Comments on: What’s driving Pyongyang? http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/11/whats-driving-pyongyang/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:12:37 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Alexander von Rosenbach http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/11/whats-driving-pyongyang/comment-page-1/#comment-41301 Alexander von Rosenbach Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:34:47 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=5602#comment-41301 I think you're on the mark here - North Korea's recent string of provocations are principally for internal consumption and have inadvertently pushed China and the United States into the same corner. Continued agitation by the DPRK only reinforces the emerging view that the DPRK poses more of a liability than an asset in Beijing's geo-political balance book. Perhaps soon the US and Beijing may finally sit on the same side of the negotiating table. However, I would expect a general freeze in negotiations while North Korea undergoes its leadership succession. Today's news that Kim Jong-il may be suffering from pancreatic cancer only reinforces what is already evident: his son, Kim Jong-un, is on an accelerated leadership grooming programme and will become head of state in the near future. However, we need to think about what this means. Jong-un is young and inexperienced. He will be under pressure to prove himself a strong leader once his father diees. I suspect there is a crisis-in-the-making here. Read more at: http://on-message.net/2009/07/13/why-cancer-could-mean-crisis-in-the-dprk/ I think you’re on the mark here – North Korea’s recent string of provocations are principally for internal consumption and have inadvertently pushed China and the United States into the same corner. Continued agitation by the DPRK only reinforces the emerging view that the DPRK poses more of a liability than an asset in Beijing’s geo-political balance book. Perhaps soon the US and Beijing may finally sit on the same side of the negotiating table.

However, I would expect a general freeze in negotiations while North Korea undergoes its leadership succession. Today’s news that Kim Jong-il may be suffering from pancreatic cancer only reinforces what is already evident: his son, Kim Jong-un, is on an accelerated leadership grooming programme and will become head of state in the near future.

However, we need to think about what this means. Jong-un is young and inexperienced. He will be under pressure to prove himself a strong leader once his father diees. I suspect there is a crisis-in-the-making here.

Read more at:

http://on-message.net/2009/07/13/why-cancer-could-mean-crisis-in-the-dprk/

]]> By: Lincoln Fung http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/11/whats-driving-pyongyang/comment-page-1/#comment-40974 Lincoln Fung Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:12:26 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=5602#comment-40974 I agree that a positive vision for the future of the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia that would clarify US expectations and intentions toward the region is extremely important not only to the North Korea nuclear and missiles issues in the short to media term, but also for the long term regional security and stability. Ultimately, any products of cold war era should be and need to be dismantled. They include US troops in South Korea, for example. The US president commented on Russia Prime Minister’s possible outdated thinking in terms of cold war era. The US needs to set the example in doing so and also needs to rid of cold war era thinking and doing. Otherwise, the president would not look credible when asking others to move away from cold war thinking. The world has changed. So both former cold war foes need to change. This is especially the case for the US, given that the former USSR has long collapsed. It seems a permanent solution to the Korea peninsular security and stability may need a collective security guarantee of the two Koreas security, and leave the door open for an eventual unification of the Koreas on their own terms, with no external pressures. If a collective security guarantee is worked out, then there will not be any need for the US troops to stay in South Korea, because otherwise it would send wrong messages to the region and will not be in the interests of the region. North Korea is smaller than the South in both the economy and population. If security is guaranteed, the North should reduce its military forces. That will eliminate the needs for the stay of US troops in the peninsular. One would ask what the purpose of their stay would be for. I agree that a positive vision for the future of the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia that would clarify US expectations and intentions toward the region is extremely important not only to the North Korea nuclear and missiles issues in the short to media term, but also for the long term regional security and stability.

Ultimately, any products of cold war era should be and need to be dismantled. They include US troops in South Korea, for example.

The US president commented on Russia Prime Minister’s possible outdated thinking in terms of cold war era. The US needs to set the example in doing so and also needs to rid of cold war era thinking and doing. Otherwise, the president would not look credible when asking others to move away from cold war thinking.

The world has changed. So both former cold war foes need to change. This is especially the case for the US, given that the former USSR has long collapsed.

It seems a permanent solution to the Korea peninsular security and stability may need a collective security guarantee of the two Koreas security, and leave the door open for an eventual unification of the Koreas on their own terms, with no external pressures.

If a collective security guarantee is worked out, then there will not be any need for the US troops to stay in South Korea, because otherwise it would send wrong messages to the region and will not be in the interests of the region.

North Korea is smaller than the South in both the economy and population. If security is guaranteed, the North should reduce its military forces. That will eliminate the needs for the stay of US troops in the peninsular. One would ask what the purpose of their stay would be for.

]]>