Opinion
The Way Out
New thought is needed for all to resolve the deadlocked nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula
By Shi Yongming  ·  2019-05-10  ·   Source: NO. 20 MAY 16, 2019

Kim Jong Un, Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea and Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK inspects fighter combat readiness at an Air Force base on April 16 (XINHUA)

After the second round of talks in Viet Nam between U.S. President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea and Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), in February, there has been no progress regarding the situation on the Korean Peninsula, but rather, new predicaments and even signs of backsliding are emerging.

Kim met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Vladivostok on April 25, with the aim of countering U.S. influence and breaking the deadlock, with no apparent breakthroughs.

Against this backdrop, it was reported that the DPRK fired tactical guided weapons into waters off its eastern coast in a military drill supervised by Kim on May 4. The tests came at a crucial moment for the U.S. and showed that Pyongyang was growing frustrated with the talks, as some media outlets explicitly regarded it as an act to put pressure on the U.S.

However, the future of the peninsula will be determined by the inherent interactions among three types of codes of conduct: universally accepted ones, national ones and actual ones.

Peace needed

Universally accepted codes of conduct that conform to the basic morality of fairness and justice are widely regarded as being rational, leading to human progress. Nuclear weapons, as weapons of mass destruction, have been widely opposed because they pose a threat to the very existence of humanity. But it is nearly impossible to put them back now that the Pandora's Box has been opened. Thus, controlling the spread of nuclear weapons becomes a realistic choice.

In fact, even though artificial intelligence can act autonomously, weapons do not initiate wars on their own, no matter how powerful they may be. Humans are the ones that initiate their use. Therefore, to solve the weapons problem, we must first solve the conflicts between humans.

The essence of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is the confrontation within the peninsula itself. After World War II, while the Korean Peninsula was in the process of reconstruction, political intervention from the great powers led to the division of Korea and brought about direct U.S. military intervention. The U.S. has maintained a military presence on the peninsula to this day, deploying nuclear weapons in the Republic of Korea (ROK), which provoked the DPRK to invest in nuclear technology. After the Cold War, the U.S. strengthened its military alliance with the ROK and engaged in so-called color revolutions and military intervention against several countries, which further drove the DPRK to develop its own nuclear weapons. Thus, the nuclear issue should be treated in parallel with the regaining of peace on the Korean Peninsula.

If the problem is to be solved following universally accepted codes of conduct, the measures applicable seem clear, that is, establishing a peace mechanism on the peninsula in exchange for denuclearization. The mechanism will not only ease the need for the DPRK to have nuclear weapons, but will also constitute a management mechanism to maintain the denuclearization of the peninsula. But why is such a simple logic so difficult to make reality? This is due to the conflict between universally accepted codes of conduct and national ones.

The real problem

Different nations, out of their own interests and strategies, may adopt different actions to deal with international affairs, which can be defined as their national codes of conduct. While there may be a contradiction between the two codes of conduct, no conflict should exist where national codes of conduct can never deviate from those that are universally accepted.

So, what is the real problem between the U.S. and the DPRK? Some scholars in the West may describe it in seemingly academic terms as the so-called security dilemma. This is, to some extent, a whitewash of U.S. hegemonism.

After the end of World War II, the basic norms governing international relations featuring mutual respect for sovereignty and mutual non-aggression were established. Hundreds of years of wars and struggles finally brought these basic norms into effect. The international community entered the stage of deepening the building of order after the Cold War, promoting mutual understanding and common development. But the reality is, the U.S., as the sole superpower at that time, tended to establish a set of hegemonic national codes of conduct. This is evidenced by a national security strategy of engagement and expansion carried out by President Bill Clinton to ensure that no country could challenge the U.S., and today, by Trump's America First policy.

Under this set of codes, it is clear how the U.S. is dealing with the Korean Peninsula nuclear issues: The interests of the U.S. on the peninsula must never be compromised; the DPRK has to speed up its denuclearization process; the interests of the DPRK can only be discussed after these two preconditions are met. The plan put forth by Trump during the second summit with Kim followed these rules. Trump demanded that nuclear programs be fully and verifiably dismantled in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. But considering the fate of several countries such as Libya, Syria, Venezuela and Iran, as well as Trump's unilateral withdrawal from many international agreements and organizations, it is hard for anyone to believe in Trump.

Effective measures

Each country makes its own judgments about its goals and the environment in which they are achieved, adopting a corresponding strategy to solve the problems it encounters. But there are two basic laws of choosing codes of conduct. The great powers tend to use their own national ones, while weaker countries put more hope on the inherent effects of universally accepted ones.

In modern international politics, universally accepted codes of conduct are the most important factor. The so-called moral competition between countries, in fact, is to define which one is closer to these codes. In the international community, the successful example of using these codes to safeguard national security and development is Switzerland. It avoided war-torn disasters by remaining neutral in the battles among modern European powers.

The DPRK, affected by the restrictions of its own strength and external pressure regarding strategic choices, is more vulnerable than the U.S. However, if it chooses measures for self-protection as a national development strategy goal, this could be counterproductive.

During the second summit, Pyongyang failed to offer a clear plan to keep the dialogue alive while refusing to accept what the U.S. suggested. The demands for a deal to relieve sanctions on the DPRK might be misinterpreted as stalling tactics. Therefore, the summit being cut short in Viet Nam, with the two leaders heading home empty-handed, was an inevitable result.

During the recent meeting between the leaders of the DPRK and Russia, Pyongyang didn't show any new thought either, which further showed that the dilemma for the DPRK is hard to solve. Therefore, Pyongyang also needs self-reflection. It needs to rely more on the codes of conduct that are universally accepted, uphold the goal of maintaining peace and development on the peninsula and make possible a third meeting with the U.S.

The author is an op-ed contributor to Beijing Review and a senior researcher on international studies

Copyedited by Rebeca Toledo

Comments to yulintao@bjreview.com

China
Opinion
World
Business
Lifestyle
Video
Multimedia
 
China Focus
Documents
Special Reports
 
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise with Us
Subscribe
Partners: China.org.cn   |   China Today   |   China Pictorial   |   People's Daily Online   |   Women of China   |   Xinhua News Agency   |   China Daily
CGTN   |   China Tibet Online   |   China Radio International   |   Global Times   |   Qiushi Journal
Copyright Beijing Review All rights reserved 京ICP备08005356号 京公网安备110102005860