Politics

朝鲜问题的唯一前进路径

Oct 25, 2017 Carl Bildt

发自首尔——朝鲜半岛是否即将爆发另一场毁灭性战争？这些问题近来已经成为多场对话中的热门话题了。

各界对朝鲜核武计划的担忧早就不是一天两天了。美国先是在1994年试图用美朝框架协议来解决这个问题；但在双方随后的作为（以及不作为）让这一努力逐渐失效。到了2006年，金正日政权引爆了朝鲜的第一个核装置，也把这个问题一把推到了联合国安理会的议程上。

在接下来的十年中朝鲜进行了五次核试验——最近那次在今年9月——并展示了开发先进热核武器所需的精湛技术。而政权在金正恩领导下开始大力发展射程到达美国大陆本土的洲际弹道导弹时，形势进一步升级。而这一进展恰逢美国总统特朗普上台，而后者承诺将采用新手法来处理全球事务。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Carl Bildt

Writing for PS since 2009
112 Commentaries

Carl Bildt was Sweden’s foreign minister from 2006 to 2014 and prime minister from 1991 to 1994, when he negotiated Sweden’s EU accession. A renowned international diplomat, he served as EU Special Envoy to the Former Yugoslavia, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Special Envoy to the Balkans, and Co-Chairman of the Dayton Peace Conference. He is Co-Chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

The Wrong Way to Prevent Nuclear War
Teh Eng Koon/Getty Images

Politics 16

The Wrong Way to Prevent Nuclear War

Carl Bildt explains why a proposed treaty to ban nuclear weapons would be ineffective, or even dangerous.
A ‘China First’ Strategy for North Korea
VCG/Getty Images

Politics 1

A ‘China First’ Strategy for North Korea

Bill Emmott imagines a scenario in which Chinese military intervention succeeds.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 Comments on this article

P. Kamath Oct 27, 2017

Sir: The world order is a disorder now ! The best way is not to act hastily!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Oct 25, 2017

Carl Bildt proposes a peace treaty to end the 1950-1953 Korean War as a start to resolve the fundamental issue - the nuclear threat on the Korean Peninsula. Much diplomatic efforts would be needed to resolve the crisis. As North and South Koreas are technically still at war - it ended in an armistice in 1953 with neither party able to claim outright victory - a peace treaty could perhaps be the first step to help break the ice.
For the moment the crisis is in a deadlock, because the West is seeking a denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, while Kim Jong-un is determined to hold onto his nuclear programme as an insurance policy for his regime survival. Not only does he want to avoid meeting the same fate of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya who gave up their nuclear ambition in exchange for warmer relations with the West, critics fear also that he might use his nuclear weapons to drive American forces out of South Korea and forge a reunification on his terms.
Next year marks the 65th anniversary of the armistice, but the war had an inconclusive end. The the UN played a role and mobilised support to South Korea - 16 countries sent troops and 41 sent equipment or aid. China fought on the side of North Korea, and the Soviet Union sent them military equipment. Some 100,000 British service personnel were involved and more than 1,000 killed. Chinese and North Korean military losses could be around 1.5 million, and 37,000 US troops were killed – around one in 10 of the Americans sent to Korea. Historians estimated the war was responsible for the deaths of more than four million people.
In the absence of "any enthsiasm for talks," an escalation of the crisis could lead to an outbreak of a war that might outdo the one six decades ago. The author is right about Kim not being suicidal. "For all its bellicosity, the North Korean regime is unlikely to start a full-scale military conflict, because that would surely spell its demise." Although Trump won't hesitate to launch a pre-emptive strike, it would not destroy Pyongyang's nuclear capabilities. Instead it would only prompt a retaliation from Kim that could take a heavy toll on South Korea or even Japan - "costing millions of lives."
The problem lies within Trump and his hawkish Congress Republicans, who put the blame on the previous administrations for not being tough enough on Pyongyang, allowing the regime to advance its missile tests. They don't believe that North Korea would be interested in negotiating away its deterrent and in a future without nuclear weapons. If they really worry about the US mainland being hit by a nuclear strike from Pyongyang, Trump might as well sacrifice Seoul or Tokyo and "totally destroy" the North to save Los Angeles. In this respect both Japan and South Korea rightly fear they can not rely on the US for protection and contemplate going nuclear themselves.
The Americans need to let bygones be bygones. Most do not have a favourable view of Iran and North Korea because of historical grievances, which explains their resentment towards the regimes of these two countries. The US fought on the Korean Peninsula six decades and did not win the war. Many Americans can not forgive Iran for the humiliation suffered in 1979 when their embassy in Tehran was stormed and Americans taken hostage.
Younger Americans think of starvation, slave laobur and poor human rights records when the word flash through their heads. Recently Congress Republicans has sought to relist North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism after arms deals and cyber attacks, like the one on Sony Pictures in 2014. They accuse Pyongyang of suppling arms to terrorists - Hamas and Hezbollah - backed by Iran, exporting and fomenting terrorism. In 2007 Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor believed to have been built with North Korean help in Syria.
It is most likely that Trump prefers to kick the can down the road, adopting the same approach as his predecessors - "to tighten sanctions and outsource the problem to China," without knowing Beijing's limits. He has a lot of domestic issues on his plate and doesn't have the political acumen to resolve the crisis through diplomacy. While China "does have strong economic ties to North Korea, it has little appetite to change the status quo, fearing lose a buffer state against the South and the consequences of a regime collapse in Pyongyang - an influx of refugees and a reunification of the two Koreas under US patronage. Even if China could mediate and guarantee North Korea's security in exchange for a nuclear freeze. it is doubtful whether Kim would agree to it. He must have learned from his father and grand-father about China's ambition in North Korea.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Oct 25, 2017

Great thinking. But, is South Korea convincingly willing to give up on the 'hope' to reunify the peninsula under its political and economic system ? Are the USA willing to make a step back to the referenced nuclear umbrella, without a large contingent of ground troops in the DMZ and in South Korea ? I tend to think that the combination of nuclear umbrella and US- ground troops ready to invade the North at any time is at the core of the perceived existential threat of the North Korean regime. The key seems to be in Washington, if they want to use it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Oct 25, 2017

Carl, war is not inevitable and isolation for NK is a form of defense

Nukes are no longer cutting edge tech and NK is seeking nukes for defense parity. It is difficult to see how that can be contained.

There is something strange and contradictory in a situation where NK seeks isolation, the US, for one, also seeks to isolate NK economically but the proposal then is engagement. That proposal may work but is most unlikely to because there is nothing driving it, none of the parties are apparently interested.

Conventional warfare, suggested by some, to limit nuke warfare is also equally strange. The US and others can fill the Yellow Sea and the East Sea with as many subs and battleships as they want, it is thoroughly pointless as the game dictates no action.

The solution is probably something to do with NK becoming more prosperous as wealth tends to change outlook. China as the destination of 60+% of NK exports is important, far more important than the US and all Trump has done is diminish the US participation in a solution, in my opinion. Trumps antagonism towards China does little to help establish a joint approach to NK. In fact from China's point of view China's influence with NK is useful as a bargaining chip to neuter Trump's trade rhetoric.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/NkjM0aazh

朝鲜问题的唯一前进路径

Subscribe to PS Digital

The Wrong Way to Prevent Nuclear War

A ‘China First’ Strategy for North Korea

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Ten Lessons from North Korea’s Nuclear Program

Log in/Register

朝鲜问题的唯一前进路径

Subscribe to PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification