NORTH KOREA: Talk Needed, But Toughness Too - Expert

BRUSSELS (IPS Asia-Pacific) - The “lack of solidarity” and divergence of opinions among key countries over the years created conditions that allowed North Korea to carry out its underground nuclear test in October, but negotiations with Pyongyang remain crucial to keeping it in check.

   That is the prognosis of a Japanese expert who used to deal with the Stalinist country, saying that North Korea’s test signified the “failure’ of international efforts over the past 15 years.

   “Why have we failed?” former deputy minister for foreign affairs for Japan Hitoshi Tanaka asked at a recent seminar on the country’s foreign policy in Brussels. “We had diverging interests and considerable differences on the part of the countries in the region, both among the countries concerned and within the countries concerned – the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and Russia.”

   “That benefited North Korea and permitted it to pursue various options,” added Tanaka, who spoke at an ‘Asian Voices’ seminar in Brussels, organised by the European Policy Center and the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.

   “Now there needs to be absolute solidarity among the nations concerned, particularly the five countries in the six-party talks,” stressed Tanaka, a senior fellow of the Japan Centre for International Exchange. “The world “cannot co-exist with a nuclear North Korea.”

   “There should be a clear consensus in the region that North Korea’s nuclear capability will seriously damage the stability in East Asia given the nature of the North Korean regime,” he said.

   Tanaka negotiated with North Korea for a year prior to the Japanese prime minister’s controversial trip there in 2002.

   In September 2005, the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and Russia reached agreement with North Korea for it to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. “But now we have had a nuclear test,” Tanaka noted with irony.

   “This will undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) system as a whole, and Europe must be aware of this. This is not a question for Asia, but an issue of great concern to the European Union as a whole.”

   Not least, the North Korean test has implications for other international challenges such as the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes but which the international community, led by Washington, says is an international threat.

   “This clearly will have an impact on the question of Iran,” Tanaka continued.

   Iran, a co-signatory of the NPT, has been suspected of clandestinely developing nuclear weapons by various countries, including the U.S., France, Germany, and Russia. On Dec 23, 2006, the United Nations imposed sanctions on Iran.

   While communication lines especially between the United States and North Korea must remain open, Tanaka emphasised the need to talk tough and not to let “North Koreans underestimate the strength of Japan, of the United States and of the other countries in the region”.

   There is need for a regional contingency as a form of “deterrence” to North Korean aggression. The world must remember, he added that “North Korean government leaders make all of their decisions by resorting to battlefield tactics and they make many miscalculations”.

   “They do not fit in well – they are isolated, they are terribly suspicious of the outside world, and they feel that everything comes down to power”.

   One possible weak point, however, is the foreign policy debate within the United States government, whose attention is heavily skewed toward the Middle East, especially Iraq. Hardliners in Washington argue that there is no negotiating with a “rogue state” such as North Korea, but others say a war on the Korean peninsula is too costly and therefore justifies continued talks with Pyongyang.

   “Only when the United States prioritises North Korea will it come up with a unified policy, a strong policy,” he added.
   Tanaka has no illusions and admits that the North Korea question is going to be a “long and painful process”. “This is not going to be something we can solve in a year or two.”

ON CHINA

Meanwhile, on Japan-China relations, Tanaka observed that the countries are going through a structural change in their relationship.

   Tanaka explained that both countries need to create a “great power relationship”, not one that is between an advanced nation and a poor, developing country.

   After all, Tanaka noted, with China’s brisk 9.5 percent annual growth over the last 25 years, it is predicted to be the world’s second largest economy in 10 years. Up until the 90s, Japan enjoyed the status of being the second lead in economic growth in the world. “But now, on our doorstep, a huge growth in China.”

   Likewise, “now, the Japanese trade relationship with China is our most extensive trade relationship, surpassing even that of the U.S.’,” he said.

   To have more equal bilateral relationship between East Asia’s two powers, three issues need to be dealt with, he continued.

   The question of history is one. Tanaka stressed that the memory of Japanese atrocities against China and Korea in the thirties should never be forgotten. “But we cannot be haunted by this forever. There should be agreement to stop politicising historical issues. History must be kept in the right place,” he urged.

   As for security policies, he encouraged both countries to engage in mutual transparency. Tanaka also urged the countries to have “real, straightforward cooperation” on energy and development.

   In short, Tanaka said, “We are dependent upon China, China is dependent upon Japan, and regional cooperation is needed. East Asia community building cannot be advanced in its current state.” (END/IPSAP/LC/JS/1206)