Ocnus.Net
North Korean Foreign Relations
By Samuel S. Kim, Strategic Studies 4/07
May 9, 2007 - 10:13:08 AM
This dire assessment
stems from the troublesome fact that the country has encountered a rapid
succession of external shocks—the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, the end of both
the Cold War and superpower rivalry, the demise of the Soviet Union and
international communism, Moscow-Seoul normalization, and Beijing-Seoul
normalization—on top of a series of internal woes, including the death of its
founder, the “eternal president” Kim Il Sung, a downward spiral of industrial
output, food/energy/ hard currency shortages, shrinking trade, and deepening
systemic dissonance, with the resulting famine killing at least 3–5 percent of
the population in the latter half of the 1990s.
Thus for
the first
time
since the Korean War, the question of the future of North Korea—whether it will
survive or collapse, slowly or suddenly—has prompted a flurry of debates and
has provoked many on-the-fly pundits and soothsayers of one kind or another in
the United States. Many of these predicted that in the wake of Kim Il Sung’s
death, the DPRK would collapse within 6 months; or that in less than 3 years,
Korea would have a German-style reunification by absorption.
The
popularity of this “collapsist” scenario also has
been evident in the
policy communities of some of the neighboring states. In 1994 and 1995, for
example, South Korean President Kim Young Sam jumped on the collapsist
bandwagon when he depicted North Korea as a “broken airplane” headed for a
crash landing
that
would be followed by a quick Korean reunification. The specter of collapse has
even prompted behind-the-scenes efforts by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
to coordinate contingency planning with South Korean and Japanese allies. At a
summit meeting held on Cheju Island in April 1996, leaders of South Korea and
the United States jointly agreed to promote a two-plus-two formula, the
Four-Party Peace Talks, even as they privately predicted that the collapse in
the North could come as soon as 2 or 3 years.1
Such endgame
speculation on the future of post–Kim Il Sung North Korea has become a favorite
diplomatic sport.2
At the
turn of the new millennium, which many predicted North Korea would not survive
to see, not only does the socialist “hermit kingdom” still exist, but with its
nuclear and missile brinkmanship diplomacy, it has become a focus of regional
and global prime-time coverage. The new consensus in South Korean and American
intelligence communities in early 2000 was that North Korea would survive at least
until 2015.3
Paradoxically,
Pyongyang seems to have turned its weakness into strength by playing its
“collapse card,” driving home that it is anything but a Fourth World banana
republic that would disappear quietly without a big fight or a huge mess, a mess
that no outside neighboring power would be willing or able to clean up. In
addition, North Korea has catapulted itself into the position of a primary
driver of Northeast Asian geopolitics through its nuclear diplomacy. Thus
emerges the greatest irony of the region: today, in the post–Cold War world,
North Korea seems both to enjoy a more secure sovereignty and pose greater
security risks to its neighbors than has ever been the case in recent history.
The
premise of this monograph is that for
all its uniqueness as a state and its
putative political autonomy, post–Kim Il Sung North Korea has been subject to
the same external pressures and dynamics that are inherent in an increasingly
interdependent and interactive world. The foreign relations that define the
place of North Korea in the international community today are the result of
trajectories that Pyongyang has chosen to take—or was forced to take—given its
national interests and politics. In addition, the choices of the North Korean
state are constrained by the international environment in which they interact,
given its location at the center of Northeast Asian (NEA) geopolitics in which
the interests of the Big Four inevitably compete, clash, mesh, etc., with each
other in various issue areas as these nations pursue their self-determined
courses in the region. North Korea, per se, is seldom of great importance to
any of the Big Four. Its importance is closely keyed to and shaped by the
overall foreign policy goals of each of the Big Four. North Korea is thus seen
merely as part of the problem or part of the solution for Northeast Asia.
Rather
than examining North Korean foreign relations strictly in the material terms of
strategic state interests, balance of power, nuclear arsenals, and conventional
force capabilities, it is important to question how instances of conflict and
cooperation might be redefined in terms of conflicting and commensurable
identities. Traditional realist national security approaches cannot escape the
reactive (and
self-fulfilling)
consequences of a state’s security
behavior for the behavior of its adversary.
The issue of North Korea’s nuclear program can never be settled without
addressing the country’s legitimate security needs and fears in strategically
credible ways.4
This is not to say, however, that force ratios and
trade levels do not matter, but rather that the contours of North Korean
foreign relations are shaped by far more fundamental considerations.
This
monograph consists of four sections. The first depicts in broad strokes
sui
generis
regional
(“near abroad”) characteristics for a contextual analysis of North Korean
foreign relations in the post–Cold War era. The second examines the complex
interplay of global, regional, and national forces that have influenced and shaped
the changing relational patterns between North Korea and the Big Four Plus One.
The third assesses Pyongyang’s survival strategy in both the security and
economic domains. Finally, the fourth briefly addresses the future prospects of
North
Korea’s
relations with the Big Four Plus One.
THE
“NEAR ABROAD” ENVIRONMENT, OLD AND NEW
In these
early years of the new millennium, there is something both very old and very
new in the
regional
security complex surrounding the Korean peninsula. What remains unchanged and
unchangeable is the geographical location of North Korea, which is tightly
surrounded and squeezed by no less than five countries—the Big Four and the
southern rival, South Korea (the “Big Four plus One”). As Jules Cambon wrote in
1935, “The geographical position of a nation is the principal factor
conditioning its foreign policy— the principal reason why it must have a
foreign policy at all.”5
Of course,
geography matters in the shaping of any state’s foreign policy, but this is
especially true for the foreign policies of the two Koreas and their three
neighboring powers. A glance at the map and a whiff of the geopolitical smoke
from the latest (second) U.S.– DPRK nuclear standoff suggest why Northest Asia
(NEA) is one of the most important yet most volatile regions of the world. When
it comes to the dream of a Eurasian “Iron Silk Road,” North Korea’s hub
position makes China, Russia, South Korea, and even Japan more receptive to
upgrading its dilapidated transportation infrastructure. It is hardly surprising,
then, that each of the Big Four has come to regard the Korean peninsula as the
strategic pivot point of NEA security and therefore as falling within its own
geostrategic ambit.6
Indeed, North Korea’s unique place in the
geopolitics of NEA remains at once a blessing, a curse, and a Rorschach test.
The
world’s heaviest concentration of military and economic capabilities lies in
this region: the world’s three largest nuclear weapon states (the United
States, Russia, and China), one nuclear ambiguous state (North Korea), three
threshold nuclear weapon states (Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan), the world’s
three largest economies on a purchasing power parity basis (the United States,
China, and Japan),7
and East Asia’s three largest economies (Japan, China,
and South Korea). It was in NEA that the Cold War turned into a hot war, and
the region, lacking any nonaligned states, was more involved in Cold War
politics than any other region or subregion. Even with the end of the Cold War
and superpower rivalry, the region is still distinguished by continuing, if
somewhat anachronistic, Cold War
alliance systems linking the two Koreas,
Japan, China, and the United States in a bilateralized regional security
complex.
NEA is more
than a geographical entity. Although
geographical
proximity is important, defining East Asia
or
especially NEA in these terms alone is problematic because any strictly
geographical approach would obscure rather than reveal the critical role of the
United States in Northeast Asian international relations.8
NEA is considered
to be vitally important to America’s security and economic interests, and the
U.S. role remains a crucial factor (perhaps the most crucial) in the regional
geostrategic and geo-economic equations. The United States, by dint of its deep
interest and involvement in Northeast Asian geopolitics and geoeconomics,
deploys some 100,000 troops in the Asia-
Pacific
region, concentrated mostly in Japan and South
Korea.9
As this
might suggest, the divide in NEA between regional and global politics is
blurred substantially, if not completely erased, for several reasons. First,
the region is the “strategic home” of three of the five permanent members of
the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which are also three of the five
original nuclear weapon states shielded by the two-tiered, discriminatory
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime. Second, Japan, Greater China, and South
Korea alone accounted for about 25 percent of the world gross domestic product
(GDP) in 2000. As of mid-2005, NEA is home to the world’s four largest holders
of foreign exchange reserves: Japan ($825.0 billion), China ($711.0 billion),
Taiwan ($253.6 billion), and South Korea ($205.7 billion).10
In addition, Japan
remains the world’s second largest financial contributor to the United Nations
(UN) and its associated specialized agencies. Finally, the rapid rise of
China’s economic power and related military power has given rise to many
debates among
specialists
and policymakers over how much influence
Beijing
actually exerts in NEA and what this means for
U.S.
interests as well as an emerging Northeast Asian order.11
The
structural
impact
of power transition and globalization seems to have accentuated the
uncertainties and complexities of great power politics in the region. The
centripetal forces of increasing economic interaction and interdependence are
straining against the centrifugal forces tending toward protection of national
identity and sovereignty, not to mention the widely differing notions of
conflict management in NEA. In the absence of superpower conflict, the foreign
policies of the two Koreas and the Big Four are subject to competing pressures,
especially the twin pressures of globalization from above and localization from
below. All are experiencing wrenching national identity difficulties in
adjusting to post– Cold War realignments, and all are in flux regarding their
national
identities and how these relate to the region as a whole.
Thus
policymakers in Pyongyang—no less than scholars and policymakers elsewhere—are
challenged by a unique and complex cocktail of regional characteristics: high
capability, abiding animus, deep albeit differentiated entanglement of the Big
Four in Korean affairs, North Korea’s recent emergence as a nuclear loose
cannon, the absence of multilateral security institutions, the rise of
America’s unilateral triumphalism, growing economic integration and
regionalization, and the resulting uncertainties and unpredictability in the
international politics of NEA. Regional cooperation to alleviate the security
dilemma or to establish a viable security community is not
impossible,
but it is more difficult to accomplish when
the major
regional actors are working under the long shadows of historical enmities and
contested political identities.
NORTH
KOREA AND THE BIG FOUR PLUS ONE
China
and North Korea.
Without a
doubt, China holds greater importance in North Korea’s foreign policy than the
DPRK holds in Chinese foreign policy. China’s potential trump cards in Korean
affairs are legion, including demographic weight as the world’s most populous
country, territorial size and contiguity, military power as the world’s
third-largest nuclear weapons state after the United States and Russia, veto
power in the UNSC, new market power as the world’s fastest growing economy, and
the traditional Confucian cultural influence with strong historical roots.
Moreover,
in describing relations between the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China)
and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the term “bilateral” is somewhat
of a misnomer. Since the end of the Cold War and the demise of global socialist
ideology, Sino-North Korean relations have developed with a constant eye toward
both South Korea (ROK or Republic of Korea) and the United States. While the
relationship between Beijing and Pyongyang remains a special one, its unique
characteristics are now defined by China’s use of its connections with the DPRK
for the maintenance of domestic and “near abroad” stability rather than for any
grander ambitions.
Political
and Diplomatic Interaction
.
During the Cold War, North Korea’s
geostrategic importance and its proximity to China and the Soviet Union made it
easier for Pyongyang to cope with the twin abandonment/ entrapment security
dilemmas. With the rise of the Sino–Soviet dispute in the late 1950s and the
eruption
of open
conflict in the 1960s, Kim
Il Sung made a virtue
of
necessity by manipulating his country’s strategic relations with Moscow and
Beijing in a self-serving manner. He took sides when necessary on particular
issues, always attempting to extract maximum payoffs in economic, technical,
and military
aid, but never completely casting his lot with one over the other.
In the
1980s, however, the PRC and DPRK were on separate and less entangled
trajectories. If the central challenge of post-Mao Chinese foreign policy was
how to make the world congenial for its resurgent modernization drive via
reform and opening to the capitalist world system, then Pyongyang’s top
priority, at least in the 1980s, was to contain, isolate, and destabilize South
Korea in the seemingly endless pursuit of absolute
one-nation
legitimation and Korean reunification on its own terms. The 1983 Rangoon
bombing (in which 17 members of South Korean President Chun Doo Hwan’s
delegation were killed) and the 1987 mid-air sabotage of a Korean Air jetliner
(which claimed the lives of all 115 people aboard) brought into sharp relief
the vicious circle of the politics of competitive legitimation and
delegitimation on the Korean peninsula.
During the
long Deng decade, Beijing’s Korea policy evolved through several phases—from
the familiar one-Korea (pro-Pyongyang) policy, to a one-Korea
de jure
/two-Koreas de
facto policy, and finally to a policy of two Koreas de facto and
de jure
. The decision to
normalize relations with South Korea, finalized in August 1992, was the
culmination of
a
gradual process of balancing and adjusting post-Mao foreign policy to the logic
of changing domestic, regional, and global situations.12
The Sino–ROK
normalization was made possible by the mutual acceptance of differences in
political identity following
China’s long-standing Five Principles of Peaceful
Coexistence and Seoul’s
Nordpolitik
, which called for
the improvement of inter-Korean relations as well as South Korea’s relations
with socialist countries in conformity with the principles of equality,
respect, and mutual prosperity, irrespective of political and ideological
differences. Ironically, but not surprisingly, the greater challenge has been
to China and the DPRK in adjusting their socialist identities in the post–Cold
War (and post-Socialist) world.
Perhaps
because of the lack of change in Pyongyang’s international course, Beijing did
not pursue a truly active geostrategic engagement as part of its approach to
the Korean peninsula after the normalization of relations with the ROK.
Instead, it more or less followed Deng Xiaoping’s foreign policy axiom of
“hiding its light under a bushel,” not placing itself on the front lines of the
Korean conflict. While the 1992 two-Koreas decision was arguably the most
significant reorientation of post–Cold War
Chinese foreign policy in the Northeast
Asian region, it did not signal a greater Chinese conflict management role in
regional or global politics. China’s hands-off approach was demonstrated
particularly in the 1993–94 U.S.-DPRK nuclear standoff, when Beijing played
neither mediator nor peacemaker for fear it might get burned if something went
wrong. The Chinese repeated the familiar refrain that “the issue was a direct
matter between the DPRK and the three sides—the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), the United States, and the Republic of Korea.”13
This “who
me?” posture reflected a cost-benefit calculus intended to keep the PRC out of
harm’s way while still holding both Pyongyang and Seoul within
its
Sinocentric circle of influence in East Asia. Even
after
Pyongyang’s alleged confession of the existence of a highly enriched uranium
(HEU) program, China persisted in its risk-averse posture toward the nuclear
issue on the Korean peninsula.
Security
Interaction.
All
of this changed, and changed dramatically, in the heat of the second U.S.-DPRK
nuclear confrontation in early 2003. China suddenly launched an unprecedented
flurry of mediation diplomacy. While the idea of a nuclear-free Korean
peninsula is important, for the Chinese leadership and most
Chinese strategic
analysts, the survival of the North Korean regime and the reform of North Korea
are China’s greatest challenge and prime objective, respectively.14
Growing fears
of the potential for reckless action by the United States and North Korea as
they engage
in mutual provocation—which could trigger another war in China’s strategic
backyard— have served as the most decisive proximate catalyst for Beijing’s
hands-on conflict management diplomacy.
There were
other catalysts for the shift, including
China’s own enhanced geopolitical and
economic leverage, the steady rise of regional and global multilateralism in
Chinese foreign policy thinking and behavior, and the creeping unilateralism
under the Clinton administration that expanded under the Bush administration.
In short, the unique confluence of both proximate and underlying factors—greater
danger, greater stakes, and greater leverage—explains why Beijing was spurred
into action in early 2003.
With its
conflict management resources, both diplomatic and economic, China has clearly
made a heavy investment in prompting the Six-Party process toward a negotiated
solution or at the very least in averting its collapse. From the beginning,
China’s mediation-cum
conflict management diplomacy required
shuttle/
visitation diplomacy—and aid diplomacy—to
bring the DPRK to a negotiating table in Beijing. From early
2003 to
late 2005, senior Chinese officials have stepped
up
shuttle/visitation diplomacy on
a quarterly basis. Moreover, these visits
have been conducted at levels senior enough to require meetings with Chairman
Kim Jong Il, serving notice to Washington that direct interaction with the
Chairman is the shortest way toward progress in the Six-Party process. The
Chinese are reported to have made an exceptional effort in the fourth round of
talks—the most important and extended round to date—mobilizing a professional
work team of about 200 experts from nine departments or bureaus in the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs. These diplomats all spent day and night working on
successive drafts of a joint statement of principles, pulling together the lowest
common denominator among views laid out by the six parties in the
behind-the-scenes negotiations, which included an unprecedented half-dozen
bilateral meetings between U.S. and North Korean diplomats.15
Caught in diplomatic gridlock and against
the
backdrop of being labeled an “outpost of
tyranny”
by the second-term Bush administration,
Pyongyang raised the ante of its brinkmanship with a statement
on
February 10, 2005, that it had “manufactured nukes
for
self-defense to cope with the Bush administration’s
evermore
undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK” and that it was therefore
“compelled to suspend participation in the [Six Party] talks for an indefinite
period.”16
Pyongyang’s
decision to rejoin the Six Party talks after a 13-month hiatus can be partially
attributed to the synergy of Chinese and South Korean mediation diplomacy aimed
at providing a face-saving exit from the trap of mutual U.S.-DPRK creation.
This was particularly important in the wake of the Bush administration’s characterization
of Kim Jong Il as a
“tyrant”
and U.S. Secretary of Defense Condoleezza Rice’s labeling of North Korea as an
“outpost of
tyranny.”
Beijing, Seoul, and Moscow have been prodding the Bush administration to stop
using this kind of language and to map out detailed economic and security
incentives as quid pro quo for North Korea’s nuclear disarmament. The
implicit withdrawal
of vilifying rhetoric was quite important in Pyongyang,
as made
evident in an official statement of the DPRK
Ministry
of Foreign Affairs:
.
. . the U.S. side at the contact made between the heads
of
both delegations in Beijing Saturday clarified that it
would
recognize the DPRK as a sovereign state, not to invade it, and hold bilateral
talks within the framework of the Six Party talks, and the DPRK side
interpreted it as a retraction of its remark designating the former as
an
“outpost of tyranny” and decided to return to the Six
Party
talks.17
The “words
for words” and “action for action” approach that North Korea assumed as its
negotiating stance and that China inferred as group consensus in the Chairman’s
statement at the end of the third round of talks, also provided an incentive
for Pyongyang, if not for Washington. China was the most critical factor in achieving
a group consensus in the form of the Joint Statement of Principles issued by
the participants in the fourth round of Six Party talks on September 19, 2005,
the first-ever successful outcome of the on-again, off-again multilateral
dialogue of more than 2 years. This was a validation of the negotiated approach
to the second nuclear standoff on the Korean peninsula that both Pyongyang and
Washington have resisted at various times.
China also
may have played a critical backstage role in persuading Pyongyang to moderate
provocative rhetoric or action. China played a further role in downsizing
Pyongyang’s demand for a nonaggression treaty, a demand that initially had
called for a security pledge or guarantee as well as the removal of the DPRK
from the U.S. list of terrorist states. However, Chinese persuasive power has
had very real limits. China’s efforts to dissuade North Korea from carrying out
nuclear or missile tests did not prevent Pyongyang from detonating a nuclear
device on October 9, 2006, or launching a
Taipodong II
(along with
six other missiles of different types) on July 5, 2006.
In sum,
China’s
mediation
diplomacy since early 2003 has been the primary factor in facilitating and
energizing multilateral dialogues among the Northeast Asian states concerned in
the nuclear standoff. Whereas in 1994 China wanted the United States and the
DPRK to handle their dispute bilaterally, from 2003 to 2005 China succeeded in
drawing North Korea into a unique regional, multilateral setting that
Pyongyang—as well as Beijing—had previously foresworn in a quest for direct
bilateral negotiations with the United States.
Economic
Interaction
.
Chinese–North
Korean economic relations over the years are notable in several respects.
First, Sino-DPRK trade is closely keyed to and determined by turbulent
political trajectories. The Chinese percentage of total North Korean foreign
trade has fluctuated greatly over the years: (1) 25–60 percent (the absolute
value was around U.S.$100 million) in the 1950s; (2) about 30 percent in the
1960s until 1967, after which the ratio declined to around 10 percent in the
wake of the Cultural Revolution; (3) increased to about 20 percent since 1973
(to the level of U.S.$300–$600 million); and (4) declined to the 10–20 percent
range in the 1980s, although its total value had risen to U.S.$3–
$4
billion. In the first post–Cold War decade, the 1990s,
the ratio
started at 10.1 percent in 1990 but increased dramatically to around 30 percent
in 1991 and stayed in this range until 1998, even as its total value began to
decline from $899 million in 1993 to $371 million in 1999. Nonetheless, due to
the renormalization process underway since 1999, Sino-DPRK trade registered a
32 percent increase in 2000 ($488 million) and a whopping
80 percent
increase in the first half of 2001 ($311
million)
after 2 years of consecutive decreases in 1998 and 1999.
Despite
the dramatic increases in total value, the China share declined from 29 percent
in 1998 to 20 percent in 2000, only to start rising again, more than tripling
from $488 million in 2000 to a new all-time high of just more than $1.58
billion in 2005,
demonstrating
the paradoxical effect of the second U.S.-DPRK nuclear standoff, which has
accelerated Pyongyang’s economic isolation due to the reinforced sanctions by
Washington and Tokyo, while deepening North Korea’s dependence on Beijing and
Seoul for trade and aid (see Table 1).
Year
Exports
Imports
Total
Chinese
Percent
to
from
North
Trade
Change
in
North
North
Korean-
Balance
North Korean-
Korea
Korea
Chinese
with North
Chinese
Trade
Trade
Korea
1979
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1980
374
303
677
+71
N/A
1981
300
231
531
+69
-22%
1982
281
304
585
-23
+10%
1983
273
254
527
+19
-10%
1984
226
272
498
-46
-6%
1985
231
257
488
-26
-2%
1986
233
277
510
-44
+5%
Table 1. China’s Trade with North Korea,
1990-2005 (Unit: U.S.$ million) (continued).
15
Year
Exports
Imports
Total
Chinese
Percent
to
from
North
Trade
Change
in
North
North
Korean-
Balance
North Korean-
Korea
Korea
Chinese
with North
Chinese
Trade
Trade
Korea
1987
277
236
513
+41
+1%
1988
345
234
579
+111
+13%
1989
377
185
562
+192
-3%
1990
358
125
483
+233
-14%
1991
525
86
611
+439
+27%
1992
541
155
696
+386
+14%
1993
602
297
899
+305
+29%
1994
424
199
623
+225
-31%
1995
486
64
550
+422
-12%
1996
497
68
565
+429
+3%
1997
531
121
652
+410
+15%
1998
355
57
412
+298
-37%
1999
329
42
371
+287
-10%
2000
451
37
488
+414
+32%
2001
571
167
738
+404
+51%
2002
467
271
738
+196
+0%
2003
628
396
1,024
+232
+39%
2004
799
585
1,384
+214
+35%
2005
1,081
499
1,580
+582
+14%
Sources
: Ministry of
Foreign Trade and Economic Relations, People’s Republic of China at
www.moftec.gov.cn/moftec/official/html
/
statistics_data
; 1996 Diplomatic
White Paper Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MOFAT), Republic of Korea
(ROK), p. 348; 1997 Diplomatic White Paper, pp. 396 and 400; 1998 Diplomatic
White Paper, pp. 481 and 486; 2000 Diplomatic White Paper, p. 496; 2001
Diplomatic White Paper, p. 483; 2002 Diplomatic White Paper, p. 497; available
at
www.mofat.go.kr
.
Table 1. China’s Trade with North Korea,
1990-2005 (Unit: U.S.$ million) (concluded).
Second, as
Table 1 indicates, North Korea’s trade
deficits
with China have been chronic and substantial.
During the
27 years from 1979 to 2005, the DPRK has enjoyed an annual surplus for only 4
years. Its trade
deficit
has amounted to a cumulative total of $4.68
billion
between 1990 and
2003—imports
to the DPRK worth $6.7 billion and exports worth $2.1 billion. The
cumulative
total of the trade deficits for North Korea
amounted
to $3.85 billion during the period 1990– 2000, with total imports from China at
$5.1 billion and total exports to China only $1.3 billion. North Korea’s
trade
deficit is not likely to improve for a long time,
because it
does not have high value products to export and because its primary exportable
commodities are losing competitiveness in the Chinese market. In
2005,
North
Korea’s trade deficit hit an all-time high of $1.1
billion.
While
China remained North Korea’s largest trade partner in the 1990s in terms of
total value, Beijing has allowed Pyongyang to run average annual deficits of
$318 million for 1990–1994, $369 million for 1995– 1999, and $423 million for
2000–2005. China’s role in North Korea’s trade would be even larger if barter
transactions and aid were factored into these figures. In contrast, South
Korea’s trade with China in a single year (2004) generated a huge surplus of
$20.2 billion.
Although
the exact amount and terms of China’s aid to North Korea remain unclear, it is
generally estimated at one-quarter to one-third of China’s overall foreign aid.
By mid-1994, China accounted for about three-quarters of North Korea’s oil and
food imports.18
Whether intentionally or not, Beijing became more
deeply involved, playing an increasingly active and, indeed, crucial
year-to-year role in the politics of regime survival by providing more aid in a
wider variety of forms: direct government-to-government aid, subsidized
cross-border trade, and private barter transactions.
North
Korea’s dependency on China for aid has
grown
unabated and has intensified even in the face
of its
hardline policy towards Pyongyang’s rogue state strategy. Recent estimates of
China’s aid to North Korea are in the range of 1 million tons of wheat and rice
and 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil per annum, accounting for 70 to 90 percent
of North Korea’s fuel imports and about one-third of its total food imports.
With the cessation of America’s heavy fuel oil delivery in November 2002,
China’s oil aid and exports may now be approaching nearly 100 percent of North
Korea’s energy imports.19
As a way of enticing Pyongyang to the Six
Party
talks
in late August 2003, President Hu Jintao promised Kim Jong II greater economic
aid than in previous years. The Chinese government has extended indirect aid by
allowing private economic transactions between North Korean and Chinese
companies in the border area, despite North Korea’s mounting debt and the
bankruptcy of many Chinese companies resulting from North Korean defaults on
debts.
Despite
being Pyongyang’s external life support system, especially since November 2002
when the United States halted monthly delivery of heavy fuel oil, China does
not, to its frustration, receive as much North Korean gratitude as it would
like nor does it wield as much leverage as Washington would have us believe,
precisely because Pyongyang knows that China’s aid is
in its own
self-interest. As one senior Chinese leader said to a visiting U.S. scholar in
the context of expressing China’s opposition to any economic sanctions on North
Korea, “We can either send food to North Korea or they will send refugees to
us—either
way,
we feed them. It is more convenient to feed them in North Korea than in China.”20
Thus Beijing
is cautious to a fault for fear of provoking and/or causing collapse in the
North by withholding too much aid, thereby precipitating
a host of
destabilizing social, economic, and political consequences.
For the
DPRK, the most critical challenge is survival in the post–Cold War,
post-communist world of globalization, and its economic relations with China
are motivated by this survival goal. To this end, Pyongyang seeks increasing
amounts of aid as an external life-support system, hoping to avoid triggering a
cataclysmic system collapse.
While
providing the diplomatic and economic support to the DPRK that was necessary to
infuse Kim Jong Il with enough confidence to remain a part of the Six Party
process, China also has made it clear to Washington, Seoul, Moscow, and Tokyo
that the peaceful coexistence of the two Korean states on the peninsula is now
in the common interest of all, in the face of the alternative of having to cope
with the turmoil and chaos that would follow a system collapse in Pyongyang.
In the
face of a growing multifaceted sanctions strategy by Washington and Tokyo in
recent years, especially the September 19, 2005, Joint Statement of Principles,
Beijing’s multidimensional support for North Korea has been greatly
accelerated. Sino-DPRK trade has more than doubled from $738 million in 2002 to
$1.6 billion in 2005 with China’s share of North Korean foreign trade hitting
an all-time high of 40 percent. More significantly, economic ties in various
forms of investment are now expanding—from basic industry to mining
exploration, drilling in the sea, and various construction projects including a
plan to build a new mass-transportation bridge from North Korea’s border city
of Sinuiju to Dandong, China, over the Yalu River. Beijing has unmistakably shifted
its gears from mere life-support aid to developmental aid in late 2005.
Russia
and North Korea.
From the
late 1950s onward, Kim Il Sung successfully exploited the emerging Sino–Soviet
rift, gaining independence from both of the two large socialist states. Moscow
and Beijing each tried to offset the other’s influence in North Korea with
generous economic and military assistance. For
a time, Pyongyang sided with Mao
against the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), then tilted
toward Moscow in the late 1960s during the years of Mao’s Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution. Thereafter, North Korea adapted adroitly to its two
patrons, whose enmity and status competition continued through the 1970s and
most of the 1980s. Moscow’s aim was to keep Pyongyang from slipping too close
to China; the Soviets did not want a new war attempting to reunify Korea.21
Soviet
diplomatic representatives in Pyongyang became accustomed to finding themselves
severely isolated in an inhospitable environment.
Regarding
influence in Korea, it is likely that Soviet leaders believed they labored
under a permanent, built-in disadvantage when compared with the PRC.
Nonetheless, because the DPRK proved a useful partner in confronting the United
States and insulating against
U.S.
troops in South Korea, the USSR continued to provide Pyongyang with the
technology and products that it requested. But Moscow viewed North Korea as a
functional buffer rather than as a reliable ally.22
Political
and Diplomatic Interaction.
Moscow’s skewed two-Koreas policy started
with a bang in 1990 but ended with a whimper.
Ironically, if Moscow was the chief
catalyst for transforming the political and strategic landscape of Northeast
Asia, including the initiation of mutual recognition and the entry of the two
Koreas into the UN, Beijing became the major
beneficiary,
occupying the pivotal position from which it could exert greater influence over
Seoul and
Pyongyang.
As if to emulate Beijing’s much-touted equidistance policy, since the mid-1990s
Moscow
has
retreated significantly from its skewed posture,
moving
toward a more balanced policy as a way of reassuring Pyongyang and thus
enhancing its leverage and resuming its great-power role in the politics of a
divided Korea.
When the
Kremlin announced in September 1990 that it would normalize relations with
Seoul, the DPRK said in a memorandum that normalization would imply an end to
the DPRK–USSR alliance and that North Korea would have “no other choice but to
take measures to provide for ourselves some weapons for which we have so far
relied on the alliance.”23
The North Koreans even threatened to
retaliate against the Soviet Union by supporting Japanese claims to the South
Kuril Islands, and they began referring to ROK– USSR relations as “diplomacy
purchased by dollars.”24
Moscow responded by admonishing the DPRK
that no matter how hard the USSR tried to help its neighbor, it would be
difficult to solve its problems until the confrontation and arms race underway
on the Korean peninsula ceased and until the North shed its semi-isolation from
economic contacts with the majority of developed countries.25
The
political relationship between Moscow and
Pyongyang
was defined during the Cold War by the
1961
Mutual Defense and Cooperation Treaty. When the Soviet Union dissolved, Russia
initially agreed to honor the USSR’s extant treaties and commitments, although
they would be subject to renegotiation. Russian President Boris Yeltsin sent a
personal envoy to Pyongyang to explain Russia’s policy and to probe North
Korea’s reaction. The North Koreans considered
the 1961
treaty “outdated.” Not only did Pyongyang
embrace
termination of the treaty, but North Korea also dismissed Moscow’s reassurances
that the Russian nuclear umbrella still covered North Korea, implying a
revision of Pyongyang’s concept of national security.26
What is
most striking about Moscow’s relations with Pyongyang, therefore, is not that
there were vicissitudes and fluctuations throughout the 1990s— for indeed there
were many—but that the downward spiral of Russia-DPRK relations resulting from
a series of domestic and external shocks has been reversed and put back on a
renormalization track since the mid1990s. The period of 1998 to 1999 was a
turning point in Moscow’s agonizing reappraisal of its perceived rapidly
worsening international environment and the reconstruction of its ruling
coalition. The statist balance of political elite interests was shattered by
the August 1998 financial crisis in Russia and, more importantly, by the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)/
U.S. war
in Kosovo.27
The
Moscow-Pyongyang renormalization process clearly gained momentum when Vladimir
Putin’s vigorous pursuit of realpolitik intersected with Kim Jong Il’s new
diplomatic opening to the outside world. In July 2000, Putin became not only
the first Kremlin leader ever to visit the neighboring communist country but
also the first among the Big Four to make an official state visit to North
Korea. A year later in August 2001, Kim Jong Il returned Putin’s visit in a
bizarre 6,000-mile train trip across Russia to Moscow that inconvenienced
thousands of Russian rail travelers along the way—it took more than a year just
to organize it. This was part of Kim Jong Il’s coming-out party, evidenced also
in 2000 by a visit to China in May, an inter-Korean summit in June, and a visit
to Pyongyang by then U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in October.
President
Vladimir Putin’s vigorous personal diplomacy in 2000 and 2001 was a dramatic
step not only toward bringing Moscow back into the rapidly changing Korean
peninsular equation in order to reassert Russia’s great power identity, but
also toward countering troublesome American policies. The United States loomed
large in the second Putin-Kim summit in Moscow. In the DPRK-Russia Moscow
Declaration of August 4, 2001,28
both parties addressed “international”
(read “U.S.”) and bilateral issues. Four of the eight points seem designed to
send a strong message to the United States: “a just new world order” (point
one); the 1972 anti-ballistic missile (ABM) Treaty as a cornerstone of global
strategic stability (point two); a Korean reunification process by independent
means and without foreign interference (point seven); and the pullout of U.S.
forces from South Korea as a “pressing issue,” regarding which Putin expressed
his “understanding” (point eight). The remaining points have to do with the
promotion of bilateral political and economic cooperation, especially “the plan
for building railways linking the north and the south of the Korean peninsula
[as well as mention of] Russia and Europe on the principle of the mutual
interests recognized in the worldwide practice” (point six).
This joint
declaration was far more muscular and provocative than the June 2000
South–North Joint Declaration, including as it did trenchant attacks against
infringement of state sovereignty under the pretext of humanitarianism and
against the U.S. Theater Missile Defense (TMD) and National Missile Defense
(NMD) programs. The Russian–North Korean summit captured global prime-time and
headlines when Putin revealed that the North Korean leader had pledged to
eliminate his country’s
Taepodong
missile program—a
key rationale for NMD—if Western countries (meaning the United States) would
provide access to rocket boosters for peaceful space research.
Putin also
managed to put Kim Jong Il’s “satellites
for
missiles” issue on the agenda of the G-8 summit meeting in Japan.
Since
these mutual visits, Kim Jong Il has stayed in close touch with Russian
representatives in Pyongyang and has made visits to the Russian Far East to
examine the implementation of Russian economic programs.29
In August 2002, Putin
and Kim held a third summit in Vladivostok.30
There, Putin
allegedly assured Kim Jong Il that Moscow would not support any U.S. efforts to
impose a so-called “Iraqi scenario” on North Korea and that Russia would not
join any anti-DPRK international coalition. Moreover, Russia would try to help
the DPRK distance itself from the so-called “axis of evil” and to escape its
U.S.-sponsored international isolation.31
These commitments
are known as the “Putin formula.” In connection with the events in Iraq, the
Russian president stated: “In recent times—and there have been many crises
recently—Russia has not once permitted itself the luxury of being drawn
directly into any of these crises,” and Putin also promised to do everything
within his power “to prevent Russia being dragged into the Iraq crisis in any
form.”32
Security
Interaction.
New
North Korean policy toward Russia can best be described as “old wine in new
bottles.” It is based on shared geopolitical interests, especially with respect
to hardline U.S. policy and the U.S. military presence on the peninsula. It is
reinforced by personal chemistry and close ties between Chairman Kim and
President Putin, and it is cemented by interlocking institutional networks
connecting North Korean and Russian bureaucracies at the central and local
levels.33
A common
belief in Russia is that the DPRK is a militarily weak state that faces
overwhelmingly powerful opponents and truly
must fear for its own survival. Therefore,
its efforts are viewed as defensive in nature. In the wake of the NATO-led war
in former Yugoslavia, Russians were predicting that it was only a matter of
time before the United States took action against North Korea.34
Needless to
say, George W. Bush’s tough policy toward Pyongyang has driven Moscow and
Pyongyang toward closer ties. Russian analysts believe that a more robust
Russian presence in North Korea could be useful to Pyongyang and to the peace
process on
the
peninsula because reinforced contacts with Russia would help the DPRK feel more
self-confident and consequently encourage it to behave in a more pragmatic
manner in relations with other states.35
In
general, Russia seeks a multinational arrangement for Korean peace and
security, and it supports the notion that Korean questions should be resolved
by the Koreans themselves if possible. Russia opposes neither U.S.–North Korean
bilateral talks nor four-way talks among the United States, China, and North
and South Korea, although the latter configuration makes Moscow feel sidelined.
Russia asserts, however, that the United States alone cannot untie the “Korean
knot” but must rely on a multilateral approach to creating lasting peace and
security in NEA. Russian policymakers believe that Pyongyang is genuinely
interested in reform but is isolated and paranoid; they argue that renewed
friendship and trust between Russia and North Korea will help Pyongyang regain
self-confidence and engage South Korea bilaterally in a constructive way, just
as in its international relations.36
Russia was
a serious supporter of the Six Party talks on the nuclear standoff. According
to Alexander Zhebin, Russia was invited to join the Six Party talks at
Pyongyang’s insistence:
Some
observers considered it a foreign-policy “failure”
that
Russia was not invited to the trilateral meeting in Beijing in April 2003, so
when the DPRK decided to ask Russia to take part in the Six Party talks on
August 27–
29,
2003, in
Beijing,
this was welcomed in Russia as “a
positive
step” with a certain feeling of relief.37
At times,
however, the Russians oversold their case,
as when a
deputy foreign minister declared, “Without
taking
Russia’s interest into account, [resolution of a nuclear crisis] is almost
impossible.”38
Russia has tried to build up its relevance by enhancing
its leverage in Pyongyang, mostly by proposing to involve North Korea in its
plans to develop a Northeast Asian energy network. North Korea, however,
usually detects the transparency of such schemes.
The
on-again, off-again nuclear talks have allowed Russia to pursue its goal of
working with both North and South Korea. In January 2003, South Korean
officials asked Moscow to persuade North Korea to rescind its decision to
withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Putin sent his deputy foreign
minister to Pyongyang to deliver a message to Kim Jong Il on how to resolve the
nuclear crisis. The proposed package included nuclear-free status for the
Korean
peninsula,
a security guarantee for the DPRK, and a resumption of humanitarian assistance
and economic aid to North Korea.39
The proposal never got off the
ground, and both the United States and the ROK view China as the real key
player in terms of influencing the Pyongyang regime. The Three Party and Six
Party talks on the nuclear issue all therefore have been held in Beijing.
Remembering its exclusion from the 1994 Agreed Framework and from the Korean
Energy Development Organization (KEDO), Russia offered to build a nuclear power
plant in North Korea as part of an effort to diffuse the crisis, and a Russian
power company proposed constructing a power line from Vladivostok to Chongjin.40
Once the
Six Party talks got underway in August 2003, Moscow proposed a package solution
in close alignment with Beijing’s approach. Russia’s solution was based on the
principles of a stage-by-stage process and parallel synchronized implementation
of coordinated measures by the concerned parties.41
Russian officials
have spoken out repeatedly for a peaceful, negotiated resolution of the crisis;
they have warned of the dangers
ofamilitarysolution;theyhaverejectedsanctionsorother pressure as
counterproductive; and they have opposed referring the North Korean nuclear
issue to
the
UNSC. Russian observers have warned that pressure is likely to backfire by
cornering Pyongyang and increasing its sense of insecurity. Moreover, Moscow
has volunteered to help provide North Korea with international security
guarantees as well as energy
assistance.42
Sensing
that its strategic importance to Russia is growing under President Putin,
Pyongyang hopes that Russia will be able to assist in solving several of its
problems by providing or creating (1) de facto protection against possible
military threats from the United States;
(2)
Russian backing in bargaining with Washington over nuclear and missile matters;
(3) U.S. interest in accommodating North Korean demands and requests
as a means
of countering Russian influence with the
DPRK; (4)
renewed Russian military aid, including spare parts for existing weapons and
hardware as well as new, more technologically advanced armaments; (5) Russian
participation in the modernization of industrial facilities built by the Soviet
Union during the early Cold War period; (6) reliable long-term deliveries of
Russian oil and gas; and (7) facilitating cooperation with the DPRK by
countries of the former Soviet Union.
Russia’s
involvement in the Six Party talks in 2003–06 was cautious but committed.
Although China played the frontline role, ensuring that the talks got off the
ground and continued, Russia also came to play an important supporting role.
Ranking Russian diplomats described China as a “locomotive” driving the Six
Party dialogue, whereas Russia’s role was to play “whisper diplomacy.”43
Russia and
China did work to coordinate strategically during summit meetings in early
2004; both countries stated their desire to keep North Korea nuclear weapons
free.44
In
2003, Russia abstained from an International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) vote on
whether to send the North Korean nuclear issue to the UNSC, effectively
announcing its preferred support for the Six Party format and for continued
negotiation. During the third round of talks, Russia joined with China
and South Korea in
offering to supply energy—in the form of fuel oil—to North Korea in exchange for
the DPRK halting any further development of its nuclear programs. Throughout
the talks, Russia continued to supply modest food aid to North Korea and to
have meetings with North Korean representatives.
Economic
Interaction
.
Ironically,
while Russia was angling with South Korea in the mid-1990s for loans and debt
relief, Russia’s logic for continuing to pursue relations with the DPRK in the
same period revolved around hopes of receiving payments on debts owed to Moscow
by Pyongyang. Pyongyang had announced its refusal to repay a (estimated at
$U.S.3-5 billion) when Yeltsin announced his intention not to renew the 1961
treaty and to halt weapons and technology
transfers.
Although
Russia traditionally has been North Korea’s main supplier of equipment, petroleum
products,
timber,
coal, fish, and marine products, approximately
70 percent
of North Korea’s estimated $4 billion debt to Russia originates from unpaid-for
weapons.45
In the
wake of President Putin’s visit to Pyongyang, North Korea is becoming
increasingly active in economic contacts with Russia, which was exactly what
Putin had hoped would result from the summit meeting. DPRK authorities have
requested
Russian
assistance in the reconstruction of a number of facilities built by the Soviet
Union in the 1950s and 1960s. The problem is that the DPRK does not have money
to pay for the services, insisting on barter deals and low-interest credits
instead. However, the Russian government, as it faces persistent economic and
financial hurdles, cannot agree to such conditions. Barter is unlikely because
of the Russian market economy and the fact that government authorities cannot
force Russian companies to accept
goods they do not need or want—although
there were reports of a developing intra-Russian barter economy in the
mid-1990s.46
The DPRK
has presented a list of goods it could export to Russia in exchange for Russian
goods and services, but Russian officials say that most of the items on the
North Korean list are of no interest to Russian companies. One possible way out
of the predicament is to have South Korean banks and firms provide credits to
the DPRK to exchange for Russian technical assistance. Perhaps the most
revealing part of the DPRK–Russia Moscow Declaration of August 4, 2001, is
embodied in point five: “In order to carry out a series of bilateral plans, the
Russian side confirmed its intention to use the method of
drawing financial
resources from outsiders
on the basis of understanding of the Korean side.”47
In other
words, Moscow and Pyongyang are now looking
to Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo to foot the
bill.
Attempts
are currently being made to find interested
parties in
the ROK.
Meanwhile,
Pyongyang has asked Russian authorities to set aside logging areas for DPRK
workers in the Russian Far East. Russia needs help with its timber industry,
particularly given increased demand from China, and North Korean wages are very
low. There was even some speculation in the Russian news media following the
summit that Putin had allowed Pyongyang to write off $50 million of its debt by
providing free labor to timber camps in the Russian Far East.
The
presence of approximately 12,000 North Korean workers in the
Russian Far East
already has created problems not only because they have sought political
asylum, but also because they have become involved in illegal activities such
as smuggling and drug trafficking.48
The Russian press also has reported
North Korean involvement in counterfeiting and poaching. In addition to the
migrant workers from North Korea, the Russian Far East saw the return there in
the 1990s of ethnic Koreans who had been forcibly relocated under the Stalin
regime. Native Russians met the returning Koreans with hostility.
Nonetheless,
Russia is the only country that might be able to absorb a North Korean
workforce that is increasingly without jobs in North Korea. At the regional
level, cooperation is growing between North Korea and the Russian Far East;
since the Soviet period, North Korean workers have been involved in timber
projects in the region, and more recently they also have been active in
construction and agriculture. North Korean workers help fill a labor shortage
in a region experiencing a population outflow, particularly of working-age
inhabitants. In April 2001 Moscow and Pyongyang apparently agreed in principle
to settle the pestering debt issue through a labor-for-debt swap deal, whereby
North Korea would cover $5.5 billion in Soviet-era debt during the next 30
years by supplying workers who would toil unpaid in Russian labor camps across
Siberia. About 90 percent of Pyongyang’s debts to Moscow was covered in such a
manner in 2000, to the tune of $50.4 million.49
At this rate, it
would take 109 years to pay off Pyongyang’s debts to Moscow.
On the
whole, DPRK–Russian economic ties do not look very promising, and the
development of serious investment and trade relations will likely need to
involve South Korea.
Russians
complain that the DPRK still wants to build economic relations “along the lines
of the old Soviet–DPRK model of getting things free-ofcharge.” On a brighter
note, cultural cooperation has resumed in recent years. Russian performing
artists are again touring in Pyongyang, and North Korean students can again be
found in Russian schools50
(see Table 2).
Still,
Moscow seems excited about the geo-economic opportunities resulting from
increasing inter-Korean economic cooperation, particularly the prospect of rail
links across the demilitarized zone (DMZ), which Russia hopes would create a
new trans-Siberian freight route linking South Korea to Europe via North Korea
and the Russian Far East. The difficulty is in leveling the playing field of
the highly
asymmetrical
Moscow– Pyongyang–Seoul economic interdependence by integrating and reconciling
Russia’s technical knowhow and natural resources, North Korea’s labor, and
South Korea’s capital—as well as Russia’s debt to Seoul ($1.8 billion) and
Pyongyang’s debt to Moscow (about $3–$5 billion)—in a mutually beneficial and
complementary way.
Year
Exportsto North Korea
Importsfrom
North Korea
Total
North Korean-Russian Trade
Russian
Trade Balance with North Korea
Percent
Changein North Korean-Russian Trade
1990
1,315
908
2,223
+407
1991
194
171
365
+23
-84%
1992
277
65
342
+212
-6%
1993
188
39
227
+149
-34%
1994
100
40
140
+60
-38%
1995
68
16
84
+52
-40%
1996
36
29
65
+7
-23%
1997
67
17
84
+50
+29%
1998
57
8
65
+49
-23%
1999
48
2
50
+46
-23%
2000
43
3
46
+40
-8%
2001
64
5
69
+59
+50%
2002
77
4
81
+73
+17%
2003
116
3
119
+113
+47%
2004
205
5
210
+200
+76%
2005
224
8
232
+216
+9.3%
Sources
:
1997
Diplomatic White
Paper
,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MOFAT), Republic of Korea (ROK), pp.
396, 401;
1998
Diplomatic White Paper
, pp. 481 and 486;
2000 Diplomatic
White Paper
,
p. 497;
2001
Diplomatic White Paper
, p. 484;
2002 Diplomatic White Paper
, p. 497; available
at
www.mofat.go.kr
; KOTRA at
www.
kotra.or.kr
;
ROK Ministry of Unification.
Table
2. Russia’s Trade with North Korea, 1990-2004 (Unit
:
$U.S.1
million).
In order
for this dream of an Iron Silk Road to come true the Russian way, however,
Moscow would have to overcome some major obstacles, including the huge cost ($9
billion); Russia’s economic weakness; China’s relative advantage in connecting
its own railway to the inter-Korean Seoul-Sinuiju line (Kyongui Line), which
would make it the gateway for cargo travel from Asia to Europe; North Korea’s
ongoing economic crisis and unpredictable behavior; and the politics of
ideological and regional fragmentation in South Korea. Fearing that the new
rail projects would diminish the role of Sea of Japan ports that depend on
trade with South Korea,
some
Russian officials from the territory northeast of
Vladivostok
are opposed to the development of a new Russian-Korean rail corridor.51
Regional
relations
provide
only a short-term basis for economic relations, especially through contracts
for North Korean guest workers, but the expanded North Korean presence in the
Russian Far East has raised new concerns about Pyongyang’s involvement in
nuclear smuggling,
the
heroin trade, and counterfeiting activities in Russia. Russian–North Korean
regional cooperation will accelerate with the progress of major development
projects such as that on the Tumen River, the Kovyktinskoe gas pipeline, and
the inter-Korean railway, but such progress will depend on the ability to
attract considerable outside investment, especially from Japan but also from
South Korea and China.
Russia’s
ability to influence North Korea is related in no small degree to its struggle
to adjust its national identity. In the early 1990s, Russia was concentrating
on becoming a respected, democratic member of the Western community. The United
States and Europe were seen as the main political and ideological allies of
postcommunist Russia, the principal source of economic aid, and the model for
Russian development. This vision drove the Russian Federation and the DPRK
apart. Yet, with its difficulties in implementing and consolidating
Western-style reforms and the threat of NATO expansion, Russia came to suffer
pangs of disillusionment with the West and began to emphasize security concerns
in its foreign policy, which became increasingly conservative and
nationalistic. In this milieu, North Korea found more favor and solidarity with
the Kremlin. The Korean
peninsula
resumed prominence in Russian eyes, and Russia’s involvement in North Korea—but
perhaps not yet its influence over Pyongyang—began to renew itself.
Japan
and North Korea.
Political
and Diplomatic Interaction.
From
the time it regained sovereignty in 1951
until the end of the Cold War, Japan made little effort to normalize ties with
North Korea. There was negligible political or economic gain to be had by
establishing official diplomatic relations with Pyongyang, and it appeared that
the lack of political relations was not impacting the economic ties that did
exist. Japan was firmly enmeshed in the U.S. alliance structure in East Asia
and did not want to upset the balance by pursuing relations with the communist
DPRK. Japan therefore had scant incentive to deviate from the policy of
nonrecognition. In addition, in 1955 the General Association of Korean
Residents in Japan (
Chongryun
in Korean or
Chosen Soren
in Japanese)
established itself as a pro-North Korean organization and thereby became a de
facto embassy for Pyongyang, representing North Korean interests in Japan
through lobbying and occasional protest activities.
Once Japan
had signed the 1965 normalization treaty with South Korea, Pyongyang had less
desire to pursue normalization, given its opposition to cross-recognition of
the two Korean states and its insistence on regarding diplomatic ties as
tantamount to absolute international legitimation. With a debt of hundreds of
millions of dollars owed to Japan from
trade relations, Pyongyang also was
apprehensive over the prospect of finding itself at a bargaining table where it
might be called on to pay such a debt (estimated at $530 million, with
Pyongyang initially defaulting from 1972 to 1975).
In the
late 1980s, the confluence of the Gorbachev revolution in Soviet foreign
policy, Seoul’s
Nordpolitik,
and Beijing–Moscow renormalization began to
undermine the deep structure of Cold-War politics in NEA in general and on the
Korean peninsula in particular. In July 1988, newly elected South Korean
President Roh Tae Woo promulgated
Nordpolitik
, a major policy
initiative aimed at improving inter-Korean relations by expanding South Korean
political, economic, and cultural ties with the Soviet Union, China, and other
socialist states. It also urged Tokyo and Washington to develop better
relations with North Korea. When
Gorbachev
formulated a new Asia-Pacific strategy,
one of the
most interesting and groundbreaking ideas was Soviet recognition of Seoul,
which was achieved in 1990, paving the road to Sino–ROK normalization 2 years
later. The United States had relaxed its rigid North Korea policy in 1988,
creating space for its allies
to
undertake more flexible foreign policies toward the
DPRK.
North
Korea, in turn, was watching the financial and political support by its
socialist allies recede. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Japan was viewed as
being on a trajectory to surpass the United States as the largest economy in
the world and so seemed a ripe target for a North Korean state badly in need of
support in the form of foreign capital and technology transfer. Japan, for its
part, wanted to be sure that it was in place to play a leadership role in the
emerging Northeast Asian order.
Tokyo and
Pyongyang, in fact, were both shocked by the outcome of the Soviet–South Korean
summit meeting held in San Francisco in June 1990, though for different
reasons. The DPRK was shocked by the defection of the rapidly disintegrating
socialist superpower (the Berlin wall had fallen on November 9, 1988) from its
one-Korea policy and sought to compensate for the diplomatic setback with its
own surprise normalization. Japan, shocked by the success of Seoul’s
Nordpolitik
and its
ability to reach out to the USSR and the PRC, felt compelled
to act in the name
of regional leadership.
Given the
ups and downs of inter-Korean diplomacy, the possibility of either a Korea
suddenly reunified under terms favorable to increasingly powerful South Korea
or a desperate North Korea lashing out with weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
seemed very real. Japan therefore found it increasingly difficult to be a
bystander in inter-Korean relations that now had the potential to directly
impact Japan or to be the driving force of new and uncertain international
developments throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Japan had to contemplate the
possibility either of another destructive inter-Korean war, which this time
would probably involve Japan directly, or of a sudden reunification with
uncertain ramifications.52
Therefore,
on September 28, 1990, the leaders of
Japan’srulingLiberalDemocraticParty(LDP)delegation joined with the Japan
Socialist Party (JSP) delegation and the DPRK’s Korean Workers’ Party (KWP) to
sign a joint declaration agreeing to hold normalization talks. The most
important but controversial provision of the eight-point joint declaration
stated that Japan should compensate North Korea not only for the damage caused
during the colonial rule, but also for the “losses suffered by the Korean
people in the
45
years” since World War II. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs then
conducted a rearguard delaying action for years.
After the
eight rapid-fire rounds of talks between January 1991 and November 1992, both
Pyongyang and Tokyo backed away from holding any additional talks. With the
signing of the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea,
Pyongyang began probing into whether Japan might welcome additional talks, but
it received only a lukewarm response. LDP leader Watanabe Michio failed to
restart the talks, and the 1995 and 1996 editions of Japan’s
White Paper on
Defense
still
listed North Korea as the
“major
destabilizing factor” with regard to East Asian
security.
Three new
rounds of talks were held from April to October 2000 in Tokyo, Pyongyang, and
Beijing, respectively. The ninth round in April involved discussions of Japan’s
colonial history and North Korea’s abduction of Japanese citizens during the
1970s and 1980s. Japan suspected that North Korea had abducted 11 Japanese citizens
from coastal towns across the archipelago and in Europe. In August, at the 10th
round of talks, North Korea reportedly agreed to stop demanding “reparations”
and to discuss “compensation” instead; Japan offered a $200 million loan and
$300 million of economic cooperation aid, as opposed to “compensation.” Japan
also emphasized the importance of solving the abduction issue, as the chief
Japanese negotiator pointed out that any normalization treaty to come out of
the talks would need the approval
of the Diet, which would not be forthcoming
without public support that would be contingent in turn on resolution of
abduction issue. At the 11th round of talks, Japan offered 500,000 tons of rice53
and a very
large economic package, as quid pro quo for North Korea’s moderation of the
missile threat and satisfactory resolution of the abduction issue.54
North Korean
negotiators rejected the offer, and the talks collapsed in only 2 days, with no
mention of a date for the next round of normalization talks.
These
normalization talks again fell apart because of their failure to resolve two
major issues: North Korea’s demand for compensation and Japan’s demand for
accountability on the abduction of Japanese citizens. North Korea persisted in
its denial of any knowledge about the abduction issue, while refusing to accept
the Japanese proposal to offer economic aid rather than reparations. In view of
the uncompromising positions taken by both sides on these issues at the
normalization talks, it became evident that
the settlement of these thorny issues would
require a high degree of political compromise between Tokyo and Pyongyang,
probably achieved as a package deal rather than through the piecemeal approach.
Despite
the Japanese sinking of a North Korean spy ship in December 2001, the year 2002
under Koizumi’s leadership witnessed some progress in relations between Japan
and North Korea. Japanese and North Korean Red Cross delegations met in Beijing
in April and agreed that North Korea would conduct a “serious investigation”
into the matter of “missing” Japanese, and in mid-August the first details of
abducted Japanese citizens began to emerge from North Korea. In addition,
Pyongyang expressed a willingness to accept Japan’s economic aid instead of
insisting on “reparations.” Against this background, Japan announced on August
30, 2002, that Koizumi would visit North Korea on September 17 for a summit
meeting with Kim Jong Il. Koizumi’s decision apparently reflected his
determination to normalize relations with North
Korea, and the historic visit
aroused high expectations for a normalization breakthrough. The United States,
in contrast, on learning about the surprise visit, is said to have put
inordinate pressure on Japan not to move too fast on normalization talks.55
In Pyongyang,
at the first ever Japanese–North
Korean
summit, both sides gave ground on bilateral issues. Kim Jong Il acknowledged
North Korea’s responsibility for abducting Japanese nationals and offered an
apology. Providing information about new abductees about whom Japan had not
asked, North Korea revealed that out of 13 abductees, eight had died
and five
were still alive. Koizumi demanded that North
Korea
continue its investigation into the cases, return those who were alive, and
take measures to prevent such activities in the future. Kim pledged not to
engage in such an act again, saying that Pyongyang already had punished those
responsible. The talks ended with
a joint
declaration in which Japan promised “economic
assistance”
in the form of grants, long-term soft loans, and humanitarian assistance via
international organizations, while North Korea promised compliance with
international law, pledging to take appropriate measures so that regrettable
incidents that took place under the abnormal bilateral relationship would never
happen in
the future. Both countries agreed to fulfill “all related international
agreements” pertaining to
nuclear
issues on the Korean peninsula. To placate enraged public opinion, Japan
dispatched
an official delegation
to
collect further
information
concerning the fate of the Japanese abductees. Pyongyang told the Japanese team
that all
eight had
died from “illness and disasters” and had
not been
the victims of foul play. However, there were inconsistencies in the North
Korean story that further aggravated Japanese families. The Koizumi govern
ment
arranged for the five surviving abductees to
return to
Japan for a 2-week visit in October. Before the end of their visit, Japan
announced that it had decided
to extend
the stay of the five abductees indefinitely so
as to
enable them to decide their future freely.
Following
the summit, the 12th round of Japanese– North Korean normalization talks was
held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on October 29–30, 2002. At these talks, it
quickly became evident that there was a wide chasm between Japan and North
Korea on several key issues. The North Korean delegation rejected Japan’s
demand for the settlement of the abduction issue, contending that it had been
resolved at the Pyongyang
summit when Kim Jong Il offered an apology with a
promise to prevent recurrences. Furthermore, North Korea insisted that it was
cooperating with Japan in investigating details surrounding the deaths of the 8
deceased abductees. North Korea also accused Japan
of breaking
its promise to return the five abductees
to
Pyongyang after a 2-week home visit in Japan and demanded that Japan keep its
promise to pave the way for the resolution of the issue; the Japanese
delegation
denounced
Pyongyang’s “criminal act
of kidnapping.”
Japan was
also insistent that North Korea maintain the tenets of the Pyongyang
Declaration, submit to its responsibilities under the NPT, and not target Japan
with its
Rodong
missiles. In
response to North Korea’s desire to discuss economic cooperation as a priority
issue, Japan replied that economic aid would come only in the aftermath of the
normalization of Tokyo– Pyongyang diplomatic relations. The talks adjourned
without agreement on the next round of normalization talks.
Much of
the
abductions
controversy and the 12th round of negotiations came at the same time as the
reemergence of the North Korean nuclear issue. Thus, when Japan–DPRK relations
became stalemated after the Kuala Lumpur meeting, there was little external
intervention
to
push them forward, and there was therefore no movement in the normalization
talks in 2003. In fact, Japan, because of domestic political pressure, became
increasingly anxious about and mired in the abduction issue. Despite Japan’s
concern about North Korea’s nuclear program, the issue of the roughly two dozen
Japanese citizens abducted by North Korean agents in the 1970s for espionage
training had now come to dominate Japanese policy toward North Korea, to the
exclusion of all else.56
In early
2004 it became clear that Japan was taking preliminary steps toward the
imposition of economic sanctions against North Korea. This led Pyongyang to
indicate its willingness to be more flexible on the abduction issue. In fact,
Pyongyang agreed to allow a Japanese delegate to come to North Korea to pick up
eight family members of the abductees who had returned to Japan. Koizumi,
desiring to normalize diplomatic relations with North Korea before the end of
his tenure as prime minister in 2006, indicated that his visit
to Pyongyang should
not be ruled out as an option.
On May 22,
2004, Koizumi visited Pyongyang to hold talks with Kim Jong Il, a second
Koizumi–Kim summit in the short span of less than 2 years. Kim agreed to allow
the families of five former Japanese abductees to go to Japan for a family
reunion and promised a new investigation into the fate of other abductees.
Koizumi emphasized the importance of a comprehensive solution to pending
security issues, including Pyongyang’s development of nuclear weapons and
missiles. Kim
reiterated North Korea’s position that Pyongyang had to maintain a nuclear
deterrent but also stated that his goal was to achieve a nonnuclear Korean
peninsula. In addition, Kim reassured Koizumi that the North would maintain a
moratorium on
missile
firing tests. For these diplomatic victories, Japan paid richly. Koizumi
promised Kim 250,000 tons of food and $10 million worth of medical assistance
through international organizations. He also pledged that Japan would not
invoke economic sanctions as long as North Korea observed the terms
of the
joint declaration from the first summit. In return, Pyongyang merely allowed
five children of the
repatriated
abductees to go to Japan with the prime minister.
Most
Japanese believed that Koizumi had paid too high a price at the second summit,
although they gave him high marks for bringing home the family members of the
five surviving abductees.57
In an attempt to pressure North Korea to
make concessions, in June 2004 the Japanese Diet took matters into
its own hands and
enacted a law to ban certain foreign ships from making port calls in Japan. The
law was designed to prohibit the entry of North Korean ships suspected of being
engaged in illegal trafficking of money, drugs, counterfeit currencies, and equipment
and materials used in the production of WMD. At August 2004 working-level
talks, the North Korean delegation refused to address the abductees issue in
any new way and was not ready to engage Japanese negotiators on the nuclear
issue either. Without a breakthrough in resolving either the residual abduction
issue or Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program, the Koizumi government decided
not to resume normalization talks.
It might
appear puzzling that Japan has tried as hard as it has to normalize relations
with North Korea. After all, what could it expect to gain from the process?
There are several things. In the first place, nonnormalized relations with
North Korea stick out as a reminder of Japan’s imperial past, and although
there has been a recent surge of nationalism in Japan, there is still a desire
among the Japanese public to wipe its World War II slate of guilt completely
clean. Economically, Japan is worried that it might not be able to compete
effectively on a Korean peninsula where other major
powers— China and
Russia—have established diplomatic ties with both North and South Korea. In
addition, there is
a concern
among some influential leaders of the LDP and among Foreign Ministry officials
that the collapse
of North
Korea would create enormous economic, political, and humanitarian problems for
Japan. This last concern enhances the possibility that DPRK– Japan
normalization might be an element in a broader agreement that incorporates a
solution to the North Korean nuclear standoff.
Security
Interaction
.
During the Cold War, there was very little interaction on security issues
between Pyongyang and Tokyo. Japan was ensconced in the protective shield of
the U.S.–Japan alliance system, in which the United States did all the heavy
lifting while Japan pursued a free ride policy that fits more closely with
mercantile realism, separating economics from politics.58Because
North Korea’s development of missile and nuclear programs was not yet known,
Japan had little interest in interacting with the DPRK. Pyongyang, at home in
its own ideological alliance cocoon with the Soviet Union and China, had no
compelling strategic or ideological reason for diplomatic normalization with
Japan.
However,
as the DPRK’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs began surfacing in the
early years of the post–Cold War era, Japan may have been the one country that
was more alarmed than was South Korea. Although the Kim Young Sam government in
Seoul was concerned over the advancing ballistic missile and nuclear
capabilities in the North, ordinary South Korean citizens did not appear overly
anxious or threatened. The Japanese, however, having suffered the twin blows of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the eve of their surrender during the last days of
World War II, felt a degree of atomic angst they had never experienced during
the Cold War.59
Japanese
fear became palpable during the nuclear crisis of April 1994, when North Korea
removed spent fuel rods from its nuclear reactor in Yongbyon and refused to
segregate rods that could provide evidence of a plutonium-based nuclear weapon
program.60
Japanese
leaders let out a sigh of relief when the crisis was defused by former U.S.
President Jimmy Carter’s June 1994 visit to Pyongyang, where Carter’s meeting
with Kim Il Sung paved the way for the signing of the U.S.-DPRK Agreed
Framework in October 1994. The Japanese 1995
Diplomatic Bluebook
, issued after the
conclusion of the Agreed Framework, distanced Japan somewhat from the North
Korean nuclear issue. Japan saw its main role as one of cooperation: both in
the newly established international consortium providing energy to the DPRK and
in the diplomatic realm with the United States and the ROK.
However,
the 1998
Taepodong
missile shock
galvanized the Japanese government into action on long-term plans. Tokyo
decided to develop and deploy its own spy satellite system to improve its
ability to monitor—independently of the United States— developments on the
Korean peninsula and elsewhere in the Northeast Asian region.61
In March
1999, Defense Agency Director General Norota Hosei told a Diet defense panel
that Japan had the right to make preemptive military strikes if it felt a
missile attack on Japan was imminent.62
Japan therefore
decided to acquire midair refueling aircraft to enable its Air Self-Defense
Force (ASDF) to conduct long-range strike missions. Tokyo viewed this as
important because of Japan’s vulnerability linked to its lack of offensive
military
capacities that could deter or counter North Korean attacks, capabilities that
are possessed by the United States and, to a lesser extent, South Korea.
Finally, the Japanese government authorized the
Japanese
Navy and Coast Guard to pursue unidentified
ships
entering Japanese territorial waters and to use force against them if
necessary.
The
historic inter-Korean summit meeting of June 2000 drastically changed the
political milieu in East Asia, and Japan’s relationship with the DPRK improved
as normalization talks materialized in April, August, and October. The dramatic
summit diplomacy gave some comfort to the Japanese regarding the prospect of a
more reasonable and responsible North Korea. Food aid through the World Food
Program (WFP) resumed, and the issues of visitations by Japanese nationals
living in North Korea and the investigation
of “missing” Japanese citizens were
broached. Then, in the wake of the October 2002 revelation about North Korea’s
HEU nuclear weapon program and the outbreak of the new nuclear standoff, Japan
readily agreed to increase funding and research support for the missile defense
project. Not surprisingly, Japan, as compared with Europe and Canada, had few
misgivings regarding the implications of deploying a ballistic missile defense
system.63
North
Korea’s official news media accused Japan of blindly following the United
States in pursuing a hostile policy toward North Korea.
Rodong Sinmun
[Worker’s Daily]
declared
that the Korean peninsula’s nuclear issue “is not an issue for Japan to
presumptuously act upon” because it is a “bilateral issue to be resolved
between the U.S. and North Korea.” The newspaper slammed the door on a Japanese
role, asserting that “Japan is not a party concerned with the resolution of the
Korean Peninsula’s nuclear issue and has no pretext or qualification to
intervene.”64
In
addition, referencing national identity issues, it criticized Japan for using
“various
pretexts and excuses to shelve the liquidation
of its
past and deliberately slackened normalizing relations” with North Korea.
Following
a May 2003 Bush-Koizumi summit in Crawford, Texas, Tokyo agreed to become one
of 11 nations—the one and only Asian country— participating in the U.S.-led
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to interdict WMD shipments to and from
countries such as North Korea. That the emphasis is on the DPRK
itself and not
terrorism in general is indicated by the fact that the 2003
Diplomatic Bluebook
lists North
Korea ahead of the war on terror and WMD as Japan’s greatest diplomatic
concerns.
In the
summer of 2003, the Japanese parliament
passed
three “war
contingency
bills” that would give
the
Japanese government new power to cope with armed attacks on Japan. Such
contingency legislation
had first
been discussed among Japanese conservatives
some 40
years earlier but was shelved because of the possibility that it would violate
Article 9 of the Japanese constitution. The threat posed by North Korea and
international terrorism, however, enabled the Koizumi government to win the
support of the main opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), for the
enactment of this special legislation. The legislation enables Japan to deploy
the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) swiftly by suspending numerous restrictions
hindering its effective mobilization and operation. Indeed, Koizumi has changed
Japan’s national security policy more than any leader since World War II. In a
5-year period from April 2001 to April 2006, the Koizumi government was
responsible for about 60 percent of the national security legislation or
revisions enacted since
Japan’s
Self-Defense Forces
were
founded in 1954.65
With regard to the nuclear issue, Japan has (1) called
for
complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement
(CVID) of
the North Korean nuclear programs, (2) agreed that discussions on North Korea’s
security concerns and energy assistance could be advanced within the Six Party
talks after the DPRK agreed to CVID, and (3) asserted that there is no change
in Japan’s basic positions of settling outstanding issues based on the
Pyongyang Declaration and the normalization of relations in
a peaceful manner.66
Japan has
also continued to pursue defensive military measures, such as an effective
missile defense system.
Alongside
resolution of the abduction issue, there is no question that reduction of
Pyongyang’s military threat remains atop
the list of Japanese priorities. Japanese
security planners, however, are also concerned that a marked deterioration of
political stability in North Korea or a military miscalculation by Pyongyang
would invite great power intervention, thereby affecting Japanese interests on
the peninsula.67
Japan therefore has an interest in restraining the
United States, especially in a world in which the Bush administration has
outlined a national security strategy that includes preventive war as a last
resort. The Koizumi administration, for example, warmly welcomed the Bush
administration’s October 2003 offer of a security guarantee for the DPRK.68
Economic
Interaction.
In
general, Japan’s economic role is potentially critical in the crisis over North
Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Most important, Japan has promised North
Korea, using the 1965 Japan– South Korean normalization agreement as a model, a
large-scale economic aid package in recognition of the “tremendous damage and
suffering” Japan inflicted during its colonial rule of Korea from 1910 to 1945.
The aid
package would go into effect after the two countries agree to normalize
relations, with Japan now linking normalization to a resolution of the
abduction and nuclear issues.
Japanese
officials are reportedly
discussing
a package on the order of $5–$10 billion, an enormous sum considering the small
size of the North Korean economy, the total gross domestic product (GDP) of
which is estimated to be $20.8 billion (as of the end of 2004). There is some
fear, however, that a payment of this magnitude would serve to prolong Kim Jong
II’s regime artificially without inducing any behavioral changes, or possibly
that the funds would be redirected to the North Korean military. To capture the
money, Pyongyang has moved away from demands that the package be labeled as
“reparations” or “compensation” and also has backed off from its periodic
insistence that Japan provide compensation for harms allegedly inflicted since
1945.
There has
been little indication of how the normalization of relations would impact
financial flows to the DPRK, and this may ultimately be of more importance to
North Korean economic development than are trade flows. The most likely initial
source of such financial flows would come from DPRK-friendly residents of
Japan. Although Chongryun is the most active group doing business with North
Korea, its resources are extremely limited, and its political clout has shrunk
to near zero. In the event of normalization, Korean residents of Japan will
play a role
as
middlemen for large firms, and local governments and business groups in the
coastal areas near North Korea are expected to increase their investment in the
DPRK. But here, too, resources are very limited and, in fact, declining.
Japanese investors have
shown
only limited interest in multilateral regional development programs, such as
the UN Development Program’s Tumen River Area Development Program (TRADP).69
Substantive
increases in the form of direct investment
would have
to come from large Japanese firms and financial institutions, but this is
likely to depend on
resolution
of the DPRK debt issue. Ultimately, North Korea will have to prove itself to be
a more attractive location for investment than China (see Table 3).
Year
Exportsto North Korea
Imports
fromNorth Korea
Total
Japan-North Korea Trade
JapaneseTrade Balance
with North Korea
Percent Change inJapan-
NorthKorea Trade
1990
194
271
465
-77
N/A
1991
246
250
496
-4
+7%
1992
246
231
477
+15
-4%
1993
243
222
465
+21
-3%
1994
188
297
485
-109
+4%
1995
282
306
588
-24
+21%
1996
249
265
514
-16
-13%
1997
197
269
466
-72
-9%
1998
175
219
394
-44
-15%
1999
147
202
349
-55
-11%
2000
207
257
464
-50
+33%
2001
249
226
475
+23
+2%
2002
135
234
369
-99
-22%
2003
92
172
264
-80
-28%
2004
89
164
253
-75
-4%
2005
60
130
190
-70
-25%
Sources
: International
Monetary Fund (1992, pp. 247, 304; 1993, pp. 247, 305; 1994, pp. 265, 326;
1995, pp.
269-270; 1996, pp. 275, 342; 1997, pp. 342, 347; 1998, pp. 289, 349) and MOFAT
(1998, pp. 396, 401; 1999, pp. 481, 481, 486; 2001, p. 497; 2002, p. 484; 2003,
p. 497), available at
www.mofat.gokr
and KOTRA at
www.kotra.or.kr
;
ROK
Ministry of Unification.
Table 3. Japan’s Trade with North Korea,
1990–2005 (Unit: U.S.$1 million).
For the
near term, Japanese policymakers seem to have quietly concluded that their
wisest course is to maintain the status quo as long as possible. For Japan, the
issue
of
Korean reunification poses a dilemma. While a strong, united, and nationalistic
Korea could pose a formidable challenge or even threat to Japan, the
continuation of a divided Korea with an unpredictable failed state in the North
is no less threatening
to
Japan’s security.70
The challenge, therefore, is to navigate between the
Scylla of a unified Korea, with all its uncertainties, potential instability,
and new challenges, and the Charybdis of a divided Korea, with the continuing
danger of implosion or explosion in the North.
Hatoyama
Ichiro, who became the Japanese prime
minister
in 1955, took the first steps to initiate postwar
economic
ties between Tokyo and Pyongyang. But only in November 1962 did Japan and North
Korea
finally
begin direct cargo shipments, on a very small
scale.
Trade agreements were signed 2 years later, in July 1964, but the impact was
small. Economic relations between North Korea and Japan were modest throughout
the 1960s but made a large jump forward in the early 1970s. The increase in
trade in 1972 and 1974 was due in part to the recognition by Tokyo’s leftist
governor Minobe Ryokichi of Chongryun—the civil society organization of
pro-Pyongyang Koreans in Japan—as North Korea’s de facto representative in
Japan. The group was granted tax-free status.71
At trade fairs in
Pyongyang, the North Korean hosts purchased all Japanese products on display
and ordered more, but they were not forthcoming with payments for the goods.
When North Korea defaulted in 1972 on payments to the Kyowa Bussan Trading
Company—
comprised
of 20 large Japanese firms—Japan’s Ministry
of
International Trade and Industry (MITI) suspended all export credits in 1974.
Despite the lack of payments,
limited trade, usually worth no more than $500 million,
continued between Japan and North Korea. After North Korea announced its Law on
Joint Ventures in 1984, a Mitsui Trading Company subsidiary backed a gold mine
venture with North Korean residents of
Japan, and
an Osaka-based firm established a cement
factory in
North Korea in 1990.72
Remarkably,
in 1993 Japan became North Korea’s second largest trading partner after China
and soon thereafter temporarily became its largest partner. But overall trade
volume quickly began to decline, largely due to the severe deterioration of
North Korea’s economy, sparked by the withdrawal of Soviet and Chinese support
in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Bilateral
trade has declined for 4 years in a row since 2002, reaching a 28-year low of
$190 million by the end of 2005. More stringent Japanese port controls have led
in part to the acceptance of fewer shipments from North Korea, but, more to the
point, Japanese firms that had been commissioning manufacture—textiles and
electrical machinery—from North Korean plants found the DPRK too risky and
Chinese alternatives too attractive.73
Although trade
levels continue to decline, the concurrent shrinking of the North Korea economy
may mean that trade with Japan—particularly exports, which generate hard
currency—is relatively more important to North Korea today than it was in the
1980s.
Recently a
number of local governments have decided to reconsider their policy of making
Chongryun facilities either partially or entirely exempt from fixed-asset
taxation.74
Meanwhile,
a Japanese government crackdown on drug smuggling has caused much of the
North
Korean narcotics traffic to be rerouted through
China.75
In June 2003,
Japan ordered its customs and immigration
services and its coast guard to expand
safety inspections and searches for illicit contraband on North Korean cargo
and passenger ships.
At the end
of 2003, Prime Minister Koizumi indicated his intention to consider imposing
sanctions on North Korea due to Pyongyang’s failure to respond to Japanese
requests for quick and thorough action on the abduction issue. Although Koizumi
maintained that his government was not considering immediate economic sanctions
against North Korea, his chief cabinet secretary did not rule out possible
sanctions in the future “if North Korea makes things worse.” North Korea’s
reactions to this possibility were negative; a spokesman for the North Korean
Foreign Ministry denounced it as a “wanton violation” of the Pyongyang Declaration,
warning that Japan would be responsible for “all consequences to be entailed by
its foolish moves.”76
The
amended Law on Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, which took effect March 1,
2005, amounts to a de facto economic sanction on the DPRK. The new law bans
from Japanese ports all foreign vessels weighing more than 100 tons without
proper liability insurance regarding oil spills. Most DPRK freighters are not
covered by the required “Protection and Indemnity Insurance,” and they in
effect will be banned from Japanese ports. It is unclear how effective these
independent sanctions against North Korea will be; they could, in fact, result
in China gaining much more influence over North Korea. Some commentators have
begun complaining that Japan is forsaking what influence it does have in
Pyongyang. Amid declining Japan–North Korea trade, the value of trade between
China and North Korea tripled in the 4 years from 2001 to 2004, and it now
amounts to one-half of North Korea’s overall trade, whereas Japan and
North
Korea are
trading only one-fifth as much as at their
peak of
economic relations in 1980. Japan simply cannot sanction the DPRK effectively
without China’s support.
Japan’s
economic relations with North Korea extend
beyond
trade and investment. North Korea’s first
public
aid-seeking diplomacy came in May 1995 when Pyongyang sent a delegation to
Tokyo.77
The
pattern
of
Japanese aid reflects developments in the political
relationship
between Tokyo and Pyongyang; shipments began in 1995 and 1996 when relations
warmed and then were suspended after the
Taepodong
missile
launch over Japan in 1998 and the spy ship incident in 2001. In the face of
North Korea’s unwillingness to give up its nuclear weapons program, the Koizumi
government announced that it had ruled out the possibility of extending any
additional food aid to North Korea beyond that agreed on at the Pyongyang
summit.
Japan–North
Korea bilateral trade and economic relations have declined surprisingly since
the end of the Cold War. Although the level of trade between the countries
pales in comparison to that between Japan and South Korea, Japan is an
extremely important source of goods and capital for the DPRK. Japan also stands
poised to be a major underwriter for economic reforms in North Korea. In terms
of engaging North Korea since the October 2002 nuclear revelation, Japan’s
possible economic aid has acted as the biggest bunch of carrots dangled before
Pyongyang in an attempt to ensure peace and stability in NEA and also to
improve inter-Korean relations.
In recent
years, however, Japan has put in place several laws that limit North Korea’s
ability to engage in either legal or illegal trade with Japan. The problem is
not economic; rather, the question of abductions weighs heavily on Japanese
engagement. Many Japanese citizens feel an emotional involvement in the fate of
the abductees, not only driven by a genuine sense of horror at the actions of
the North Korean government but also nurtured for political gain by the LDP.78
Although the
continuing nuclear issue is also relevant for Japan’s normalization of economic
and political relations with North Korea, it is really the abductions around
which the public imagination crystallizes. The abductions are yet another
national identity issue providing a wedge in Japan–Korea relations and
preventing the expansion of contacts. Pyongyang, however, prefers to accuse
Japan of
acting as the “shock brigade” for the U.S.led “psychological warfare and
blockade operation”
in regard
to its implementation of sanctions.79
Until political issues can be
settled, it is unlikely that there will be any major changes in Japan–DPRK
economic relations.
The
United States and North Korea.
Without a
doubt, the
United
States remains the most dominant external actor on the Korean peninsula.
Although U.S. primacy at almost any point on the globe is widely accepted, the
description is particularly apt on the Korean peninsula. By dint of what it is
and what it does,
Washington
is seen in both Seoul and Pyongyang, albeit for different reasons, as having
become part of both the Korean problem and the Korean solution. Nonetheless, in
the conception and conduct of foreign policy, the United States is impacted on
and shaped by the changing dynamics of its domestic politics and regional and
global interests, even as local and regional factors have gained greater
saliency in the foreign relations of both Koreas in the post–Cold War era.
Both
despite and in conjunction with the North Korean mantra decrying U.S.
imperialism, the United States has become central in Pyongyang’s strategic
thinking and behavior, alternately seen as a mortal threat or an external life
support system, and sometimes as both. With the demise of the Soviet Union,
uncertain aid from China, and increasingly close PRC– ROK relations, the United
States has become, for want of anything better, the functional equivalent of
China and the Soviet Union in Pyongyang’s perspective, at least until recently.
However, whereas the DPRK’s specialty during the Cold War was playing its
allies Moscow and Beijing off against each other to reap economic, technical,
and military aid, now it must seek to achieve the same aid—and also
international legitimacy, investment, and trade—from a single adversary that is
increasingly inclined to use force rather than favor.80
The
Long Road to Normalization
.
By the end of the Cold War, the United
States had a working relationship with China. The second term of Bill Clinton’s
presidency would bring about rapprochement with Vietnam, 2 decades after the
end of the U.S. conflict with that country. Few, however, predicted a quick
normalization of relations with North Korea in the post–Cold War years. The
intensity of the Stalinist state’s political position made such an outcome seem
unlikely; after all, Pyongyang rhetorically disparaged “cross-recognition” of
the two Koreas as a move toward perpetual division of the peninsula.
Furthermore, the predictions of Pyongyang’s probable collapse made
a pursuit of
normalization seem like a waste of time. Nonetheless, by the late 1990s, as
Clinton was preparing
to leave
office, normalization seemed to be on the table,
though
events during the Bush administration have been far less encouraging.
In the
early 21st century, the U.S.-DPRK relationship is one of a kind. With the fall
of the Soviet Union, North Korea is the longest-running political, military,
and ideological adversary for the United States, and vice versa. Few other
bilateral relationships in modern international relations approach this 60-year
history of mutual enmity and provocation fueled and sustained by seemingly
immutable antagonistic identities.
From the
end of Korean War hostilities in 1953 until the late 1980s, there was no formal
diplomatic contact of any kind between the United States and the DPRK. With the
winding down of the Cold War and the consequent strategic transformation taking
place throughout the world, the Reagan administration launched what was termed
a “modest initiative” to start a dialogue with North Korea. Recognizing that Pyongyang’s
increasing isolation was a dangerously destabilizing factor in Northeast Asia,
Reagan authorized the State Department in the fall of 1988 to hold substantive
discussions with North Korean representatives in neutral settings and allowed
nongovernmental visits from North Koreans in academics, culture, sports, and a
few other areas. He also ended the almost-total U.S. ban on commercial and
financial transactions with North Korea by allowing
certain exports on
a case-bycase basis.81
The George H. W. Bush administration,
however, did not continue the initiative.
Then on
March 11, 1993, the DPRK issued the 90day legal notice that it was withdrawing
from the NPT, which it had signed in December
1985. The withdrawal was a response
to the demand by the IAEA—backed by the threat of an application for UN
sanctions—for special inspections permitting unlimited access at
any time
or place (the first such request ever made
by the
IAEA). The announcement of withdrawal created an instant atmosphere of crisis
in Seoul, Tokyo, Washington, Vienna, and New York, while 149
countries
“issued statements denouncing Pyongyang’s
intended
withdrawal.”82
Despite
the prior U.S. agreement on the principle of supplying North Korea with two
light-water reactors (LWRs), the agreement stalled in the hammering out of
details, dragging on for almost a year. In May 1994 Pyongyang began removing
nuclear fuel rods from the Yongbyon reactor without the presence of IAEA inspectors.
As the matter came before the UNSC, the DPRK declared that “U.N. sanctions will
be regarded immediately as a declaration of war,”83
though Jimmy Carter
subsequently received Kim Il Sung’s personal pledge to freeze the DPRK’s
nuclear program. Somewhat
embarrassed, the Clinton administration had no choice
but to negotiate with Pyongyang, and it began a 4-month process that led to a
written agreement, officially known as the U.S.-DPRK Agreed Framework. Although
some hardline opponents of this North Korean policy cried “appeasement,” the
fact is that in the absence of the Agreed Framework, North Korea might today
have 50 to 100 nuclear weapons, rather than 1 or 2 or possibly 6 to 8.84
The Agreed
Framework realized in October 1994 inaugurated a period of limited engagement
between the United States and the DPRK. As a putative solution to the North
Korean nuclear issue, the document called on the United States and North Korea
to implement four conditions. To deal with the energy crisis in North Korea,
the United States was to facilitate the construction of two LWRs, with the
first one scheduled for completion by 2003, in exchange for a written agreement
with the DPRK on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Also, the DPRK was to
freeze and dismantle the graphite-moderated reactors under construction. In
addition, the United States would ensure the supply of heavy fuel oil at a rate
of 500,000 tons annually. The United States also pledged that it would not use
or threaten to use nuclear weapons against North Korea (i.e., negative
security), and the DPRK was expected to engage in dialogue with the ROK. In the
pursuit of effective international regimes, the DPRK was to come into
compliance with the NPT and the requirements of the IAEA. Finally, the two
countries were to move toward full normalization of political and economic
relations, beginning with reduced barriers to trade and investment within 3
months of the signing of the Agreed Framework.
Pyongyang
was very positive in its assessment of the document. North Korea’s chief
negotiator, Kang Sok Ju, described it as “a very important milestone document
of historical significance” that would resolve the nuclear dispute with
finality. The official news media in the DPRK called the accord “the biggest
diplomatic victory” and went to great lengths to describe it as an end achieved
by the DPRK on its own—that is, without pressure or assistance from China: “We
held the talks independently with the United States on an independent footing,
not relying on someone else’s sympathy or advice, and the adoption of the DPRK
U.S.
agreed framework is a fruition of our independent foreign policy.”85
The Agreed
Framework, therefore, served as a roadmap for moving U.S.-DPRK relations toward
normalization, starting with the establishment of liaison offices in Pyongyang
and Washington (similar to the pathway that Sino–American rapprochement took to
full normalization), but because of half-hearted implementation of the
agreement on the part of the United States, very little progress was made. The
lack of seriousness with which the United States would treat the Agreed
Framework was made evident when
the U.S.
General Accounting Office stated that the
Agreed
Framework should properly be described as
“a
nonbinding political agreement” or “nonbinding
international
agreement” rather than an internationally binding legal document.86
North Korea,
of course, had anticipated that the signed agreement would be treated as a
legally binding treaty and has since perceived itself as suffering from a double
standard of expectations regarding implementation.
The
Taepodong-I
missile test
in August 1998 and the suspicions about the restarting of plutonium processing
were accompanied by North Korean rumblings about abandoning the Agreed
Framework. In response, Clinton instructed his former Secretary of Defense,
William Perry, to conduct a thorough review and assessment of U.S. policy
toward North Korea. The Perry process marked the beginning of a sustained
effort at the highest levels of the Clinton administration to achieve a
breakthrough in relations with North Korea. The Perry Report, issued in October
1999, notes the centrality of the Agreed Framework and calls for a two-track
approach of step-by-step comprehensive engagement and normalization along with
a concurrent
posture of deterrence. The report also divulges that during the process of
exploring policy options, a policy of regime change and demise, that is, ”a
policy of undermining the DPRK, seeking to hasten the demise of the regime of
Kim Jong Il,”
had
been considered and rejected.87
All of
this, however, had much to do with the changing correlation of geostrategic
forces in the early post–Cold War years. Amid mutual footdragging Pyongyang
began to express its concern openly as the 2003 deadline for
the delivery of a
LWR approached. On February 20, 2001, a DPRK Foreign Ministry spokesman said,
If [the
United States] does not honestly implement the agreed framework, . . . there is
no need for us to be bound to it any longer. We cannot but consider
the existence of
the Korean peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) as meaningless
under the present situation when no one can tell when the LWR project will be
completed.88
On June
18, 2001, the same source warned, “The agreed
framework
is in the danger of collapse due to the delay in the LWR provision.”89
Soon
thereafter, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), produced an
overall shift in U.S. policy from engaging adversaries to confronting them.
The
footdragging over the implementation of the Agreed Framework was due in part to
the expectation— in Seoul no less than in Tokyo and Washington— that Pyongyang
would collapse before the KEDO construction program was completed. Yet the
delay was not all on one side, there also being some North Korean footdragging.
Six months were wasted on an “identity argument” as to what the reactor type
was to be called, and then a labor dispute shut down the construction until
workers from Central Asia were brought in by KEDO to substitute for the DPRK workforce.
With
Bush’s declaration of an “axis of evil” in January 2002, the administration’s
refusal to certify in March 2002 that the DPRK was acting in accord with the
Agreed Framework (a refusal which threatened
U.S.
funding of KEDO), and finally Pyongyang’s
revelations
of October 2002 regarding a HEU program, Pyongyang and Washington found
themselves at loggerheads. After a long delay, Assistant Secretary of State
James Kelly went to North Korea in early October 2002 for comprehensive policy
discussions.
The
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) was announced in May 2003, organized
around the concept of intercepting ships and planes believed to be carrying
illicit weapons material. Then, in the summer of 2003, what were purported to
be details of DoD’s Korea Plan 5030 were leaked to the press.90
These
strategic documents were an anathema to Pyongyang, which was closely attuned to
developing U.S. policy. Both DPRK officials and the North Korean media had long
and assiduously followed the U.S. security policy debate and relevant published
documents. For instance, after the nuclear standoff unfolded in October 2002,
North Korean statements regularly cited President Bush’s inclusion of the North
in the “axis of evil” and the administration’s preemption doctrine as virtual
declarations of war that justified the DPRK’s withdrawal from the NPT.91
By the end
of the first term of the Bush administration, virtually all former U.S.
ambassadors to the ROK and special envoys to the DPRK (Donald Gregg, James
Laney, Stephen Bosworth, William Perry, Wendy Sherman, and Charles Kartman) had
criticized the administration’s approach to North Korea openly. Charles
Pritchard, who resigned as the State Department’s special envoy for North
Korean nuclear issues in August
2003, said, “We’ve gone, under [Bush’s]
watch, from the possibility that North Korea has one or two weapons to a
possibility—a distinct possibility—that it now has eight or more. And it’s
happened while we were deposing Saddam Hussein for fear he might get that same
capability by the end of the decade.”92
If
normalization is to come about, security guaran
tees for
North Korea seem to be a necessary if not suffi
cient
condition. The centrality of the DPRK’s survival-driven security dilemma is
evidenced in comments by Pritchard regarding the 2000 U.S. diplomatic trip to
North Korea:
I
am struck by what Kim Jong-il, North Korea’s leader, said to Madeleine
Albright, former US secretary of state, in October 2000. He told her that in
the 1970s, Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese leader, was able to conclude that China
faced no external security threat and could accordingly refocus its resources
on economic development. With the appropriate security assurances, Mr. Kim
said, he would be able to convince his military that
the US was no
longer a threat and then be in a similar position to refocus his country’s
resources.93
In a 1999
interview, William Perry offered a similar
assessment:
“We do not think of ourselves as a threat to
North
Korea. But I fully believe that they consider us a threat to them, and
therefore, they see [the
Taepodong-I
] missile as a
means of deterrence.”94
Without
U.S. engagement, North Korea seems destined to receive neither the
international aid that it needs nor the international recognition that it
covets. More to the point, without engagement the DPRK is likely to maintain
its bunker mentality, as evidenced by pronouncements such as this one from
August 2003:
The
Bush administration openly disclosed its attempt to
use
nuclear
weapons
after listing the DPRK as part of “an axis of evil” and a target of “preemptive
nuclear attack.”
This
prompted us to judge that the Bush administration
is
going to stifle our system by force and decide to
build
a strong deterrent force to cope with it. Hence, we determined to possess that
force. . . . It is a means for self-defense to protect our sovereignty.95
Security
Interaction.
After
President Bush’s election, a series of radical shifts in America’s military
doctrine made
it increasingly evident that more was going on than mere rhetorical posturing:
the
Quadrennial
Defense Review
of
September 2001 called for a paradigm shift from threat- to capability-based
models; and the Bush doctrine of preemption, first proclaimed at West Point in
June 2002, was officially enunciated and codified in
The National
Security Strategy of the United States of America
in September 2002.
The doctrine was implemented in Iraq in March 2003.
As noted,
North Korea pays very close attention to these public policy pronouncements,
and it is not far-fetched to conclude that the DPRK’s willingness in October
2002 to confess having a HEU program was inspired by the bellicosity it found
in these official U.S. policies. While U.S. Secretary of Defense Colin Powell
was saying in June 2002 that the United States would be ready to meet with the
DPRK “any time, any place, without precondition,” Robert Gallucci, America’s
chief negotiator for the Agreed Framework, claims that the North Koreans interpreted
this as a willingness on the part of Washington “to meet to accept North Korean
surrender.”96
In
fact, as the United States was moving toward talks with the DPRK, in August
2002 the administration demanded that improvements be seen in relations between
North Korea and Japan. With the second nuclear standoff, the United States has
declared the Agreed Framework “effectively dead.”97
To resolve
the nuclear standoff that began in October 2002, the DPRK Ministry of Foreign
Affairs issued a comprehensive
and authoritative statement on October 25, detailing
its version of what had actually occurred in the Kelly–Kang exchanges behind
the scenes a few weeks earlier, and also describing the “grand bargain” offered
by the North Korean negotiators to U.S. Assistant Secretary of the State James
Kelly:
The DPRK, with greatest magnanimity,
clarified that it
was
ready to seek a negotiated settlement of this issue
on
the following three conditions: firstly, if the U.S.
recognizes
the DPRK’s sovereignty; secondly,
if it assures the DPRK of nonaggression;
and thirdly, if the U.S. does not hinder the economic development of the DPRK.
. . . If the U.S. legally assures the DPRK of nonaggression, including the
nonuse of nuclear weapons against it by concluding . . . a treaty, the DPRK
will be ready to clear the former of its security concerns.98
There were
no explicit calls for financial compensation
from the
United States. Subsequent North Korean pronouncements essentially adhered to
the proposals outlined in the October 25 statement.
At the
first round of the Six Party talks in Beijing in August 2003, the DPRK offered
a “package solution” deal. The DPRK offered to revive the Agreed
Framework—without specifically referring to it as such—and to include a missile
deal in exchange for the establishment of diplomatic relations with the United
States and Japan, along with guarantees of economic cooperation between the
DPRK and Japan and between the DPRK and the ROK. Pyongyang suggested that the
dismantling of its nuclear program was contingent on a lessening of U.S.
hostility, that a nonaggression treaty was the benchmark of this lessening of
hostility, that such a treaty must be of binding legal force, and that action
must be taken simultaneously—”word for word, action for
action.”99
The North
Koreans claimed that China, Russia, and South Korea were open to the package
solution, whereas Japan and the United States remained focused on their own
individual objectives.
To solve
the nuclear standoff by taking account of North Korea’s security concerns, the
United States did explore the possibility of a multilateral security pact.
Powell said in October 2003, “It would be something that would be public,
something that would be written, something that I hope would be multilateral.”100
Powell’s
staff was drafting sample agreements that he hoped would be acceptable to
Pyongyang and would ease the impasse over its nuclear weapons programs. In the
same month, President Bush indicated for the first time that the United States
would offer a multilateral security guarantee to be signed by Pyongyang’s
Northeast Asian neighbors and by Washington. Pyongyang responded quickly with a
cautiously positive reaction. Through its UN mission, North Korea said, “We are
ready to consider Bush’s remarks
on the
‘written assurances of nonaggression’ if
they are based on the intention to coexist with the DPRK and aimed to play a
positive role in realizing the proposal for a package solution on the principle
of simultaneous actions.”101
In the
third round of Six Party talks, held in June 2004, the United States outlined a
denuclearization proposal. This proposal seemed like little more than a
reformulation of the CVID mantra. North Korea was required to make the initial
concessions without any guarantee of reciprocation from the United States.
Whereas the requirements for the DPRK were quite specific, those for the United
States were more ambiguous. Pyongyang raised the ante of its own brinkmanship
diplomacy with the February 10, 2005, statement that it had “manufactured nukes
for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration’s evermore undisguised
policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK,” and that it was therefore “compelled to
suspend
participation
in the [Six Party] talks for an indefinite
period.”102
The Western
news media jumped on the fact that the announcement also contained North
Korea’s
first
public declaration that it had nuclear weapons. The February 10 statement
generated a flurry of intensive “bi-multilateral” consultations, and China’s
preventive
diplomacy with both Koreas reached the highest levels.
On July 9,
2005, North Korea finally agreed to return for a fourth round of the Six Party
talks later in the month. Suggesting there was no behind-the-scenes Chinese
pressure, the DPRK showcased
this breakthrough as stemming from bilateral
“negotiations” between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill (who
replaced James Kelly as America’s top negotiator at the Six Party talks) and
Kim Kye Gwan of the DPRK.103
Tellingly, Kim Kye Gwan conveyed his
government’s definitive and date-specific decision to return to the Six Party
talks in the course of a 3hour dinner meeting with Hill, an event hosted by the
Chinese in Beijing on the eve of a scheduled trip to Pyongyang by Tang Jiaxuan
(state
counselor
and former foreign minister) as part of Chinese efforts to bridge differences
between the United States and the DPRK.
The Bush
administration’s sudden escalation of verbal attacks on North Korea’s
long-known
counterfeiting, drug trafficking, and other crimes in the wake of the September
19, 2006,
Joint
Statement of Principles
may have caught some observers by surprise, but it was
hardly surprising for many others. Predictably, the result was to scuttle and
replace a new round of the Six Party talks with another round of the
Washington-Pyongyang war of words, as Washington and Pyongyang unleashed verbal
attacks on each other over activities outside the scope of the Six Party
negotiations. North Korea’s human rights abuses and criminal activities have
been known for years, and yet Washington has dealt with these issues apart from
the Six Party talks because it always considered ending North Korea’s nuclear
program to be its highest policy priority. By
the end of 2005, even further delay
appeared possible in negotiating implementation of the
Joint Statement of
Principles
to
eliminate Pyongyang’s nuclear
program
through a “words for words” and “action for
action”
process stipulated in the document.104
More to
the point, however, both Pyongyang and Washington showed little trust toward
each other. “While in Washington the North Korean nuclear threat has been a
major issue for the past decade,” as Gavan McCormack reminds us, “in Pyongyang
the U.S. nuclear
threat
has been the issue for the past 50 years. North Korea’s uniqueness in the
nuclear age lies first of all in the way it has faced and lived under the
shadow of nuclear threat for longer than any other nation.”105
With the
coming of the Bush administration, Pyongyang has had even more reason to distrust
Washington, given the way the United States first appropriated North Korean
national identity by making it a charter member of the “axis of evil” and then
pursued a hardline policy (although this has proceeded in fits and starts due
in no small measure to America’s ongoing challenges in Iraq, the first test
case of the Bush doctrine for the three charter members of the “axis of evil”).
Economic
Interaction
.
Following North Korea’s invasion of the South in June 1950, the United States
imposed a nearly complete economic embargo on the DPRK. During the next 4
decades, the scope and specificity of U.S. sanctions steadily expanded. Article
II of the U.S.-DPRK Agreed Framework of 1994 stated, “Within 3 months
of the day of this
Document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including
restrictions on telecommunications services,
and
financial transactions.” In March 1995, the U.S.
Department
of Commerce approved the sale of 55,000 tons of corn to North Korea by a U.S.
grain dealer, opening the door to U.S. exports to the DPRK. In the mid1990s,
Washington approved a number of transactions on a case-by-case basis, including
telecommunications
link-ups,
tourist excursions, airline overflight pay
ments,
purchases of North Korean magnesite, and a grain-for-zinc barter deal.106
Finally, in
September 1999, almost 50 years after the initial export embargo, President
Bill Clinton announced that the United States would ease economic sanctions
against North Korea affecting most trade and travel, thereby ending the
longest-standing trade embargo in U.S. history. Many items that had previously
required a license were now eligible for export without a license; certain
items on the Commerce Control List (CCL) moved from a policy of denial status
to case-by-case review.
Today,
trade and related transactions generally are allowed for non–dual-use goods
(dual-use goods are those that may have both civilian and military uses) if a
set of overarching conditions is met. To lift all export controls applied to
North Korea, Pyongyang first would have to be removed from the State Department
list of countries supporting acts of international terrorism. The United States
also cannot extend Normal Trade Relations status—formerly called Most-Favored
Nation status—to North Korea because of the restrictions included in the 1951
Trade Agreement Extension Act that prohibited extending such status to
communist states. Pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, this lack of status also
excludes the
DPRK from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). U.S. citizens may,
however, travel to North Korea, and there are no restrictions on the amount of
money one may spend in transit or while there. Assets frozen prior to June 19,
2000, remain frozen.
Despite
the easing of most trade restrictions, trade and investment between North Korea
and the United States has remained virtually nonexistent and also highly
politicized. As shown in Table 4, U.S.-DPRK trade is almost entirely in one
direction: the United States exports moderate amounts of mostly agricultural
goods to North Korea and imports virtually nothing from the DPRK. South Korea’s
trade with the United States in a single day in 2005 ($196 million) is almost
two times greater than the combined total of North Korea’s trade with the United
States in the 16-year period 1990-2005 ($100 million). America’s economic
sanctions have certainly denied Pyongyang access to the world’s largest market,
but North Korea has met with only limited success
in selling its
products in other markets where no sanctions existed.
The
history of U.S.-Korean relations—especially U.S.-DPRK relations, from the
General
Sherman
incident
to the recent standoffs over North Korea’s nuclear pursuits—teaches us that the
conflict between the United States and North Korea often goes beyond
considerations of power. The U.S.-DPRK conflict has deep historical roots born
in war and perpetuated for more than half a century. The present conflict is
not simply about nuclear weapons but rather about competing worldviews and
perceptions of self and others. Rhetorically, it is as much about putative good
and evil as about international security. The war on terror that has followed
from the 9/11 attacks has involved a Manichean lens in which states are either
with the United States or against it. Because of the history of conflict, the
DPRK automatically made the “against the United States” list.
Year
Exportsto North Korea
Importsfrom North Korea
Total North Korean-U.S.
Trade
U.S. Trade Balance with North Korea
Percent Changein North Korean-U.S. Trade
1990
0.03
0.0
0.03
0.03
N/A
1991
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
+567%
1992
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
-50%
1993
2.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
+1900%
1994
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
-90%
1995
11.6
0.0
11.6
11.6
+5700%
1996
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
-96%
1997
2.5
0.0
2.5
2.5
+400%
1998
4.4
0.0
4.4
4.4
+76%
1999
11.3
0.0
11.3
11.3
+157%
2000
2.7
0.1
2.8
2.6
-75%
2001
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
-82%
2002
25.1
0.1
25.2
25.0
+4940%
2003
8.0
0.0
8.0
8.0
-68%
2004
23.8
1.5
25.3
22.3
+216%
2005
5.8
0.0
5.8
5.8
-77%
Sources
: International
Monetary Fund 1992, p. 247; 1993, p. 247; 1994, p. 265; 1995, p. 269; 1996, p.
275; 1997, p.
347; 1998, p. 280; MOFAT, 1998, pp. 396,401; 1999, pp. 481, 486; 2001, p. 497;
available at
www.mofat.go.kr/
; KOTRA at
www.kotra.or.kr
; United States Department of
Commerce; International Trade Administration at
www.ita.doc.gov
.
Table 4. U.S. Trade with North Korea,
1990-2005 (Units
:
U.S.$1
million)
.
In effect,
there is a resurgence of national identity at the nation-state level, and the
divided nation-state of Korea is watching its two halves officially move closer
to one another, while the United States remains a target for both appeals and
scorn from both of those halves, to greater and lesser degrees. The United
States now risks provoking negative responses from both Korean states if it
pursues the wrong path, and it risks losing its place on the Korean peninsula
if it is not proactive enough.
Not since
the North Korean invasion of South Korea in 1950 after U.S. troops had left the
peninsula has the question of the U.S. future on the peninsula been subject to
so many possibilities and contingencies.
Inter-Korean
Relations.
For nearly 2 decades after the “end” of the
Korean
War, the
two Korean states talked about and sometimes
acted out
their competing unification visions only
in the
context of the overthrow or replacement of one national identity by the other.
After the shock of President Nixon’s visit to China in the early 1970s, inter-
Korean
relations developed in fits and starts, mutating
through
four cycles of dialogue and reconciliation.107
The first
cycle, beginning in August 1971, entailed a
series of
seven Red Cross talks held alternately in Pyongyang and Seoul over 2 years,
culminating in a joint communiqué in which both Koreas agreed
to uphold
three principles: (1) unification achieved through independent efforts; (2)
unification achieved
through
peaceful means; and (3) national unity sought by transcending differences in
ideas, ideologies, and systems.
The second cycle of talks, running from
September
1984 through February 1986, involved a
flurry of
contacts and exchanges in various functional
and
humanitarian fields; these talks reaffirmed
the three principles of unification. The third cycle, which began
in 1990 and was inspired in part by changes
in global politics linked with the end of the Cold War, was more
promising
than the first two. It jump-started inter-
Korean
trade, eased the entry of the two Koreas into the UN as two separate but equal
member states, and led to the drafting of two documents: the North–South
Basic
Agreement (officially known as “Agreement on
Reconciliation,
Nonaggression, and Exchanges and Cooperation between the South and the North”)
and
the “Joint
Declaration of the Denuclearization of the
Korean
Peninsula.”
With Kim
Dae Jung’s inauguration as ROK president in February 1998
,
South Korea
initiated the Sunshine Policy of opening to North Korea with a pledge not to
undermine or absorb the DPRK. The new policy was based in part on explicit
recognition that undermining the DPRK is simply not a viable policy option
because of the disorder and destruction that would follow from a Northern
collapse.108
President
Kim Dae Jung’s repeated pledges that the South has no intent “to undermine or
absorb North Korea,” thus speaking to one of
the key remaining fears in
Pyongyang, stand out as one of the most significant steps toward accepting
identity difference as an integral part of the gradual peace process.109
The
Sunshine Policy created the appropriate conditions—both in South Korea and in
North Korea— for the historic inter-Korean summit of June 13–15, 2000, which
catalyzed the fourth and most promising cycle—indeed, a turning point—of
inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation. Without a doubt, the chief catalyst for
the Pyongyang summit was
President
Kim Dae Jung’s consistent and single-minded pursuit of his pro-engagement
Sunshine Policy. More than anything else, the offer of substantial if
unspecified governmental aid to refurbish North Korea’s decrepit infrastructure
was an important causal force behind Kim Jong Il’s decision to agree to the
summit. Until Kim Dae Jung’s Berlin Declaration in March 2000 offering aid to
the DPRK,110
Pyongyang
had taken a two-handed approach, attacking the Sunshine Policy as a “sunburn
policy” on ideological
grounds
while simultaneously pursuing a mendicant strategy to extract maximum
economic
concessions. Before the official unveiling of
the
statement in Berlin, Seoul delivered an advance text to Pyongyang, Beijing,
Moscow, Tokyo, and Washington, demonstrating that the Big Four had little to do
with the initiation of the summit.
The 2000
Pyongyang summit was most remarkable historically because it was initiated and
executed by Koreans themselves with no external shock or great-power
sponsorship. The previous inter-Korean accords had been responses to major
changes external to the Korean peninsula, such as the 1972 joint communiqué
after Nixon’s visit to China or the 1992 agreements following the demise of the
Cold War. The Pyongyang summit, the first of its
kind in the half-century history of
politics of competitive legitimation and delegitimation on the divided
peninsula, generated opportunities and challenges for the Big Four as they
stepped back to reassess the likely future of inter-Korean affairs and the
implications for their own national interests. The dramatic summit also led to
some paradoxical expectations and consequences.
Suddenly,
at least from June to November of 2000, the capital city of Pyongyang, the city
of darkness, became a city of diplomatic light and a primary arena for
diplomatic influence and competition among the Big Four as inter-Korean
relations returned to a more international field. The notion that the Pyongyang
summit had improved prospects for melting the remnant Cold War glacier on the
Korean peninsula seemed to have intensified the needs and efforts of the Big
Four to readjust their respective Korea policies in response to rapidly
changing realities on the ground.
The North
Koreans viewed and framed the summit, although native
in origin, as a
major concession to the United States and as a concrete step taken by the DPRK
to fulfill
one of the obligations in the 1994 Agreed
Framework.111
The United
States was then expected to make major economic and
strategic
concessions. Pyongyang did its best to exploit the new connection with Seoul in
order to speed up normalization talks with the United States and to gain access
to bilateral and multilateral aid and foreign direct investment.
In
addition to the summit with Kim Dae Jung, the
infamously
reclusive Kim Jong Il also met first with
Chinese President
Jiang Zemin in a secret visit to Beijing in May 2000 and then with Russian
President Vladimir Putin that July, after which he received a
flurry of
diplomatic missions to Pyongyang, including
U.S.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian,
and a European Union (EU) delegation. By early 2001, however, Pyongyang’s
high hopes
and expectations from the “Clinton in Pyongyang Shock” turned into the “Bush in
Washing
ton
Shock,” with low and ever-diminishing returns.
Furthermore,
while the Joint Declaration speaks of economic cooperation and indeed has
fostered significant growth in that area, it failed to address military and
security matters, lacking even a general statement about working together for
tension reduction and confidence-building. Pyongyang clearly desired to discuss
security issues only with the United States. Tellingly, Pyongyang has held the
administration in Washington hostage to the resumption of inter-Korean
dialogue, at least from January 2001 to August 2002, breaching not only the
letter and the spirit of the North-South Joint Declaration but also its own
longstanding party line that Korean affairs should be
handled without
foreign intervention or interference.
But the
significance of the summit should not be
underrated.
It was all about mutual recognition and legitimation, and it succeeded in no
small measure
in finally
bringing the two Koreas down from their hegemonic-unification dreamlands to
acceptance of
peaceful
coexistence as two separate states. The single greatest accomplishment of the
summit was to deliver a major blow to the fratricidal politics of competitive
legitimation and delegitimation. Although the two Kims symbolically signaled
their acceptance of each other’s legitimacy through their actions at the
summit,
neither of
them enunciated a belief that reunification
would be
coming in the near future. Kim Dae Jung, in fact, predicted that it
would take 20 to 30
years for the divided Korean peninsula to achieve national
unification,
even as North Korea declared for the first time to the domestic audience that
“the issue of unifying
the
differing systems in the North and the South as one
may be left to
posterity to settle slowly in the future
.”112
The Joint
Declaration produced by the summit, while initially limited in domain, adopted
a functional “peace by pieces” approach to the Korean conflict.113
In effect,
economic relations were anointed as the practical pathway for the gradual
development and institutionalization of a working peace mechanism for the two
Koreas. The fourth article of the document used the term “national economy,”
apparently assuming an eventual integration of North and South Korean
economies.114
It
is worth noting in this connection that for the period from July 1972 to August
2005, covering all four cycles of dialogue and cooperation, 47 inter-Korean
agreements were signed, breaking down as follows: one during the first cycle;
none during the second cycle; 13 during the third cycle (December 1991– July
1994); and 33 during the fourth cycle (April 2000– August 2005). Inter-Korean
dialogue and cooperation came to a halt during the first 20 months of the Bush
administration
(from
January 2001 to August 2002)— not a single inter-Korean accord was signed—but
Pyongyang returned to inter-Korean dialogue in late August 2002, signing no
less than six accords through the end of 2003.115
Almost in
tandem with the simmering U.S.DPRK nuclear standoff and the coming of the Roh
Moo-hyun government, both the speed and scope of inter-Korean talks and
cooperation have accelerated, and nearly 100 rounds of official
government-level meetings have been held since the inauguration of the “Policy
of Peace and Prosperity” by the Roh administration in February 2003. Of course,
the second U.S.-DPRK nuclear standoff could overshadow but not reverse some
remarkable achievements in inter-Korean relations in all issue areas from
August 2002 to mid-2006.
With
the election in December 2002 of Roh Moo-hyun, an offspring candidate of the
“386 generation,” North Korea finds “its most cooperative South Korean
government ever. . . . Roh emphasized even more strongly than his predecessor
that inter-Korean economic cooperation would continue and that dialogue and economic
inducements were the best means to bring about positive change in North Korea’s
behavior.”116
Pyongyang’s
view of the state of inter-Korean relations also has evolved to such an extent
that it could confidently declare in its Joint New Year (2003) Editorial: “It
can be said that there exists on the Korean Peninsula at present only
confrontation between the Koreans in the North and the South and the United
States.”117
As shown
in Table 5, inter-Korean trade registered a 5.2 percent decline from 2000 to
2001 but recorded a huge 59.3 percent increase from 2001 to 2002 and another
impressive 51.5 percent increase from 2004 to 2005. In 2005 inter-Korean trade
topped $1 billion
for the
first time, sufficing to make Seoul Pyongyang’s
second
largest trade partner after China. In fact, since 2002, South Korea has become
and has remained the North’s second largest trading partner, surging ahead of
Japan. Inter-Korean trade now constitutes 26 percent of North Korea’s total
foreign trade (but alas, only 0.19 percent of South Korea’s total foreign
trade).
Imports
%
Exports
%
Total %
Year
from North to North
Korea
Change
Korea
Change trade change
1989
18,655
69
18,724
1990
12,278
-34.2
1,188 1,621.7
13,466
-28.1
1991
105,719
761.0
5,547
366.9
111,266
726.3
1992
162,863
54.1
10,563
90.4
173,426
55.9
1993
178,167
9.4
8,425
-20.2
186,592
7.6
1994
176,298
-1.0
18,249
116.6
194,547
4.3
1995
222,855
26.4
64,436
253.1
287,291
47.7
1996
182,400
-18.2
69,639
8.1 252,039
-12.3
1997
193,069
5.8
115,270
65.5
308,339
22.3
1998
92,264
-52.2
129,679
12.5
221,943
-28.0
1999
121,604
31.8
211,832
63.4
333,437
50.2
2000
152,373
25.3
272,775
28.8
425,148
27.5
2001
176,170
15.6
226,787
-16.9
402,957
-5.2
2002
271,575
54.2
370,155
63.2
641,730
59.3
2003
289,252
6.5
434,965
17.5
724,217
12.9
2004
258,039
-10.8
439,001
0.9
697,040
-3.8
2005
340,281
31.0
715,472
63.0
1,055,753
51.5
Note:
These figures include both transactional and nontrans
actional (i.e., noncommercial) trade.
Sources: KOTRA at
www.kotra.go.kr
; ROK Ministry of
Unification.
Table
5.
South Korean–North
Korean Trade, 1989–2005 (Unit: U.S.$1,000).
Trade with
South Korea is in general de facto economic aid for North Korea, and the ROK
has become one of the major sources of hard currency in the DPRK.118
Beginning in
the early 1990s with small exchanges of goods, trade, which was essentially the
functional cornerstone of Kim Dae Jung’s Sunshine Policy, has continued despite
nuclear tensions. Over the course of Kim Dae Jung’s and Roh Moo-hyun’s
presidencies, inter-Korean trade registered a nearly five-fold increase from
$221 million in 1998 to $1,055 million in 2005.
One of the
key components of this trade is processing-on-commission (POC) trade, in which
South Korean companies export raw materials to the DPRK and then import
finished or semifinished products. This type of trade involves the creation of
new jobs in North Korea, some degree of technology transfer, a fair amount of
investment in the North from the South, and, most importantly, direct contact
between North and South Koreans. Many of the POC plants that have been
established use South Korean machinery and supervisors. By 2003, South Korean
companies were making shoes, beds, television sets, and men’s suits in the
North.119
In
addition, since the mid-1990s, Seoul has
increased
its flows of “nontransactional” trade, which
is the
exchange of noncommercial goods, such as those used in the now defunct KEDO
reactor projects or for humanitarian aid. Nontransactional trade began in 1995
and has increased to such a degree that it is about 40 percent of total
inter-Korean trade on the average. Overall, these increased trading relations
are part of a program led by the ROK but accepted by the DPRK to create
functional linkages between North and South in
the
interest of managing conflict, maintaining peace, and catalyzing eventual
reunification.120
Although
trade may be growing and increasingly impressive, it is investment that will
make the most difference for the North Korean economy and for economic
relations in the interests of fostering peace on the peninsula.121
Despite the
self-reliant
juche
philosophy
that undergirds the DPRK’s national identity, the newly-minted Kaesong
Industrial Complex (KIC) in North Korea already has attracted attention from a
number of small- and medium-size companies in South Korea. The reconnection of
roads and railways between the two countries—what President Kim Dae Jung
characterized as de facto unification—will reduce the transaction costs of
trade and embed both countries in a larger Northeast Asian trading system.
Pyongyang has recognized the essential need to open itself to foreign economic
agents and has undertaken legal reform to encourage investment and trade. South
Korea is the most likely source of the funding that can revitalize or at least
stabilize the DPRK’s economy. What many realists dismissed as beyond the realm
of possibility only a few years ago is now happening, as raw materials and
finished products are passing along and through what was once considered a
major invasion route.122
This “peace by pieces” functional
cooperation provides ways of living with identity differences on the divided
Korean peninsula rather than fighting about them.
In
addition, cultural and social exchanges, though not as revolutionary as some
had hoped, have continued unabated. Since its opening in November 1998, the Mt.
Kumgang project has increased the number of South Koreans who travel to the
North. With the reestablishment of road and rail links between the two Koreas,
along with the demining of areas of the DMZ around these links, South Korean
tour buses
made the
first overland tours to Mt. Kumgang in
North
Korea in over 50 years, and the South Korean conglomerate Hyundai continued
work on industrial plants in
Kaesong in the North. Civilian exchanges and
cooperation are surging substantially as well. In 2005 alone, the number of
people who traveled between the two Koreas reached 88,341, surpassing the total
number of people exchanges for the past 60 years.
The
normative and
functional spillovers from growing inter-Korean dialogue and reconciliation can
be seen in several noneconomic domains. After more than half a century of
politics of competitive legitimation and delegitimation, the leaders of the
pro-Seoul Korean Residents Union in Japan (
Mindan) and the pro-Pyongyang
General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (
Chongryun) met for the
first time on May 17, 2006. They issued a joint statement pledging to turn
their longstanding antagonism into reconcilation and cooperation. The joint
statement was influenced greatly by the declared intentions of their respective
“home states,” being based largely on the North-South Joint Declaration of June
15, 2000. Even in the military/ security domain, rare talks between North and
South Korean generals in 2004 (the first of their kind) made progress on the
establishment of naval radio contact to prevent firefights like those of 1999
and 2002 and also on the discontinuation of propaganda activities against each
other along the 155-mile-long DMZ. As noted earlier, the convergence of the
positions of Chinese and the two Koreas in the fourth round of Six Party talks
is a remarkable event defying the conventional realist wisdom. Thus in a series
of accords and agreements reached over the years, especially from 2000 to 2006,
the relationship between North and South Korea has come quite close to that of
mutually recognized sovereign states
.
EXPLAINING
NORTH KOREA’S SECURITYCUM-SURVIVAL STRATEGY
As
is amply made
manifest in U.S.-DPRK nuclear confrontations and negotiations—and Pyongyang’s
“package solution” proposal—there remains the inseparable linkage of security,
development, and legitimacy in the conduct of North Korean foreign policy.
Indeed, three types of crisis—security crisis, economic crisis, and
legitimation crisis—all frame and drive North Korea’s security-cum-survival
strategy in the post–Kim Il Sung era.
The
Quest for Security.
During the
Cold War, Pyongyang’s main security concern was not so much to balance against
or bandwagon with the United States as in coping with the twin security
dilemmas of allied abandonment and allied entrapment. Ironically, it was the
Sino-Soviet conflict, not the U.S.-Soviet tensions, that most enhanced “the
power of the weak.” In its security behavior, Pyongyang demonstrated a
remarkable unilateral zigzag balancing strategy in its relations with Moscow
and Beijing, taking sides if necessary on particular issues, while attempting
at the same time to extract maximum payoffs in economic, technical, and
military aid, but never completely casting its lot with one or the other.
How can we
then explain the paradox of the survival of post–Kim Il Sung North Korea in the
post–Cold War era? The literature on asymmetric conflicts shows that weaker powers
have engaged in wars against stronger adversaries more often than not, and big
powers frequently lose wars in asymmetric conflicts (e.g., the Vietnam War).123
According to
a recent study, weak states were victorious in nearly 30 percent of all asymmetric
wars in the approximately 200-year period covered in the
Correlates of War
data set.
More tellingly, weak states have won with increasing frequency as the modern
era approached.124
Weaker states also have initiated many brinkmanship
crises that fell short of war, a strategy that North Korea has employed
repeatedly.125
A
consideration of multiple and mutually interactive influences can help us
answer the puzzle of Pyongyang’s uncanny resilience and “the
power of the weak”
in the context of the DPRK-U.S. nuclear confrontation. Drawing theoretical
insight from asymmetric conflict and negotiation theory, we may postulate that
the power balance in an issue-specific relationship and the performance of the
weaker state are affected by four key variables: the weak state’s proximity to
the strategic field of play; the availability to the stronger state of feasible
alternatives; the stakes involved for both states in conflict and the degree of
their resolve; and the degree of control for all involved parties.126
As a
weaker state in conflict with a superpower
and its
allies (South Korea and Japan), North Korea has
relied
upon issue-specific and situation-specific power,
the
effectiveness and credibility of which has required resources other than the
traditional elements of national
power.
North Korea’s proximity to the strategic field
of play,
its compensating brinkmanship strategy, the high stakes involved, and its
governmental resolve and control have all reinforced one another to make a
strong actor’s aggregate conventional power largely less relevant. North Korea
has adopted a wide range
of tactics
in and out of the asymmetric conflict and
negotiation
processes in order to reduce the opponent’s alternatives and weaken the
opponent’s resolve and control.
The
geographical position of the DPRK is one of the most compelling and immutable
factors in Pyongyang’s survival strategy. Since countries can change their
leaders, systems, policies, and strategies but cannot change their location,
“geography or geopolitics has long been the point of departure for studies of
foreign policy or world politics.”127
Surrounded by all four major powers
and its southern rival, North Korea’s home turf is the strategic field of play
from which it exercises its brinkmanship or plays its collapse card. Contrary
to the conventional realist wisdom, in asymmetrical conflict and negotiations
the strong state does not
ipso facto
exert greater
control than the weak state. If a smaller and
weaker state occupies territory of
strategic importance to a larger and stronger state, or if the field of play is
on the weak actor’s home turf (as was the case in the U.S.-Panama negotiations
and British-Iceland Cod Wars), the weaker state can deploy bargaining clout
disproportionate to its intrinsic coercive potential.128
The
ineluctable fact that North Korea is at the center of the strategic crossroads
of Northeast Asia where the Big Four uneasily meet and interact has served
rather well in
bolstering
Pyongyang’s control. By dint of its proximity to what Peter Hayes called “the
fuse on the nuclear powder keg in the Pacific,”129
Pyongyang has
leveled the field of play so as to wield greater control than the United States
by constantly changing the rules of entry and the rules of play in the pursuit
of its preferred outcome. North Korea’s manifest preference for direct
bilateral negotiations with the United States also is a way of seeking the home
court advantage to
maximize
its control in the
asymmetric
conflict and
negotiation
process.
Consider
as well how Pyongyang’s geographical position, combined with its military of
1.2 million members and its asymmetric military capabilities, provides ample
fodder for its survival-driven leverage diplomacy with South Korea and the
United States. Some 70 percent of its active force—700,000 troops, 8,000
artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks—are forward-deployed near the DMZ. Seoul,
where one-fourth of South Korea’s 49 million people live and where nearly 75
percent of
the country’s wealth is concentrated, is only 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the
DMZ and thus within easy reach of North Korean jet fighters, armored vehicles,
Scud missiles, and artillery guns. Within minutes, Pyongyang could turn Seoul
into “a
sea
of fire,” as it threatened to do in the heat of the first nuclear crisis of
mid-1994. Any ultimate Allied triumph would be a Pyrrhic victory since such
devastation would be crippling to South Korea.130
Without
launching such an armed invasion,
Pyongyang
could still exercise its “negative power”
or even
play its collapse card to spawn instability on the divided Korean peninsula.
One of the underlying rationales for the inauguration of the Kim Dae Jung
administration’s
“sunshine policy” was that potential
implosion
or explosion in the North would put at risk
South
Korea’s recovery from the 1997–98 financial crisis by discouraging foreign
direct investment inflows. The financial crisis served as a wake-up call
regarding the
consequences
of North Korea’s prospective collapse. Hence, to deter or delay the economic
effects of a North Korean hard landing as long as possible, the sunshine policy
became South Korea’s default policy.131
In March 2005
President Roh Moo-hyun publicly
declared,
“We will not be embroiled in any [armed] conflict in Northeast Asia against our
will. This is an absolutely firm principle we cannot yield under any
circumstances.”132
North
Korea’s geographical location is also of considerable strategic concern to
NEA’s Big Four. Located at the pivot point of the NEA security complex and at
the most important strategic nexus of the Asia-Pacific region, Pyongyang is
capable, by hostility or instability, of entrapping any or all of the Big Four
in a stairstep of conflict escalation these governments would rather avoid. If
Pyongyang’s brinkmanship or Washington’s sanctions or regime-change strategy
escalate to war, the cost to all parties would be exorbitant.
Concomitant
to Pyongyang’s survival strategy are
the
limitations of Washington’s issue-specific power
to
pressure Pyongyang and the lack of palatable alternatives to negotiation. The
twisted logic of a self-styled
juche
kingdom is that it is not as
vulnerable as a normal state to public shaming and the various sanction tools
of traditional statecraft. The acceptable nonnegotiation alternatives available
to the United States in the resolution of the North Korean nuclear and missile
issues have remained severely limited.
The
credible threats of surgical military strikes and enforceable economic
sanctions against Pyongyang were considered but rejected because of the
Pentagon’s objections, Seoul’s vulnerability, China’s veto threat, and even
Tokyo’s reluctance. William Perry—reflecting on his involvement in the
emergency national security meeting of June 16, 1994, regarding the most
serious North Korean nuclear brinkmanship crisis of his tenure as Secretary of
Defense—writes about a third-way option for a negotiated deal in the face of
the extremely limited alternatives available to U.S.
policymakers:
“We were
about to give the president a [third-way]
choice
between a disastrous option—allowing North Korea to get a nuclear arsenal,
which we might have to face someday—and an unpalatable option, blocking this
development, but thereby risking a destructive nonnuclear war.”133
Given all the
constraints on
America’s
issue-specific power, the rise of a cost-
aware
foreign policy, and the collapse of a bipartisan foreign policy consensus in
the 1990s, the U.S.-DPRK Agreement of October 21, 1994, could be said to be the
worst deal, except that there was no better alternative.
For
Beijing—and to a lesser extent for Seoul, Moscow, and Tokyo—Washington’s
sanctions diplomacy in mid-1994 emerged as a no-win proposition, as it would
bring about the worst of two possible outcomes. It could be ineffective in
controlling nuclear proliferation since it could only strengthen the
determination of the North Korean leadership to go nuclear, or it could
destabilize a North Korean regime that would then dump many of its ill-fed, fleeing
refugees on China’s northeastern and Russia’s far eastern provinces. Thus,
paradoxically, Pyongyang’s growing difficulties and threat of collapse have
increased its bargaining leverage relative to its weak intrinsic power.
Another
consideration regarding leverage in asymmetrical negotiations is the matter of
relative and absolute stakes and resolve. The higher the stakes for a state
actor in the process of bargaining, the more it is willing to commit its
resources and the greater
its resolve to attain a favorable negotiation outcome.
The issue of stakes may have a crucial part in explaining why the weaker North
Vietnam ultimately achieved victory during the Vietnam War fought on Vietnamese
turf. Similarly, North Korea has been disadvantaged against the United States
in the overall correlation of forces, but there also remained a clear asymmetry
in survival stakes and resolve favoring Pyongyang— to wit, Washington’s
apprehensions regarding the integrity of the NPT regime. Compare America’s
relatively nonchalant reaction to the nuclear breakout states India and
Pakistan with U.S. nervousness in the face of a Pyongyang bolstered by fear for
its survival and consequent highest possible resolve.
Of course,
resolve without capability and
willingness to use force is the mark of a paper tiger,
and as such it cannot work in asymmetrical negotiation. With the end of the
Cold War and with Moscow-Seoul normalization, the nuclear card suddenly became
a very potent lever for North Korea. The DPRK
has striven to use its nuclear
weapons program as an all-purpose, cost-effective instrument of foreign policy.
For Pyongyang, the nuclear program is a military deterrent, an equalizer in
national identity competition with South Korea (which lacks nuclear
weapons), a
bargaining chip for extracting economic concessions from the United States and
China, and a cost-effective insurance policy for regime survival. International
uncertainty surrounding actual nuclear capabilities, deliberately nurtured by
North Korea, has gone a long way for that small country. It is through the
combination of putative military power and the on-again, off-again tit-for-tat
diplomacy on the part of Pyongyang that it has gained not only the upper hand
over the forces that seek to crush it, but also economic assistance from
wealthy capitalist countries. All such manna has come from the abiding fear of
war held by those nations that regard North Korea as an enemy.134
To abandon
such a
military
posture, including its nuclear capability, would be to leave Pyongyang without
the single most important lever in its asymmetric conflicts and negotiations
with South Korea, the United States, and Japan. Instead, Pyongyang follows its
own third way—a maxi-mini strategy, doing the minimum necessary to get the
maximum possible aid from South Korea and other countries without reducing its
minimum deterrent military power.
North
Korean nuclear and missile brinkmanship also illustrates with particular
clarity that
when the enactment of a national identity is blocked in one domain, it seeks to
compensate in another. From Pyongyang’s military-first perspective, developing
asymmetrical capabilities such as ballistic missiles and WMD serves as
strategic sine qua non in its survival strategy, as well as an equalizer in the
legitimacy war and status competition with the South. It remains one of the few
areas in which the DPRK commands a comparative advantage in the military
balance of power with the South. North Korea’s humiliating defeat by its
southern counterpart in the first-ever naval clash in June 1999 further
emphasizes its WMD and ballistic missiles as a strategic equalizer.
In short,
Pyongyang’s proximity to the strategic field of play, its high stakes, resolve,
and control, its relative asymmetrical military capabilities, and its coercive
leverage strategy have all combined to enable the DPRK to exercise bargaining
power far disproportionate to its aggregate structural power.
That said,
however, Kim
Jong
Il’s pronounced commitment to survival strategy would not stand in the way of
his demonstrating situation-specific flexibility, especially in foreign policy.
Indeed, Pyongyang has pursued a great variety of coping strategies, such as
brinkmanship, beggar diplomacy, tit-for-tat cooper- ative strategy, overseas
arms sales, appeals for humanitarian aid, and on-again, off-again joint-venture
projects, to generate desperately needed foreign capital.
The
Quest for Development
During the
long Cold War
years, geopolitics and ideology combined to make it possible for Pyongyang to
gain significant economic, military, and security benefits from larger
socialist allies, especially Moscow and Beijing, and to claim thereby that the
North Korean
system
was a success. In the late 1950s and much of the 1960s, the political economy
of North Korea did indeed seem headed toward becoming an exceptional model of
an autocentric, socialist, and self-reliant national economy afloat in the sea
of the capitalist world system.
Determined
not to be outperformed in the legitimation-cum-economic war, in 1972 Pyongyang
launched its first international shopping expeditions for capital and
technology, accumulating in a few years (1972 to 1975) a trade deficit of about
$1.3 billion with non-Communist countries and $700 million with Communist
countries. This was the genesis of Pyongyang’s debt trap.135
Hit by the rapidly
deteriorating terms of trade (the oil crisis and declining metal prices),
Pyongyang defaulted on its debts in 1975, with the dual consequences of
effectively cutting itself off from Western capital markets and becoming more
dependent on the Soviet Union than ever before.
The
situation worsened in the late 1980s as opportunities to grow through marshaling
greater resources began to dwindle and as relations began to deteriorate with
the principal socialist patron, Gorbachev’s Soviet Union. This forced Pyongyang
to become more dependent on other socialist countries for support. The collapse
of the Soviet Union and the subsequent breakup of the Eastern bloc was a major
macroeconomic shock that ushered in a period of as yet unchecked decline.136
One of the
most telling paradoxes of North Korea’s political economy during the Cold War
is the extent to which Pyongyang successfully managed to have its
juche
(self-reliance)
cake and eat it too. As an appealing legitimating principle,
juche
often has been
turned on its head to conceal a high degree of dependence on Soviet and Chinese
aid. Between 1948 and 1984, Moscow and Beijing were Pyongyang’s first and
second most important patrons, supplying $2.2 billion and $900 million in aid,
respectively.137
Thanks to the East-West and Sino-Soviet rivalries
during the Cold War, Pyongyang was allowed to practice such concealed mendicant
diplomacy. The collapse of the Soviet Union was the most serious shock to
socialist North Korea, not only for the cessation of aid and the virtual demise
of concessional trade (dropping from
56.3
percent in 1990 to 5.3 percent in 2000), but also because it delivered a
wrenching blow to the much-trumpeted
juche
-based national
identity.
North
Korea’s economic collapse in the 1990s was the inevitable result of Pyongyang’s
massive expendi- tures on military preparedness and the demise of Soviet aid
and trade. In a contradictory yet revealing manner, Pyongyang admitted as much
when it attributed the failure of the Third Seven-Year Plan (1987 to 1993) to a
series of adverse external shocks: the “collusion between the imperialists and
counter-revolutionary forces” and the “penetration of imperialist ideology and
culture” that had accelerated the demise of the Second (Socialist) World and
the end of Soviet aid.138
As much as Pyongyang may blame the economic
crisis on such external shocks or on natural disaster at home, the root causes
of the economic crisis are deeply systemic. The adverse external circumstances
in the early 1990s and the bad weather in 1995 and 1996 served only as
triggering and exacerbating factors.
The
political economy of post–Kim Il Sung North
Korea
finds itself in a vicious circle: a successful export
strategy
is not possible without massive imports of high-tech equipment and plants,
which in turn would not be possible without hard-currency credits, which
in turn
would not be possible without first paying off
its
foreign debts through a successful export strategy,
and so on.
The defining features of North Korea’s
external
economic relations in the post–Cold War era include: (1) the extreme degree to
which markets were repressed, with the resulting shrinkage of foreign
trade; (2)
a chronic trade deficit; (3) a lack of access
to
international capital markets due to the 1975 debt default; and (4) a highly
unusual balance-of-payments
profile
that must be financed in highly unconventional
ways.139
As shown
in Tables 6 and 7
,
Northeast Asia figures most prominently in North
Korea’s foreign trade, with China (40 percent), South Korea (26 percent),
Russia (6 percent),
and
Japan (4.8 percent), in that order, accounting for more than 77 percent of
Pyongyang’s total global trade in 2005. The first 5 years of the new millennium
(2001–05) have brought about significant changes in the pattern and volume of
North Korea’s foreign trade. While total volume increased by 52 percent (from
$2.67 billion in 2001 to $4.0 billion in 2005), China’s and South Korea’s
shares increased by 114 percent (from $737.5 million to $1,580 million) and 162
percent (from $403 million to $1,055 million), respectively. Japan’s share
declined from 17.8 percent to 4.8 percent ($475 million to $195 million), while
Russia’s share increased from 2.6 percent to 6.0 percent ($68.3 million to
$213.4 million).
Seen in
this light, Chinese-style reform and opening are widely believed to be the most
promising way out of the poverty trap. Post-Mao China’s record doubling of per
capita output in the shortest period (1977-87)140
Table
6. North Korea’s
Foreign Trade (Excluding North-South Trade), 1990-2005 (Unit: U.S.$ million)
.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Country Trade Share Trade Share Trade Share
Trade Share Trade Share
Volume (%) Volume (%) Volume (%) Volume (%)
Volume (%)
China
South Korea
737.5 27.6% 403.0 15.1%
738.0 641.7
25.4%
22.1%
1,022.9 724.2
32.8% 23.2%
1,385.2
697.0
39.0% 19.6%
1,580.3 39.0% 1,055 26.0%
Thailand
130 4.9%
216.6
7.5%
254.3
8.2%
329.9
9.3%
329 8.1%
Japan
474.7 17.8%
369.5
12.7%
265.3
8.5%
252.6
7.1%
195 4.8%
Russia
68.3
2.6%
80.7
2.8%
118.4
3.8%
213.4
6.0%
232 5.7%
India
157.8
5.9%
191.7
6.6%
158.4
5.1%
135.0
3.8%
Others
702.1
26.3%
663.9
22.9%
572.0
18.4%
541.0
15.2%
Total
2,673.5
100%
2,902.1
100%
3,115.5
100%
3,554.1
100%
4,055
100%
Sources:
KOTRA and ROK
Ministry of Unification.
Table 7. North
Korea’s Top Trading Partners
(Including North-South Trade)
(Unit: U.S.$ million).
should
serve as inspiration to North Korea to follow this path. Yet Pyongyang has
issued mixed and contradictory signals and statements about post-Mao Chinese
socialism. In six informal summit meetings between 1978 and 1991, Deng Xiaoping
repeatedly urged Kim Il Sung to develop the economy through reform and opening.
This only provoked Kim Il Sung’s
testy
retort, “We opened, already,” in reference to the
Rajin-Sonbong
Free Economic and Trade Zone.141
In September 1993, however, Kim Il Sung
reportedly told a visiting Chinese delegation that he admired China
“for
having achieved brilliant reforms and openness” while continuing to build
“socialism with Chinese
characteristics.”
He also stated that the Chinese
experience
would become “an encouraging factor for
us
Koreans.”142
In
a May 1999 meeting with Chinese Ambassador Wan Yongxiang in
Pyongyang, Kim Jong
II is reported to have said that he supported Chinese-style reforms. In return,
he asked Beijing to respect
“Korean-style
socialism.”143
The North
Korean government admitted in January 2001 the need for “new thinking” to
adjust ideological perspectives and work ethics to promote the “state
competitiveness” required in the new century.144
This admission was
accompanied by Kim Jong Il’s second “secret” visit to Shanghai in less than 8
months (January 15–20, 2001) for an extensive personal inspection of
“capitalism with Shanghai characteristics.” These developments prompted a
flurry of wild speculation about
juche
being Shanghaied and North Korea
becoming a “second China.”
Despite
North Korea’s seeming determination to undertake economic
reform and the
popular perception that Chinese-style reform and opening are the most promising
way, there are at least five major obstacles.
First,
China’s reform and opening came about during the heyday of the revived Cold War
when anti-Soviet China enjoyed and exercised its maximum realpolitik leverage,
as was made evident, for instance, in Beijing’s easy entry into the World Bank
and IMF in May 1980. Second, China’s economic reforms were tied to a political
changing of the guard: the ascendancy of Deng
Xiaoping as the new paramount leader
in December 1978 with the purging of the Gang of Four and Mao’s designated
heir-apparent Huo Guofeng. Despite much
speculation
to the contrary, Kim Jong Il seems firmly
positioned
to remain in power and even to name his successor in the Kim dynasty. Third,
unlike post-Mao China, North Korea does not have rich, famous, and enterprising
overseas Koreans to generate the level of foreign direct investment that China
attracted in the 1980s
.
Fourth
,
the agriculture-led reform process we have
seen in East Asian transitional economies simply may not be available to North
Korea, due to the very different initial conditions that resemble East European
economies or the former Soviet Union more than China or Vietnam.
The fifth
obstacle has to do with Pyongyang’s Catch-22 identity dilemma. To save the
juche
system would
require destroying important parts of it and also would require considerable
opening to and help from its capitalist southern rival. Yet to depart from the
ideological continuity of the system that the Great Leader Kim Il Sung (“the
father of the nation”) created, developed, and passed onto the son is viewed
not as a survival necessity but as an ultimate betrayal of
raison d’état
.
Nonetheless,
there has been some evidence of North Korea’s movement toward a system reform
strategy. In 1991 the DPRK established the Rajin-Sonbong Free Economic and
Trade Zone, which has since become the Rajin-Sonbong Free Economic Zone.145
Pyongyang
also agreed to participate in the TRADP, and recently created the Sinuiju
Special Autonomous Region (SAR) on the Chinese border and also the Kaesong
Industrial Complex for cooperating with South Korea. Between 1992 and 2000, the
DPRK wrote 47 new laws on foreign investment, and a September 1998
constitutional
revision
mentions “private property,” “material incentives,” and “cost, price, and
profit” in a document
that
otherwise reads like an orthodox manifestation of the DPRK’s
juche
philosophy.146
During his
visit to Shanghai in January 2001, Kim Jong Il highly praised the Chinese
developmental model of reform and opening (with Shanghai characteristics).
On July 1,
2002, North Korea enacted a set of
major
economic reform measures—known as “7.1
Measures”—with
the main emphasis on marketization, monetarization, decentralization, and
acquisition of
FDI.
Specifically, the DPRK adjusted its system of
controlled
prices, devalued the won, raised wages,
adjusted
the rationing system, opened a “socialist
goods
trading market,” gave farmers a type of property right regarding the
cultivation of particular parcels of land, and extended laws for special
economic zones.147
More
recently, against the backdrop of growing containment and encirclement
sanctions by Washington and Tokyo, Pyongyang has found a new pair of patrons in
South Korea and China, beefing up its system-reforming developmental strategy
with North Korean characteristics. South Korea surged ahead of Japan as North
Korea’s second largest trade
partner in 2002 and inter-Korean trade hit an all-time
high of over $1 billion in 2005. South Korea’s aid in various forms (rice,
fertilizer, tourism, and direct investment in the Kaesong Industrial Complex)
is now estimated to be about $1 billion, which
is six times the level of 2000.148
Kim Jong
Il’s fourth state visit to China from January 10 to 18, 2006, coming on the
heels of President Hu Jintao’s state visit to North Korea in October 2005,
culminated a series of regular bilateral exchanges of visitations and
interactions between Chairman Kim Jong Il and top Chinese leaders since 2000.
These exchanges emphasized their shared concerns and determination to
reconstruct and renormalize the relationship on a more solid and stable
footing. Even though this
was an unofficial (secret) state visit, Kim Jong Il
received the red carpet treatment. All nine members of the Politburo Standing
Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, the most powerful political organ of
the Chinese system, were mobilized to welcome Kim Jong Il in a manner on par
with the greeting a U.S. president would get. In effect, Beijing was showcasing
to the outside world, especially the United States, its commitment to
underwriting near abroad (North Korean) stability in order to safeguard the
conditions
for establishing a well-off society at home.
By
shifting gears from aid to a deeper system of trade and investment, China also
is coaxing North Korea to follow the post-Mao Chinese style of reform and
opening. In a short span of 5 years, China’s trade with North Korea jumped by a
factor of 3.2, from $488 million in 2001 to $1.58 billion in 2005. Over 120
Chinese companies are reported to have moved to North Korea to engage in joint
ventures in a bicycle factory, in the coal and natural resources
sectors, and in
plans to build transportation networks, including a new highway from Hunchun to
Rajin.
As if to
demonstrate a tit-for-tat cooperative strategy, Kim Jong Il and his entourage
(with no military
officers)
visited six Chinese cities (Guangzhou,
Shenzhen,
Zhuhai, Wuhan, Yichang, and Beijing) in 8 days, with a heavy emphasis on visits
to industrial, agricultural, and educational facilities. For the record, and in
terms warmer than during previous visits,
Kim Jong
Il is reported to have
“provided
expressive
compliments
to his hosts on the economic progress accomplished over little short of three
decades” and
declared
that he had “trouble sleeping at night” during his visit because he was
“pondering how to apply
reforms to
North Korea to generate the results he
witnessed
in Guangzhou.” In his official toast offering
thanks to
Hu Jintao for arranging the visit, Kim said
that he
was “deeply impressed” by China’s “shining achievements” and “exuberant
development,”
especially
China’s high-tech sector.149
In the
final analysis, any successful medium- and long-term coping strategy must be
systemic, involving the institutional design and implementation of measures
that are consistent and congruent across different and traditionally disparate
areas of policymaking and also between domestic and foreign policies. While
piecemeal tactical adaptations can yield some concessions and payoffs in the
short run, a series of system reform measures pursued swiftly would yield both
greater benefits and,
perhaps,
greater dangers.
CONCLUSIONS
There is
something very old and very new in post-Cold War foreign relations of the DPRK,
affirming the old saying, “The more things change, the more they remain the
same.” As in the Cold-War era, the centrality of the Big Four in North Korea’s
foreign policy thinking and behavior has remained unchanged. Indeed, the Big
Four serve as the most sensitive barometer of the general orientation of North
Korean foreign relations as a whole. To be sure, since 2000 North Korea has
launched
diplomatic outreach, establishing official
relations
with most EU member states, plus such other countries as Australia, Brazil,
Canada, and Turkey. Pyongyang also became a member of the Asean Regional Forum
(ARF) in 2002, gaining a political foothold in Southeast Asia. But few of these
efforts have moved much beyond diplomatic formalities, and few really have
concentrated the minds of key foreign policymakers in Pyongyang.
Despite or
perhaps even because of the great-power centrality, North Korea’s relations
with the Big Four Plus One changed dramatically in the post-Cold War era,
especially since 2000. What is most striking about post-Cold War North Korean
foreign policy is not the centrality of the Big Four but rather the extent to
which the United States has functioned as a kind of force-multiplier for
catalyzing some major changes and shifts in Pyongyang’s international approach
to affairs. North Korea has sought and found a new troika of life-supporting
geopolitical patrons in China, South Korea, and Russia and also a new pair of
life-supporting geo-economic patrons in China and South Korea, even as the
dominant perception of the United States has shifted significantly from an
indispensable life-support system to a mortal threat.
As if to
nod to the DPRK’s “tyranny of proximity,” however, all three of North Korea’s
contiguous neighbors—China, Russia, and South Korea— strongly oppose what these
countries perceive to be Washington’s goal of regime change. For example, the
Bush administration’s original plan of forming broadest possible NEA united
front against the DPRK on the nuclear issue eventually was turned on its head
by Beijing’s mediation diplomacy at the second session of the fourth round of
Six Party talks, culminating in the September 19, 2005, J
oint Statement of
Principles—
the
first-ever successful outcome of the on-again,
off-again
multilateral dialogue of more than 2 years.
China
successfully mobilized “the coalition of the willing” in support of its fifth
and final
draft of the
Joint
Statement
—especially
on the provision of a peaceful nuclear program (light-water reactor)—with three
in favor (China, South Korea, Russia), one opposed (the United States), and one
abstaining or split in its position between the two (Japan), creating an 3 1/2
and 1 1/2 vote against the U.S. position.
China,
South Korea, and Russia favor North Korea’s proposal of a step-by-step
denuclearization process based on simultaneous and reciprocal (“words for
words” and “action for action”) concessions.150
By contrast, the
Bush administration’s CVID formula would require North Korea to reveal and
permit “the publicly disclosed and observable disablement of all nuclear
weapons/weapons components and key centrifuge parts”
before
the United
States indicates
what incentives would be offered in return. With the situation in Iraq
continuing to be a major challenge, the United States cannot afford an armed
conflict in Northeast Asia, and this fact alone increases both North Korean and
Chinese bargaining leverage in trying to chart a nonviolent course through the
Six Party process.
Beijing’s
commitment to underwrite gradual reform of North Korea as a cost-effective
means of averting its collapse as well as establishing a harmonious and
well-off society (
xiaokang shehui) at home was brought into sharp relief
during Kim Jong Il’s fourth trip to China. Expanded life and reform support for
North Korea through direct assistance, a growing trade and
investment
relationship, and a trade deficit that serves
as de
facto aid were signs of China’s determination to beef up a series of major
economic reform measures initiated in the second half of 2002 rather than risk
system collapse or regime change by the Bush administration. Kim Jong Il’s
visit also suggests that ties between the two socialist allies are becoming
ever closer, both politically and economically, in tandem with the rapid
deterioration of Pyongyang’s relations with Washington and Tokyo. Adept at
playing great powers off against each other, Kim
Jong Il will no doubt use Chinese
support to stimulate more aid without becoming too dependent on South Korea and
as a powerful counterweight to the United States and Japan.
One thing
that the
collapsist
school failed to realize is that Kim Il Sung’s death actually may have created
a more stable DPRK. Kim Jong Il’s North Korea differs from that of his father,
when the dream of unification involved the absorption of, not by, South Korea.
As Georgy Bulychev suggests, “Kim Jong Il . . . is neither Nero nor Louis
XIV—he thinks about
‘après
moi’ and wants to keep the state in place, but he also understands that it is
impossible to do this without change.”151
In this context, a
change in the regime’s strategic paradigm
,
rather than a
change of the regime itself, looks more and more like the proper resolution to
the broad concerns about North Korea’s future.152
As it is
easy to say with Korea—and particularly with anything involving North Korea—the
future of North Korea’s relations with the Big Four Plus One is unclear.
Indeed, it seems more unclear now than it did in the early to mid 1990s when a
broad swath of academics and policy analysts was predicting the imminent
collapse of the North Korean regime and
the
reunification of Korea. The interplay between
North
Korea and the outside world is highly complex, variegated, and even confusing.
What complicates our understanding of the shape of things to come in North
Korea’s foreign relations is that all countries involved have become moving
targets on turbulent trajectories subject to competing and often contradictory
pressures and forces.
That said,
however, the way the outside world— especially the Big Four plus Seoul—responds
to Pyongyang is keyed closely to the way North Korea responds to the outside
world. North Korea’s future is malleable rather than predetermined. This
nondeterministic image of the future of the post–Kim Il Sung system opens up
room for the outside world to use whatever leverage it
might have to help
North Korean leaders opt for one future scenario or another in the coming
years.
A cornered
and insecure North Korea is an unpredictable and even dangerous North Korea
that may feel compelled to launch a preemptive strike, igniting a major armed
conflagration in the Korean peninsula and beyond. For geopolitical,
geo-economic, and other reasons, Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, and even Tokyo would
be happier to see the peaceful coexistence of the two Korean states on the
Korean peninsula than to
cope
with the turmoil, chaos, and probable massive exodus of refugees that system
collapse would generate in its wake.
Despite
the gloomy prospects for near-term movement on the negotiating front in
Beijing, the Six Party process offers an opportunity to
produce something larger
than mere resolution of the specific issue of North Korea’s nuclear program.
Not only is regional and global multilateralism now an integral part of
security thinking in Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, and Tokyo, it also is a useful
instrument for the much
needed
conflict management mechanisms in Northeast
Asia.
Therefore we should seize the twin historical opportunities of China’s rising
multilateralism and the Six Party process in the interests of forming and
institutionalizing a truly
Northeast Asian security regime. The Northeast Asian
states need to expand multilateral dialogue and economic integration in the
interests of building order and solving problems. The U.S.-DPRK standoff risks
derailing burgeoning Northeast Asian regionalism, yet it is this very
regionalism that will help prevent future spirals like that characterizing both
nuclear standoffs between the United States and North Korea.
ENDNOTES
1. See
Michael Green, “North Korean Regime Crisis: US
Perspectives
and Responses,”
Korean Journal of Defense Analysis
Vol. 9,
No. 2, Winter 1997, p. 7; and “North Korean Collapse
Predicted,”
The Associated Press, March 6, 1997.
2. For a
wide array of speculations and analyses on the future of post–Kim Il Sung North
Korea, see Nicholas Eberstadt, “North Korea: Reform, Muddling Through, or
Collapse?”
NBR
Analysis
,
Vol. 4, No. 3, 1993, pp. 5-16;
idem
, “Hastening Korean Reunification,”
Foreign
Affairs
,
Vol. 76, No. 2, March/April 1997, pp. 77-92; Kyung-Won Kim, “No Way Out: North
Korea’s Impending Collapse,”
Harvard International Review
, Vol. 18, No. 2,
Spring 1996, pp. 22-25, 71; Gavan McCormack, “Kim Country: Hard Times in North
Korea,”
New
Left Review
,
No. 198, March-April 1993, pp. 21-48; Dae-sook Suh, “The Prospects for Change
in North Korea,”
Korea and World Affairs
, Vol. 17, No. 1,
Spring 1993, pp. 5-20; Robert Scalapino,
“
North Korea at a
Crossroads,” Essays in Public Policy No. 73, Hoover Institution, Stanford
University, 1997, pp. 1-18; Jonathan D. Pollack and
Chung Min Lee,
Preparing
for Korean Unification: Scenarios and Implications
, Santa Monica, CA:
RAND, 1999; Nicholas Eberstadt,
The End of North Korea
, Washington, DC:
The AEI Press, 1999; Marcus Noland,
Avoiding the Apocalypse: The Future
of the Two Koreas
,
Washington, DC: Institute
for International
Economics, 2000; Samuel S. Kim, “The Future of
the
Post-Kim Il Sung System in North Korea,” Wonmo Dong, ed.,
The Two Koreas and
the United States
,
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe,
pp. 32-58;
Kongdan Oh and Ralph Hassig, “North Korea Between
Collapse
and Reform,”
Asian
Survey
,
Vol. 39, No. 2, March/April 1999, pp. 287-309; Marcus Noland,
North Korea After
Kim Jong-il,
Washington,
DC: Institute for International Economics, 2004.
1
The
Korea Times,
February
1, 2000,
Internet version.
2
For
application of a common-security approach in the Korean
case, see
Samuel S. Kim, “The Two Koreas and World Order,” in
Young Whan
Kihl, ed.,
Korea
and the World: Beyond the Cold War,
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994, pp.
29–65,
especially pp. 56–
59; Mel
Gurtov, “Common Security in North Korea: Quest for a
New
Paradigm in Inter-Korean Relations,”
Asian Survey
, Vol. 42, No. 3,
May/June 2002, pp. 397–418.
5. Cited
in Robert A. Pastor, “The Great Powers in the Twentieth Century: From Dawn to
Dusk,” in Robert A. Pastor, ed.,
A Century’s Journey: How the Great Powers
Shape the World,
New
York: Basic Books, 1999, p. 7.
6.
Nicholas Eberstadt and Richard J. Ellings, “Introduction,” Nicholas Eberstadt
and Richard J. Ellings, eds.,
Korea’s Future and the Great Powers
, Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 2001, p.
5.
7.
According to the purchasing power parity (PPP) estimates of the World Bank,
which are not unproblematic, China, with a 1994 GDP just less than $3 trillion,
had become the second largest economy in the world, after the United States. By
2003, China’s ranking as the world’s second largest economy remained the same,
but its global national income (GNI)/PPP more than doubled to $6,435 billion.
See
Economist
, London, January
27, 1996, p. 102; World Bank,
World Development Report 1996,
New York: Oxford
University Press, 1996, p. 188;
World Development Report 2005,
New York: Oxford
University Press, 2004, p. 256.
8. The
common use of “East Asia” and “Northeast Asia” as one and the same had to do
with the fact that Asia, in general, and East Asia, in particular, are so
overwhelmingly Sinocentric. As a result, the concept of East Asia “has
conventionally referred only to those states of Confucian heritage.” See John
Ravenhill, “A Three Block World? The New East Asian Regionalism,”
International
Relations
of the
Asia-Pacific,
Vol.
2, No. 2, 2002, p. 174.
9. In the
2001
Quadrennial
Defense Review
Report,
“Northeast Asia” and “the East Asian littoral” are defined as “critical areas” for
precluding hostile domination by any other power. See United States Department
of Defense,
Quadrennial
Defense Review Report
,
September 30, 2001, p. 2, at
www.defenselink.mil/pubs/qdr2001.pdf
, accessed January
15, 2002.
10. Edmund
L. Andrews, “Shouted Down: A Political Furor
Built on
Many Grudges,”
New
York Times
,
August 3, 2005, p. C1.
11. See
Barry Buzan and Rosemary Foot, eds.,
Does China Matter? A Reassessment,
London:
Routledge; 2004; Alastair Iain Johnston, “China’s International Relations: The
Political and Security Dimensions,” in Samuel S. Kim, ed.,
The International
Relations of Northeast Asia
, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004, pp.
65–100; Robert Sutter,
China’s Rise in Asia: Promises and Perils
, Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2005; and David Shambaugh, ed.,
Power Shift: China
and Asia’s New Dynamics,
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.
12. For a
detailed analysis, see Samuel S. Kim, “The Making of China’s Korea Policy in
the Era of Reform,” in David M. Lampton, ed.,
The Making of
Chinese Foreign and Security Policy in the Era of Reform,
Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 2001, pp. 371
408.
13.
“U.5.-DPRK Meeting Welcomed,”
Beijing Review,
May 1723, 1993, p.
7.
14. See
Andrew Scobell,
China and North Korea: From Comrades-in-Arms to Allies
at Arm’s Length,
Carlisle
Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, March 2004,
p. 14; and David Shambaugh, “China and the Korean Peninsula: Playing for the
Long Term,”
Washington
Quarterly,
Vol.
26, No. 2, Spring 2003,
p. 55.
15. See
Edward Cody, “China Tries to Advance N. Korea Nuclear Talks,”
The Washington
Post,
July
31, 2005, A23; and “China Show Off Newfound Partnership at Six-Party Talks,”
The
Korea Herald,
August
5, 2005.
16. For an
English text of the DPRK Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ statement of February 10,
2005, see KCNA, February 10, 2005, available at
www.kcna.co.jp/item/2005/200502/news0211.htm
, accessed July 3,
2005.
17.
“Spokesman for DPRK Foreign Ministry
on Contact between Heads of DPRK and US
Delegations,” Korean Central News Agency, July 10, 2005.
18.
North
Korea News
724,
February 28, 1994, pp. 5–6;
The Economist
, March 26, 1994,
p. 39.
19. David
Shambaugh, “China and the Korean Peninsula: Playing for the Long Term,”
The
Washington Quarterly,
Vol. 26, No. 2, 2003, p. 46.
20. Quoted
in David Lampton and Richard Daniel Ewing,
The U.S.-China
Relationship Facing International Security Crises: Three Case Studies in Post-9
/
11 Bilateral
Relations, Washington, DC: The Nixon Center, 2004, p. 70.
21. Alvin
Z. Rubinstein, “Russia’s Relations with North Korea,” in Stephen Blank and
Alvin Rubenstein, eds.,
Imperial Decline: Russia’s Changing Role in
Asia
,
Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997, p. 157.
22.
Nikolai Sokov, “A Russian View of the Future Korean Peninsula,” in Tsuneo
Akaha, ed.,
The
Future of North Korea
,
New York: Routledge, 2002, pp. 129–46.
23. Quoted
in Andrew Mack, “The Nuclear Crisis on the Korean
Peninsula,”
Asian
Survey
,
Vol. 33, No. 4, April 1993, p. 342.
24.
Rodong
Sinmun
[
Worker’s
Daily], October 5, 1990, p. 2.; Andrew Lankov, “Cold War Alienates Seoul,
Moscow,”
The
Korea Times,
September
17, 2004, available at
times.hankooki.com
.
25. Evgeny
P. Bazhanov, “Korea in Russia’s Post Cold War
Regional Political Context,” in
Charles K. Armstrong, Gilbert Rozman, Samuel S. Kim, and Stephen Kotkin, eds.,
Korea
at the Center: Dynamics of Regionalism in Northeast Asia
, Armonk, NY: M.
E. Sharpe,
2006, pp. 214-226.
26.
Rubinstein, “Russia’s Relations with North Korea,” p. 164.
27.
Celeste Wallander, “Wary of the West: Russian Security Policy at the
Millennium,”
Arms
Control Today
,
Vol. 30, No. 2, March 2000, pp. 7–12; “Russia’s New Security Concept,”
Arms
Control Today
,
Vol. 30, No. 1, January/February 2000, pp. 15–20; Philip C. Bleak, “Putin Signs
New Military Doctrine, Fleshing Out New Security Concept,”
Arms Control Today
, Vol. 30. No. 4,
May 2000, p. 42.
28. For an
English text of the Moscow Declaration, see KCNA, August 4, 2001, at
www.kcna.co.jp/contents/05.htm
.
29.
Seung-ho Joo, “Russia and the Korean Peace Process,” in Tae-Hwan Kwak and
Seung-Ho Joo, eds.,
The Korean Peace Process and the Four
Powers
, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003, pp. 143–170.
30.
It is worth noting in this
connection that no other great power can
match Russia’s summit diplomacy with both Koreas in the first 4 years of
Putin’s presidency—three summit meetings with Kim Jong Il (July 2000 in
Pyongyang, August 2001 in Moscow, and August 2002 in Vladivostok) and
two
summit meetings with South Korean presidents Kim Dae Jung in February 2001 in
Seoul and Roh Moo-hyun in September 2004 in Moscow.
31.
Alexandre Mansourov, “Kim Jong Il Re-Embraces the Bear, Looking for the Morning
Calm: North Korea’s Policy Toward Russia Since 1994,” in Byung Chul Koh, ed.,
North Korea and the World: Explaining Pyongyang’s Foreign Policy
,
Seoul: Kyungnam University Press, 2004, pp. 239–284.
32.
Quoted in Alexander Zhebin, “The Bush Doctrine, Russia, and Korea,” in Mel
Gurtov and Peter Van Ness, eds.,
Confronting the Bush Doctrine:
Critical Views from the Asia-Pacific
, New York: Routledge Curzon,
2005, p. 150.
33.
Mansourov, “Kim Jong Il Re-Embraces the Bear, Looking
for
the Morning Calm,” pp. 282-284.
1
The
DPRK Report, NAPSNET, No.
20, October 1999, p. 1.
2
Ibid
., No.
24, p. 6.
3
Joo,
“Russia and the Korean Peace Process.”
4
Zhebin, “The Bush Doctrine, Russia, and Korea,” p. 143.
38.
Quoted in Elizabeth Wishnick, “Russia in Inter-Korean Relations,” in Samuel S.
Kim, ed.,
Inter-Korean Relations: Problems and Prospects
, New
York: Palgrave Macmillan 2004, p. 126.
1
Joo,
“Russia and the Korean Peace Process.”
2
Wishnick, “Russia in Inter-Korean Relations.”
3
Zhebin, “The Bush Doctrine, Russia, and Korea,” p. 144.
1
Peggy
Falkenheim Meyer,
“
Russo-North Korean Relations,”
Paper presented at the International Council for Korean Studies Conference
2005, Arlington, VA, August 5–6, 2005.
2
Yu
Bin, ”China-Russia Relations: Presidential Politicking and Proactive
Posturing,”
Comparative
Connections
, Vol.
6, No. 1, 2004, pp. 125-136, available at
www.csis.org
/
media/csis/pubs/0401q.
pdf.
1
Ibid
.
2
Rubinstein, “Russia’s Relations with North Korea,” p. 173.
1
See
David Woodruff,
Money Unmade: Barter and the Fate of
Russian Capitalism
, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999.
2
For
an English text of the Moscow Declaration, see KCNA, August 4, 2001; emphasis
added.
48.
The DPRK Report, NAPSNET, No. 26, p. 2–3. See also Elizabeth Wishnick,
“Russian-North Korean Relations: A New Era?” in Samuel S. Kim and Tai Hwan Lee,
eds.,
North Korea and Northeast Asia
, New York: Rowman &
Littlefield, pp. 139–162; Wishnick, “Russia in Inter-Korean Relations.”
1
AFP, August
4, 2001.
2
Georgi
Toloraya, “Korean Peninsula and Russia,”
International Affairs, Moscow,
Vol. 49, No. 1, 2003, p.
28.
51.
Wishnick, “Russian-North Korean Relations: A New Era?”
52.
See C. S. Eliot Kang, “Japan in Inter-Korean Relations,” in Samuel S. Kim, ed.,
Inter-Korean Relations: Problems and Prospects
, New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, pp. 99-101.
53.
The rice would have come from Tokyo’s own reserves of Japanese rice, which at
the time was 12 times more expensive than Thai or Chinese rice. The total value
amounted to 120 billion yen, more than $1 billion.
54.
Victor Cha, “Japan-Korea Relations: Ending 2000 with a Whimper, Not a Bang,”
Comparative Connections
, 2001, pp. 88-93, available at
www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/0401q.pdf
.
55.
Selig Harrison, “Did North Korea Cheat?”
Foreign
Affairs
, Vol. 84, No. 1, 2005, pp. 99–110.
56.
David Kang, “Japan: U.S. Partner or Focused on Abductees?”
The Washington Quarterly,
Vol. 28, No. 4, 2005, p. 107.
57.
Hong Nack Kim, “Japanese-North Korean Relations Under the Koizumi Government,”
in Hong Nack Kim and Young Whan Kihl, eds.,
North
Korea: The Politics of Regime Survival,
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2006,
pp. 161-182.
58.
For the mercantile realism interpretation of Japan’s foreign
policy,
see Eric Heginbotham and Richard Samuels, “Mercantile
Realism
and Japanese Foreign Policy,”
International Security
, Vol.
22, No. 4, 1998, pp. 171–203. For a greater elaboration of the logic of
mercantile realism, see Robert Gilpin,
War and Change in World
Politics
, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
59.
Kang, “Japan in Inter-Korean Relations.”
60.
For a comprehensive discussion of the 1994 nuclear crisis, see Leon Sigal,
Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea
,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998; Young Whan Kihl and Peter
Hayes,
Peace and Security in Northeast Asia: The Nuclear Issue and the
Korean Peninsula
, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1997.
61.
The satellite system was billed as “multipurpose” and was not included in the
official defense budget. The decision to acquire the satellites required the
Japanese government to override a Diet resolution of 1969 that limited the use
of space technology to nonmilitary activities. Two satellites were launched in
March 2003. Kang, “Japan in Inter-Korean Relations,” p. 107.
62.
It has come to light recently that Japan had contemplated possible preemptive
strikes against North Korean military sites in 1994.
Ibid
., p.
107.
1
Ibid
., p.
108.
2
“Japan
Intervention in Nuclear Issue
‘Ineffective’—North
Korean
Radio,” BBC-AAIW, January 27, 2003.
1
The
Asahi Shimbun,
April 21, 2006, available at
www.asahi.
com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200604210152.html
.
2
Japan
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Diplomatic Bluebook, 2004
,
Tokyo: Government of Japan, available at
www.mofa.go.jp/policy/
other/bluebook/2004/index.html
.
67.
Tsuneo Akaha, “Japan’s
Policy Toward North Korea: Interests and Options,” in Tsuneo
Akaha, ed.,
The Future of North Korea
, New York: Routledge 2002, pp.
77–94.
68.
Richard Samuels, “Payback Time: Japan-North Korea Economic Relations,” in Ahn
Choong-yong, Nicholas Eberstadt, and Lee Young-sun, eds.,
A New
International Engagement Framework for North Korea? Contending Perspectives
,
Washington, DC: Korean Economic Institute of America, 2004, p. 324.
1
Christopher
W. Hughes,
Japan’s Economic Power and Security: Japan and North Korea
, New
York: Routledge, 1999, p. 133.
2
See
Michael H. Armacost and Kenneth B. Pyle, “Japan and the Unification of Korea:
Challenges for U.S. Policy Coordination,”
in
Nicholas Eberstadt and Richard J. Ellings, eds.,
Korea’s
Future and the Great Powers
, Seattle: University of Washington Press,
2001, p. 128.
71.
Samuels, “Payback Time: Japan-North Korea Economic
Relations,”
p. 319.
72.
Christopher W. Hughes,
Japan’s Economic Power and
Security: Japan and North Korea
New York: Routledge, 1999, p.
132.
73.
Mark
E. Manyin, “Japan-North Korean Relations: Selected
Issues,”
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service,
November
26, 2003; Samuels, “Payback Time: Japan-North Korea
Economic
Relations,” p. 320.
1
The
Japan Times
, June 30, 2003.
2
The
Tokyo Shimbun
, November 25, 2003.
3
Xinhua
News Agency, “DPRK Slashes Japan’s Foreign
Exchange
Bill,” January 31, 2004.
77.
Kim, “Japanese-North Korean Relations Under the Koizumi
Government.”
78.
Samuels, “Payback Time: Japan-North Korea Economic
Relations,”
pp. 331-332.
79.
The Age
, Melbourne, June 25, 2003.
80.
See Robert Manning, “United States-North Korean Relations: From Welfare to
Workfare?” in Samuel S. Kim and Tai Hwan Lee, eds.,
North
Korea and Northeast Asia
, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield,
2002, pp. 61–88.
81.
Testimony of Mark Minton, director of the Office of
Korean
Affairs, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Subcommittee
on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Washington, DC,
September
12, 1996.
82.
Joel S. Wit, Daniel B. Poneman, and Robert L. Gallucci,
Going
Critical: The First North Korean Nuclear Crisis
,
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2004, p. 27. This book, written by
three American participants, easily stands out as the most authoritative and
comprehensive account of the first North Korean nuclear crisis. Wit was in the
State Department and Poneman with the National Security Council, while Gallucci
was American chief negotiator in Geneva during the first North Korean nuclear
crisis.
83.
The Pyongyang Times,
June 18, 1994, p. 2.
84.
The figure of 50 to 100 nuclear weapons is Perry’s extrapolation. See William
J. Perry, “It’s Either Nukes or Negotiation,”
Washington
Post,
July 23, 2003, p. A23.
85.
Rodong Sinmun
[
Worker’s Daily]
,
December
1, 1994.
86.
See “Nuclear Nonproliferation—Implications of the U.S./ North Korean Agreement
on Nuclear Issues,” GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, October 1996, GAO/RCED/NSIAD-97-8.
87.
William Perry, “Review of United States Policy Toward North Korea: Findings and
Recommendations,” October 12, 1999, available at
www.state.gov
/
www/
regions/
eap/
991012_northkorea_
rpt.html.
1
KCNA,
February 22, 2001.
2
Ibid
., June
18, 2001.
90.
See Bruce B. Auster and Kevin Whitelaw, “Upping the Ante for Kim Jong Il:
Pentagon Plan 5030, A New Blueprint for Facing Down North Korea,”
U.S.
News & World Report
, July 21, 2003, p. 21.
91.
Jonathan D. Pollack, “The United States, North Korea, and the End of the Agreed
Framework,”
Naval War College Review
, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2003, pp.
11–49.
92.
Quoted in David Sanger, “Intelligence Puzzle: North
Korean
Bombs,”
New York Times,
October 14, 2003, p. A9.
93.
Charles Pritchard, “A Guarantee to Bring Kim into Line,”
The Financial Times,
October 10, 2003.
94.
Public Broadcast Service interview, Washington, DC, September 17, 1999, as
provided by NAPSNet, September 30, 1999, available at
www.nautilus.org/napsnet/dr/9909/Sep20.html#item4
.
1
KCNA,
August 29, 2003.
2
“Bush’s
Hard Line with North Korea,”
New York Times,
February
14, 2002.
97.
CBS News, “Powell: U.S.—N. Korea Nuclear Deal Dead,” October 20, 2002,
available at
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/21/ world/main526243.shtml
.
98.
See KCNA, “Conclusion of Nonaggression Treaty between DPRK and U.S. Called
For,” October 25, 2002, available at
www.
kcna.co.jp/item/2002/200210/news10/25.htm
, accessed November 22,
2005. See also Michael O’Hanlon and Mike Mochizuki,
Crisis
on
the Korean Peninsula: How to Deal with a Nuclear North Korea
, New
York:
McGraw-Hill, 2003, for a “grand bargain” proposal from an
American
perspective.
99.
See KCNA, “Keynote Speeches Made at Six-way Talks,” August 29, 2003, available
at
www.kcna.co.jp/item/2003/200308/ news08/30.htm
.
100.
Agence France-Presse, “US Seeks Partners for Multilateral
Security
Pact with North Korea,” October 11, 2003.
1
KCNA,
October 25, 2003, available at
www.kcna.co.jp/
item/2003/200310/news10/27.htm
.
2
For
an English text of the DPRK Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement of February
10, 2005, see KCNA, February 10, 2005, available at
www.kcna.co.jp/item/2005/200502/news0211.htm
,
accessed July 3, 2005.
103.
See “N. Korea, U.S. Could Spend More Time Alone
Together,”
Chosun IIbo,
July 10, 2005.
104.
See Donald G. Gross, “U.S.-Korea Relations: The Six-Party Talks: What Goes Up
Can Also Come Down,”
Comparative Connections,
Vol. 7,
No. 4, January 2006, p. 44.
105.
Gavan McCormack,
Target North Korea: Pushing North Korea to
the Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe
, New York: Nation Books, 2004,
p. 150. For a similar analysis of U.S. nuclear hegemony in Korea, see Peter
Hayes, “American Nuclear Hegemony in Korea,”
Journal
of Peace Research
, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1988, pp. 351–364; Jae-Jung Suh, “Imbalance of
Power, Balance of Asymmetric Terror: Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) in
Korea,” in John Feffer, ed.,
The Future of U.S.-Korean
Relations,
New York: Routledge, 2006. pp. 64-80.
106.
See Nicholas Eberstadt, “U.S.-North Korea Economic Relations: Indications from
North Korea’s Past Trade Performance,” in Tong Whan Park, ed.,
The
U.S. and the Two Koreas: A New Triangle,
Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner, 1998, p. 121.
107.
For a more detailed analysis, see Samuel S. Kim, ed.,
Inter-Korean
Relations: Problems and Prospects,
New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2004.
108.
Young Shik Yang, “Kim Dae-jung Administration’s North
Korea
Policy,”
Korea Focus,
Vol. 6, No. 6, 1998, p. 48.
109.
Roland Bleiker,
Divided Korea: Toward a Culture of
Reconciliation,
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005,
p.
xliii.
110.
For a full English text, see Yonhap News Agency, March 9, 2000.
111.
Article III(3) of the 1994 U.S.-DPRK Agreed Framework
stipulates:
“The DPRK will engage in North-South dialogue,
as
this Agreed Framework will help create an atmosphere that promotes such
dialogue.”
112.
Rodong Sinmun
[
Worker’s Daily]
,
Pyongyang,
June 25, 2000,
p.
6, emphasis added.
113.
For the theory of classical functionalism espousing a
gradual
“peace
by pieces” welfare-oriented approach to world
order,
see David Mitrany,
A Working Peace System,
Chicago:
Quadrangle
Books, 1966 [originally published in 1943 as a
pamphlet].
114.
Chung-in Moon, “Sustaining Inter-Korean Reconciliation: North-South Korea
Cooperation,”
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
, Vol.
12, 2002, pp. 231–232.
115.
See Samuel S. Kim,
The Two Koreas and the Great Powers,
New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, Table 6.2, pp. 322
324.
116.
Charles K. Armstrong, “Inter-Korean Relations: A North
Korean
Perspective,” in
Inter-Korean Relations
, p.
40.
117.
Joint New Year Editorial of
Rodong Sinmun, Joson Immingun,
Chongnyong Jonwi,
“Let Us Fully Demonstrate the Dignity and Might of the DPRK Under
the Great Banner of Army-based
Policy,” January 1, 2003 at
www.kcna.comjp/item2003/200301/
news01/01.htm
.
118.
For a detailed analysis, see Samuel S. Kim and Matthew
S.
Winters, “Inter-Korean Economic Relations,” in
Inter-Korean
Relations,
pp. 57-80.
119.
James W. Brooke, “Quietly, North Korea Opens Markets,”
New York Times,
November 19, 2003, pp. W1, W7.
120.
Ministry of Unification,
Tong’il paekso 2005
[
Unification
White Paper 2005], Seoul: Ministry of Unification, February 2005.
121.
See Kim and Winters, “Inter-Korean Economic Relations,”
pp.
72-75.
122.
John Feffer, “Korea’s Slow-Motion Reunification,” Policy Forum Online 05-53A:
June 28, 2005, available at
www.nautilus.
org/fora/security/0553Feffer.html
.
123.
See Andrew Mack, “Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric
Conflict,”
World Politics
, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1975, pp. 175–200; T. V.
Paul,
Asymmetric Conflicts: War Initiation by Weaker Powers
, New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Thomas Christensen, “Posing Problems
Without Catching Up: China’s Rise
and Challenges for U.S.
Security Policy,”
International Security
, Vol.
25, No. 4, 2001, pp. 5–40.
1
Ivan
Arreguin-Toft, “How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict,”
International
Security, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2001, pp. 93–128.
2
Richard
Ned Lebow,
Between Peace and War: The Nature of International Crisis
,
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981, pp. 57–97.
126.
William Habeeb argues that “issue-specific structural power is the most
critical component of power
in asymmetrical negotiation.” William
Habeeb,
Power and Tactics in International Negotiation: How Weak Nations
Bargain with Strong Nations
, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1988, pp. 21, 130.
127.
Pastor, “The Great Powers in the Twentieth Century,” p.
27.
128.
Ronald P. Barston, “The External Relations of Small States,” in August Schou
and Arne Olav Brundtland, eds.,
Small States in International
Relations
, Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiskell, 1971, p. 46; and Habeeb,
Power and Tactics in International Negotiation,
pp.
130–131.
129.
Peter Hayes,
Pacific Powderkeg: American Nuclear Dilemmas in Korea,
Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books, 1991, p. xiv.
130.
A 1995 RAND Corporation study concluded that there
existed
a “medium likelihood” of North Korea launching an
attack
against South Korea out of desperation. In such a case, there
would
be a “high likelihood” of the use of chemical weapons by
the
North.
New York Times,
January 28, 1996, p. 10.
131.
Scott Snyder, “North Korea’s Challenge of Regime Survival: Internal Problems
and Implications for the Future,”
Pacific Affairs
, Vol.
73, No. 4, Winter 2000/2001, p. 522.
132.
President Roh’s Address at the 53rd Commencement and Commissioning Ceremony of
the Korea Air Force Academy, March 8, 2005, available at
english.president.go,kr/warp/app/en_
speeches/view?group_id=en_ar...
133.
Ashton B. Carter and William J. Perry,
Preventive Defense: A
New Security Strategy for America,
Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press, 1999, pp. 123–124. A footnote for this statement explains
that Ashton Carter was not present for the meeting referred to here, so Perry
“tells this story himself,” p. 123.
134.
Rodong Sinmun
, June 1, 2000, p. 6.
1
Byung
Chul Koh,
The Foreign Policy Systems of North and South Korea,
Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1984, pp. 42–43.
2
Marcus
Noland,
Avoiding the Apocalypse: The Future of the Two Koreas
,
Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2000, pp. 3-4.
3
Eui-gak
Hwang,
The Korean Economies,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993,
Table 5.4.
4
See
Rodong Sinmun
[
Workers’ Daily], Pyongyang, May 27,
1991; February 4, 1992; October 10, 1993; and March 4, 1993.
139.
See Marcus Noland, “North Korea’s External Economic Relations: Globalization in
‘Our
Own Style’,” in Samuel S. Kim and Tai Hwan Lee, eds.,
North
Korea and Northeast Asia
, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield,
2002, pp. 165–193.
1
World
Bank,
World Development Report 1991: The Challenge of Development,
New
York: Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 12, Figure 1.1.
1.
141.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)
Country Report: South Korea and
North Korea,
1st Quarter, 1999, p. 40.
North Korean News
, No.
702, September 27, 1993, p. 5.
AFP, July 16, 1999.
144.
See “21
seki nun koch’anghan chonpyon ui seki, ch’angcho ui seki ita
” (“The
Twenty-First Century Is a Century of Great Change and Great Creation”),
Rodong Sinmun
[
Worker’s Daily]
,
January
4, 2001, p. 2; “
Motun muncherul saeroun kwanchom kwa noppieso poko pulo
nakacha” (“Let Us See and Solve All Problems from a
New
Viewpoint and a New Height”), editorial,
Rodong
Sinmun
[
Worker’s Daily], January 9, 2001, p. 1.
145.
James Cotton, “The Rajin-Sonbong Free Trade Zone Experiment: North Korea in
Pursuit of New International Linkage,” in Samuel S. Kim, ed.,
North
Korean Foreign Relations in the Post-Cold War Era
, New
York: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 212–234.
146.
See Marcus Noland, “Economic Strategies for Reunification,” in Nicholas Eberstadt
and Richard J. Ellings, eds.,
Korea’s Future and the Great
Powers
, Seattle: The National Bureau of Asian Research and University of
Washington Press, 2001, pp. 191–228.
147.
See Marcus Noland, “Famine and Reform in North Korea,” Institute for International
Economics Working Paper, WP 03–5, July 2003.
148.
Meredith Jung-en Woo, “North Korea in 2005: Maximizing Profit to Save
Socialism,”
Asian Survey
, Vol. 46, No. 1, January/ February 2006,
pp. 51-52.
149.
Scott Snyder, “China-Korea Relations: Kim Jong-il Pays
Tribute
to Beijing—In His Own Way,”
Comparative Connections
First
Quarter, 2006, pp. 110-111.
150.
It is worth noting in this connection that the September 19 Joint Statement
embodied many key elements that North Korea had first proposed but China
emphasized in the Chairman’s Statements of the second and third rounds of
talks, including most notably Principle 5. It states that “the six parties
agreed to take coordinated steps to implement the aforementioned consensus in a
phased manner in line with the principle of
‘commitment for commitment,
action for action’.”
151.
Georgy Bulychev, “A Long-Term Strategy for North Korea,”
Japan
Focus
, February 15, 2005, available at
japanfocus.org
/
article.asp?id
=
222.
152.
In a similar vein, Robert Litwak argues that it is regime intention more than
regime type that is the critical indicator of a country’s decision to go
nuclear. See Robert Litwak, “Non-Proliferation and the Dilemmas of Regime
Change,”
Survival,
Vol. 45, No. 4, Winter 2003, p4
Source: Ocnus.net 2007