Since the end of the Korean War in 1953, the Korean Peninsula has slipped into an embarrassing situation with the feature of neither war nor peace. The quick end of the Cold War brought very few changes to the security situation on the Korean Peninsula, and the DPRK nuclear crisis loomed large and exacerbated again. At present, the issue has evolved as one of the hottest worldwide problems, and become increasingly complicated, volatile and sensitive. Hence, the peace and development process of Northeast Asia is at high risk. International communities, especially the Peninsula neighboring countries should make more efforts to act together, and promote common ground and narrow differences wholeheartedly.

The evolvement and management of the Korean Peninsula issue in the new century

In November 2002, the US government decided to suspend oil fuel supply to the DPRK, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also passed a resolution against the DPRK under the pressure from the US. To retaliate against the hostile polices and actions of the US, the DPRK reopened its nuclear reactor and quitted NPT(Treaty on Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons). In the face of the worsening Peninsula nuclear issue, the Chinese government took some active measures to improve the mutual understanding and trust between the DPRK and the US. As a result of mediation of the Chinese government, the DPRK, the US and China held a trilateral talk in Beijing in April 2003. Since the US government insisted on multilateral talks, and the Peninsula neighboring countries also showed great interest in participating in the negotiation, the Chinese government succeeded in hosting two rounds of the six party talks with the attendance of the DPRK, the US, Japan, Russia and the ROK in Beijing. The second round of the six-party talks released a Chairman Statement and reached consensus on setting up a working group and on holding the next round of the talks, while the US still holds its old stand that the DPRK should demolish its nuclear capacity first.
Generally, the Peninsula nuclear issue on the whole moves in a positive direction, although the Peninsula nuclear crisis met with ups and downs during the past decade. Negotiations and consultations never stopped, and the more direct dialogue and talks were held, the more consensus were reached.

Positive trends are dominant in the Peninsula nuclear issue management

Firstly, all the six parties concerned share some common grounds and convergence of interests so that they have to deal with the issue seriously. The ROK and the DPRK originate from the same Peninsula and enjoy the same cultural background and long-term historical experience. People in the ROK and the DPRK dream of reunifying peacefully and strong nationalism of the two states in fact prevents each government from using force. The ROK government also sticks to the Sunshine Policy to the DPRK. In addition, economic globalization has led to closer economic relations among the ROK, Japan, China, Russia and the US. In fact, the ROK, the US, ASEAN and China have built an interdependent and complicated international division network of economic activities. If the Peninsula nuclear issue got even worse, decades of economic achievements of the ROK would be destroyed overnight. Japan is highly dependent on its ocean shipping lanes, so it can not stand the pressure caused by the fragmentation of the above-mentioned network. The escalating tension of the Peninsula issue will endanger Russia’s Pacific region economic growth and even disconnect its economic relations with China, the ROK and Japan, which could be a heavy blow to Russia’s economic rejuvenation. Meanwhile, the US might lose its market share in Northeast Asia for its war policy. The US also has to take the ROK and Japan’s standpoints into account to maintain its Asian alliance system.

Secondly, the ROK and the US could have learned lessons from the Korean War, and would not be likely to pursue war policy. The Korean Peninsula is a strategic pivot in Northeast Asia, therefore, any invasion or civil war might result in a large scale intervention. Five decades ago, the US witnessed North Korean’s resolution and strength to resist the invaders and unify the whole Peninsula, and suffered the first defeat since 1898 with thousands of casualties. At the same time, it is quite obvious that Russia and other regional big powers oppose a US led war against the DPRK, and even the American people disagree to launch the war at the expense of heavy casualties. Thus, the US administration has no other choice but to pursue engagement with the DPRK.

Thirdly, the Chinese government has always been playing a constructive role on the Peninsula nuclear issue to ensure peace and stability on the Peninsula. China consistently insists that the Peninsula nuclear issue should be solved by peaceful means and a nuclear free Korean Peninsula is the guarantee of regional peace and development. State councillor TANG Jiaxuan once said that the ultimate settlement of the Peninsula nuclear issue depended on political will and diplomatic wisdom. The Chinese government did follow the above two principles, and did all it could. China has successfully hosted three rounds of the talks in Beijing and led the nuclear issue onto a right path. Actually, after several rounds of active participation, China’ image as a responsible major power has been proved, which would facilitate China’s further involvement and contribution. Earlier this year, the Chinese government proposed that the six-party talks become a mechanism that serves the interests of all parties concerned. Meanwhile, China is preparing for the coming third round of the talks, and carrying out non-stop diplomatic mediations to balance all sides’ interests. We should not rule out the prospect of a peaceful settlement of the Peninsula nuclear issue.

Fourthly, the US mainly focuses on the Middle East and it won’t adventure on the Korean Peninsula. Many famous world-class strategists once predicted that the US strategic focus would shift from Europe to Asia at large, but the past decade showed that the US paid more attention to the Middle East as it launched two wars against Iraq in a short period. Comparatively, the Peninsula nuclear issue is still in a mess. The focus of the US national security has also been shifted to anti terrorism and the maintenance of oil supply, which are both crucially related to the Middle East. Unfortunately, terrorism spreads widely, the Iraq security situation has fallen into abyss and the Israeli-Palestine collision is worsening day by day. Hence, the US strives to keep peace, stability and promote democracy in the region, which seems to be impossible in the foreseeable future. If the Middle East continues to be volatile and disorderly, the US government would not resort to war against the DPRK.

More challenges ahead

Firstly, although much common ground exists among the related parties, there are still many serious disputes to be solved. Hence, time and patience are terribly needed. Regional states have acknowledged that the nuclear issue is rather complicated, which could not be solved through one or two rounds of talks. In terms of “Freezing vs. Compensation” program, the DPRK proposed to freeze all nuclear weapons programs in exchange for the removal of the DPRK from Washington's list of terrorism-sponsoring states, the lifting of political, economic and military sanctions and blockade, and the provision of energy assistance, etc. According to the US broader global strategy, its final goal is to demolish the DPRK nuclear capacity rather than to freeze it, therefore, the DPRK’s offer could not satisfy the US. Libya’s recent initial demolition of its nuclear facilities and WMD capacity has assured the US that containment is still effective. In other words, as long as the high pressure maintains, the DPRK might make concession. Based on such consideration, the US government apparently would neither provide energy assistance to the DPRK nor make a non-invasion guarantee. Concerning the hijack abduction between Japan and the DPRK, it should be an isolated issue, but Japan tries to tie it with the whole talks, which would stimulate the DPRK’s nationalism and broaden the disputes of the negotiation. In this regard, the change of Japan’s attitude is rather important and urgent.

Secondly, as several major powers are deeply involved in the Peninsula issue, the whole negotiation process has become rather complicated, and any mismanagement could lead to fatal results. Big powers are main actors of international politics, and any regional or worldwide hot spot issue could not be solved without their active participation. Three UN Security Council permanent members (the US, China and Russia) are involved in the six-party talks. The US, Japan and the ROK stay in the same camp and the rest share some common ground. At the same time, these nations also have divergent views over particular specific issues, but can temporarily unite owing to their own interests. Anyway, these countries have a common bottom line, if one side breaches it and triggers off new conflicts, the whole situation might get out of control. For example, the First World War broke out only after the assassination of the prince of Austria and Hungarian Empire. Now, the Peninsula nuclear issue is fraught with so many contradictions and risks, it can not stand any minor mistakes or wrongdoings.

Thirdly, due to historical factors, long-standing troubled relations have been formed between the US-Japan and the DPRK. The two sides show great hostility and animosity mutually, therefore it is difficult to erase the psychological hatred rooted in the governments. For centuries, the DPRK had suffered a lot from long–term colonial rules, invasion or sanctions of Japan or the US. Furthermore, since the end of the Korean War, the DPRK’s national independence and security have consistently been at high risk for the endless sabotages carried out by these two states. The 1994 Framework Agreement made in the Clinton administration, could have solved the Peninsula nuclear issue if the US supplied oil fuel to the DPRK in time. Nevertheless, the US did not do it, instead, it imposed more pressure on the DPRK for further inspection. Reviewing the historical development of the Peninsula nuclear issue, we can clearly draw a conclusion that the US and the DPRK are not likely to meet the requirements of each other owing to their deep-rooted distrust. It is necessary for the US and the DPRK to acquire certain mutual trust in order to sit down together, reach some consensus, and implement them.

Fourthly, though world multipolarization is rapidly progressing as time goes on, the US has strengthened its coalition forces by means of NATO expansion and bilateral and multilateral FTA, etc. Consequently the US could maintain or improve its favorable conditions in the multilateral negotiation and take much harsher attitudes towards the DPRK. Although the US does not conduct unilateralism and preemptive actions on the Peninsula nuclear issue, it will not quit unilateralism. When the U.S completes the NATO expansion and consolidates its control over the Middle East, it might spare more efforts on the Peninsula issue and take more radical or aggressive actions.

The Peninsula nuclear issue will meet with some difficulties ahead, but they are negotiable and could be solved by consultations and dialogue. So long as the international community adheres to the policy of engagement and does not lose the hope of peaceful settlement, the Peninsula nuclear issue could definitely reach a multiple-win result. As a responsible country, China will balance its obligation and right well, and continue to play its role of constructive participation.