic Council is a bipartisan foreign policy think tank. The report describes in detail a series of pathways such as normalization of U.S.-North Korea relations (and Japan-North Korea relations), three-way military negotiations among U.S., South Korea and North Korea, a four-party peace treaty among U.S., China, South Korea and North Korea, and a six-party framework for security in Northeast Asia--for building a multi-tiered framework. It clearly demonstrates how the U.S. intends to dismantle the Cold War structure on the Korean Peninsula from its foundation, and establish a new regional order of peace and stability.

There remain various destabilizing elements, and difficulties are expected. However, the countries involved have weathered almost 20 years of trial and errors in the face of an impeding nuclear crisis, and are finally reaching a consensus as to resolving the issue through a comprehensive diplomatic settlement, to be achieved by dismantling the Cold War structure. It is quite possible that the situation in the Korean Peninsula could undergo a dramatic change in a comparatively short timeframe.

As for Japan, while keeping an eye on the demolition of the Cold War structure that plays out on the Korean Peninsula, and while solving pending matters such as the abduction issue, the country should envisage a new Korean Peninsula policy with the goal of securing overall national interest. Indeed, this may be the time for Japan to make its “strategic decision.” And to that end, I hope to see Japan and South Korea, two countries both at a period of transition regarding domestic politics, manage to again forge a stable long-term framework of cooperation.