Sung Bae Kim is currently the Senior Research Fellow for the Institute for National Security Strategy, Seoul, Korea.         Prospects for an Inter-Korean Summit in the post- Cheonan Incident Era   Only a few months ago, a third inter-Korean summit and the resumption of the Six-Party Talks both seemed likely. With contacts for an inter-Korean summit under way since last year and the Chinese proposals for the Six-Party Talks having been warmly accepted by the United States and North Korea, the prospects were positive.   The sinking of the ROK Navy corvette Cheonan on March 26, 2010, however, destroyed this optimism. A two-month multinational investigation, led by South Korea, uncovered clear evidence of North Korea’s involvement, and the South Korean government imposed strong and comprehensive sanctions against the North on May 24. The punishments included the suspension of inter-Korean trade, the resumption of psychological warfare operations, and strengthening naval exercises in the Yellow Sea. In response, North Korea announced that it would sever all inter-Korean relations and threatened war with the South. The whole situation on the Korean Peninsula has been deteriorating day by day, worsening already high tensions so that even military clashes seem potentially possible.   The prospects for the Six-Party Talks are now also very negative. The Cheonan incident has proved to be a black hole absorbing all other critical issues. Kim Jong-il 's visit to China in May 2010 seemed to signal that the Six-Party Talks might be resumed, but this possibility could not appease Seoul’s fury over the sinking of the Cheonan. Diplomatic efforts for the resumption of the talks have been replaced with new moves to initiate additional sanctions against North Korea. Of course, the North Korean nuclear crisis, which is after all an urgent problem with both regional and global consequences, cannot be forever tied to the Cheonan incident. After a cooling-off period, diplomatic mediations to resume the Six-Party Talks can be restarted by China. But the concern at this time is that North Korea, in light of the Cheonan incident, might insist on excluding South Korea from the talks.   Given the current situation, is there any possibility for an inter-Korean summit? A summit might, paradoxically, be the only means of exit from the crisis. Interestingly, in 1993, when the first North Korean nuclear crisis had broken out and military tensions were extremely high, a proposal for an inter-Korean summit was accepted. The meeting was only canceled because of Kim Il-sung's sudden death on July 8, 1994. Today, for inter-Korean relations to resume, a whole new framework is needed, given that all existing North-South agreements have been nullified. Such a rebuilt relationship can only be achieved through a third inter-Korean summit. Moreover, progress on the North Korean nuclear issue is impossible until the current state of North-South relations is improved. Were the Six-Party Talks to resume that occurs, they would end up at best as a diplomatic battle between the two Koreas. In the end, the only solution is an inter-Korean summit, which could achieve a breakthrough both in relations between North and South and on the nuclear issue at the same time.   One reason we can expect an inter-Korean summit is that North Korea appears to have an interest in holding one. It is no secret that when high-ranking North Korean officials visited Seoul in late August 2009 to offer condolences at the funeral for former president Kim Dae-jung, they gave signals that Pyongyang wanted to hold an inter-Korean summit. Several contacts took place thereafter to coordinate such a meeting. Unfortunately, the contacts were not successful and there was no further progress. The reason North Korea wants a summit is very simple: through a successful summit, it would receive benefits of nearly a billion dollars in humanitarian aid and economic cooperation with South Korea. It would also be able to take advantage of enhanced inter-Korean ties to facilitate improved relations with the United States. In the wake of the difficulties stemming from the Cheonan incident, North Korea might be even more desperate for the benefits it could derive from improved inter-Korean relations. Thus, the chances are increased that Pyongyang would be willing to hold a summit and could be expected to make concessions to Seoul as part of the core agenda.   The main challenge for holding a summit at present is the need for some kind of preconditions and an agreement that meaningful achievements are possible. The Lee Myung-bak administration had a firm position even before the sinking of the Cheonan that it would participate in an inter-Korean summit only when the gathering would contribute not only to the denuclearization of North Korea but also to the resolution of the issue of South Koreans abducted by Pyongyang and South Korean prisoners of war still in the North. Now, following the Cheonan incident, Lee and his advisers will be forced to take a much stronger position.   First, preconditions are essential for any inter-Korean summit to take place. North Korea must apologize and punish those responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan in some way or other, as President Lee has demanded. It would be difficult for North Korea as a propaganda-based state to make a public apology, especially considering that it has already denied its involvement in public. Nevertheless, it would not be impossible for North Korea to send a special envoy and deliver a message of regret to President Lee and to inform Seoul of related measures taken to prevent further incidents.   Second, North Korea must guarantee that progress will be made in any inter-Korean summit on key disagreements such as the nuclear crisis and the abduction issues. The problem is that North Korea is reluctant to talk about these questions with South Korea. The nuclear issue is especially difficult to make progress on as it is an international issue, not an issue between the two Koreas. But a summit without achievements on the nuclear question cannot be justified or defended. The need for such progress is even more profound when taking account of the political situation after the sinking of the Cheonan.   The whole structural situation on the Korean Peninsula in the post–Cheonan incident era makes the need for an inter-Korean summit more urgent. Without a high-level diplomatic breakthrough, the standoff on the nuclear issue will continue and the crisis in relations between North and South cannot be resolved. Regardless of whether a third inter-Korean summit can overcome these difficulties, producing meaningful steps along the way will constitute an important success. The Lee administration will have to answer the deeper question of what an inter-Korean summit is really for in the aftermath of the Cheonan incident. This means looking at the identity of the summit. Certainly some progress on the nuclear issue is indispensable for the Lee government. Therefore, how can a summit help? In other words, how can an inter-Korean summit contribute to the denuclearization of North Korea? To answer this question, it is necessary to examine the dynamics between the North Korean nuclear crisis and inter-Korean relations.   Dynamics of the Nuclear Crisis and Inter-Korean Relations   North Korea regards its denuclearization as a bilateral issue that can only be dealt with by itself and the United States. Originally, Pyongyang developed its nuclear program for peaceful purposes but subsequently pursued nuclear weapons to cope with the U.S. military threat. Direct negotiations between North Korea and the United States will naturally follow as they seek to end their hostile relations.   The first North Korean nuclear crisis, which began in 1993, was resolved with the Agreed Framework that came about through a series of bilateral talks between the United States and North Korea in 1994. During those negotiations, there was no room for South Korea to take on any role. Since the second North Korean nuclear crisis in 2003, the Six-Party Talks have become the new framework to handle the North Korean nuclear issue. Still, the major breakthroughs such as the September 19 Joint Declaration and the February 13 Agreement have only come about through U.S.–North Korean bilateral negotiations. North Korea even upset its ally China by excluding it from the process.   In contrast to its isolated role in the first nuclear crisis, South Korea sought to take a more proactive role in nuclear negotiations with the second crisis. However, the Roh Moo-hyun administration found its role limited to that of acting as a broker between the United States and North Korea within the Six-Party Talks framework. Naturally, the Roh administration tried to make progress in the denuclearization of North Korea through the various levels of inter-Korean meetings including an inter-Korean summit, but the nuclear issue was not seen as a serious agenda item, one that was more than merely symbolic. The Lee administration is maintaining a firm position that the North Korean nuclear issue must remain at the top of the agenda in inter-Korean meetings. Vision 3000, the Lee administration’s North Korea policy, shows clearly that its top priority is the denuclearization of the North. Any inter-Korean summit would be regarded as meaningless unless it leads toward that goal.   Why has the North Korean nuclear issue failed to be treated seriously in the inter-Korean meetings of the past? Has it been due to the South Korean government’s lack of will? It is true that the former governments in Seoul tended to stick only to the “easier” issues in North-South relations and yielded without strong objection to the North Korean regime’s refusal to talk about the nuclear issue. In this respect, it might be reasonable to criticize the South’s earlier lack of will. The characteristics of the North Korean nuclear crisis, however, have changed over the years and have gone beyond the scope of North-South relations.   The two Koreas have dealt with the nuclear issue before as a core agenda item. The Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in 1992 was the outcome of such an effort. But at that time the North Korean nuclear program was at a relatively low level and had yet to become a source of major international concern.   Following the first nuclear crisis, North Korea was assumed to have weapons-grade plutonium for just one or two nuclear warheads as long as the Agreed Framework was sustained. But since the Agreed Framework has collapsed and Pyongyang has increased its stockpile of plutonium, the nuclear issue has become a more serious one. Finally, as North Korea tested a nuclear device in October 2006 and the issue became much more complex, Pyongyang publicly declared its status as a nuclear state. Consequently, it made discussion of the nuclear issue between the two Koreas even more difficult. Particularly for North Korea, negotiations over nuclear disarmament with the United States would bring about more advantages than if it were to negotiate with South Korea.   The framework of the Six-Party Talks itself is in a sense one factor restricting an inter-Korean resolution of the nuclear issue. It is true that the Six-Party Talks made room for South Korea to become involved in the issue, preventing the nuclear crisis from becoming a bilateral negotiation between the United States and North Korea. But at the same time, the talks restricted inter-Korean consultation on the nuclear issue to the Six-Party framework. During sessions of the talks, there often used to be purely inter-Korean contacts, but holding a separate bilateral meeting like that of the South-North Joint Nuclear Control Commission in 1992 is no longer possible. Even bilateral talks between the United States and North Korea can only be recognized within the framework of the Six-Party Talks. If South and North Korea talk about the nuclear issue too seriously, the other countries, including the United States, might cast a suspicious eye on them.   The nuclear issue has not been a core agenda item during inter-Korean meetings of the past. The issue’s absence from the table comes partly from the South Korean government’s lack of will, but also mainly from the changing characteristics of the issue over the past twenty years. And this situation seems likely to remain in flux in the future as well. If this is the case, then it would be desirable to make clear the limits and possibilities of the issue within the inter-Korean context and to reexamine how to contribute to the denuclearization of North Korea. In seeking to address the nuclear issue through an inter-Korean summit, what can past experience tell us?   Past Experience   The North Korean nuclear problem was not an urgent issue during the first inter-Korean summit held in 2000. Although there were concerns over Pyongyang’s nuclear facilities in Kumchang-ri, north of Yongbyon, and its long-range missile program that included its Taepodong missile test in 1998, the Agreed Framework remained in place.   The second inter-Korean summit was held in 2007 while the Six-Party Talks were working on the implementation of the February 13 Agreement of that year. The goal was to implement the September 2005 Joint Statement, which was one of the most important achievements of the Six-Party Talks, finally laying down the principles to dismantle the North Korean nuclear program. It was produced two years after the Six-Party Talks had been launched, with the delay related to new U.S. financial sanctions against the North, leading to Pyongyang’s nuclear test in October of 2006. A series of bilateral contacts between the United States and North Korea made possible the February 13 Agreement that led to the shutdown and disablement of North Korean nuclear facilities. The second inter-Korean summit was held in this favorable climate...(Continued)  

Sukhee Han is currently the assistant professor of Chinese studies at Graduate School of International Studies at Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.         China’s Response to North Korea’s Second Nuclear Test.   Having detonated its first nuclear device in October 2006, North Korea conducted its second nuclear test on May 25, 2009. Having consistently attempted to dissuade the North from such tests, China has been infuriated by the North’s defiance of Chinese advice and interests. Immediately after the 2009 test, China released a statement almost identical to the one it announced in the wake of the 2006 test. Beijing’s unprecedented wrath and “resolute opposition” to Pyongyang’s unmannerly behavior had been clearly expressed in the 2006 statement. In the 2009 statement, the Chinese government “strongly demands” that Pyongyang abide by its non-nuclearization commitments, “stop actions that may lead to a further deterioration of the situation,” and “return to the track of the Six-Party Talks.” Furthermore, China’s subsequent vote in favor of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874, which was designed to impose tougher sanctions on the Pyongyang regime than its previous resolution passed in 2006, seemed to indicate that China may implement a strategic shift away from North Korea and may also increase its strategic cooperation with the international community in dealing with the North Korean nuclear issue.   Witnessing China’s stern behavior toward the North, some China watchers in Washington and Seoul have argued that North Korea’s second nuclear test, along with a series of other provocations in the first half of 2009, which included a rocket launch and a complete withdrawal from the Six-Party Talks, have prompted China to reconsider its long-standing policy of amity toward North Korea. In contrast to its traditional policy, China since the 2009 nuclear test has not hesitated to make it clear in its official statements that North Korea has become a liability than a strategic asset, and that it was not satisfied with North Korea’s arbitrary behavior threatening the stability of the Korean Peninsula.   Remarkably open discussions about North Korea have also been permitted in the Chinese academia and media. In the debates, some Chinese analysts have criticized their government for its failure to get tough with North Korea; others have also advocated for Beijing to take a firmer stance toward North Korea. These debates seem to be a departure from the traditional brotherly attitudes many Chinese have shared concerning North Korea, and also serve as convincing reasons for many experts to argue that China may change its policy toward North Korea.   At the same time, however, China has made clear that it intends to continue its traditional policy of friendship toward North Korea. U.S. foreign policy circles have frequently commented that the Chinese leadership has become increasingly angry at the Kim Jong-il regime, especially in the wake of the second nuclear test, and that Beijing is willing and able to use its leverage to pressure Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons program. In contrast, however, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, during his visit to Pyongyang to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of PRC-DPRK(People’s Republic of China-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) diplomatic relations, reassured North Korea of its economic patronage by providing a number of economic measures for expanding China’s economic exchanges with the North. Furthermore, the recent visit of Liang Guanglie, China’s defense minister, to North Korea has also consolidated the Sino–North Korean military alliance. His avowal of “China’s willingness to have closer military contacts with the DPRK” must have provided more confidence for the North Korean leaders in dealing with post–nuclear test reactions.   Given this situation, that China’s national interest concerning North Korea has been the maintenance of peace and stability is reconfirmed. On the one hand, in order to keep Pyongyang from further undermining peninsular security, Beijing has resolutely opposed North Korea’s provocations. China’s statements have emphasized its diplomatic pursuit of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and have also underscored that China, as a great power, acknowledges that it shares responsibility for preserving regional order and stability. On the other hand, China still places more importance on the maintenance of the status quo, in the sense of supporting the North Korean regime itself. China has exerted much more effort on behalf of the North’s survival than on behalf of its denuclearization. While China has in principle supported the UN economic sanctions on the North, it has never been sympathetic to the implementation of realistically effective sanctions.   In facing Kim Jong-il’s presumed health concerns and subsequent contingencies in the North, however, China has realized that the status quo on the Peninsula cannot always guarantee regional peace and stability. Given that the demise of Kim Jong-il himself is relatively imminent and certainly inevitable, China has to adopt a new approach to North Korea. China’s chief concern is to strengthen its economic and military grip over the North with the intention of keeping the regime afloat and its leadership under China’s control even after Kim Jong-il has passed from the scene.   Maintenance of the Traditionalist Approach   In the wake of the second nuclear test, the voices supporting a tougher stance on North Korea dominated the Chinese academia and media. The Chinese scholars arguing for a harder line are called the “strategists.” In general, the Chinese media coverage of North Korea has become more permissive in recent years. In comparison to the case of Strategy and Management, an academic journal forced to cease publication because it published an article criticizing North Korea’s leadership five years ago, it is noticeable that negative media coverage and academic criticisms of North Korea have become widespread in public. For example, a strategist wrote that China “cannot tolerate or accommodate” North Korea’s “extreme adventurist policy,” because Beijing’s “core interests” in regional stability lie in the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” If China wants to become a “world power,” the strategist added, it will have to “put its responsibilities and duties” to the international community above those to North Korea.   Another case indicating the shift of Chinese public sentiment regarding North Korea can be found in the Global Times [Huanqiu shibao], a newspaper with nationalist views on international affairs. It conducted a survey of twenty experts on international affairs right after the second nuclear test and found that half of the respondents supported more severe sanctions against North Korea. It also found that 30 percent of the respondents believed that the Six-Party Talks had failed. Reflective of Chinese domestic trends, China watchers in Washington and Seoul cautiously support such potential changes of policy in China toward North Korea. The China watchers base their current conclusions on two factors. The first is China’s domestic change in sentiment against the North. As a Chinese scholar commented, the North Korean nuclear test was a “slap in the face.” Observers in China believe that their country has consistently supported and provided assistance to North Korea, but their benevolence has been returned with an unexpected betrayal. The second factor is that China, as a rising power in pursuit of superpower status, is less able to continue to support North Korea’s misdemeanors at the cost of international responsibility.   However, the prospects for a change in China’s policy change toward North Korea look dim at the moment. First, it is more important for China to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula than to denuclearize it. Although China has declared that (1) peace and stability and (2) denuclearization are the two most important goals of its policy toward the Korean Peninsula, China places a much higher priority on peace and stability. Second, it is true that there have been a growing number of North Korea experts arguing for China’s policy change toward North Korea, but their voices are still in the minority. In general, they are relatively young in age and low in status, and have limited opportunities to take part in the decision-making process. Third, if we review the strategists’ argument for policy change, we find that they are not actually intending to implement a fundamental policy change. The key to China’s policy change toward the North is whether China accepts the possibility of a North Korean regime collapse. But given the current situation, China would never allow the collapse of the Kim Jong-il regime...(Continued)

Dongho Jo is a Professor of North Korean Studies at Ewha Womans University. He is also the Chair of the Center for North Korea Studies at the East Asia Institute.         On April 5, 2009, North Korea carried out a rocket launch. North Korea argued that it was a satellite launch vehicle rather than a warhead-carrying ballistic missile, and portrayed the launch in innocuous and civilian terms, even naming the rocket “Unha,” which means “Galaxy” in Korean, to emphasize its space-oriented function. However, most nations, including Japan, South Korea, and the United States, suspect that these words were only a cover for a test of North Korea’s long-range missile technology. In addition, North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test on May 25, followed by several launches of short-range missiles from its east coast. Furthermore, North Korea test-fired four short-range missiles on July 2 and additional seven missiles on July 4, despite the United Nations Security Council’s unanimous adoption of Resolution 1874 on June 12, condemning North Korea’s hostile activities in the strongest possible terms.   Why has North Korea gone ahead with its provocative actions in the face of serious opposition from most of the outside world? To date, analysts have focused on the political aspects of the missile launch. They speculate that its purpose was to push the United States toward bilateral dialogue or to pressure the South Korean government to return to its more positive stance known as the “sunshine policy.” Others argue that the launch was meant to strengthen leadership’s weakening hold inside the country and to ensure its dynastic line of succession. All of these explanations are plausible, and North Korea, of course, may have had multiple goals.   But observers seeking to understand the North Korea’s actions are missing one critical component: the economic factor. The North Korean economy was in very poor shape in the 1990s and is still experiencing difficulties. This economic hardship, however, has not only been evident in recent decades but had already begun in the early 1970s, mainly due to lack of capital. Since then, the country’s top economic priority has been to determine how to encourage foreign capital to help the North Korea escape from economic shortages. One alternative pursued since the mid-1990s has been to develop the missile program as an effective means of earning foreign exchange. Understanding the part played by the economic situation in North Korea’s decisions about its missile program is the purpose of this brief article.   Capital as a Key Element for Economic Growth   After the Korean War ended in 1953, rapid economic growth was the preeminent task for both North and South Korea. Economic growth was needed not only to restore the industrial production bases that had been destroyed during the war and to raise the extremely poor living standards but also to demonstrate to the people the superiority of the economic system established in their half of the country. Whichever half had faster economic growth would add to its legitimacy on the divided Korean Peninsula.   Economic growth is defined as the increase in the amount of the goods and services produced by an economy. Regardless of the type of economic system, factors of production must increase in order to achieve economic growth. Among such factors, capital is the most fundamental, especially when an economy is underdeveloped. The importance of capital becomes even greater for labor-abundant economies such as North and South Korea. The strategy for growth, therefore, is closely linked to the mobilization of capital. A government can raise internal or domestic capital by collecting taxes or issuing bonds. To obtain external or foreign capital, basically four alternatives exist: assistance, loans, foreign direct investment (FDI), and exports.   Relying on Assistance, 1950-1960   As the Korean War drew to a close, the North Korean economy was in dire straits. In addition to the distortion of the economic structure due to the division of the Peninsula in 1945, the damage from the war had a catastrophic effect. About 661,000 North Korean soldiers and 2.7 million civilians died or were injured, which means nearly 30 percent of the North Korean population suffered casualties during the war (Kihl 1988, 65). According to North Korea, about 700,000 houses, 5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, and about 40 percent of the total capacity of industrial production were destroyed. It is estimated that the per capita Gross National Product (GNP) in North Korea in 1953 was US$46 (Hwang 1993, 41-42).   As these figures imply, there was no internal capital for North Korea to try to mobilize. Furthermore, attracting foreign capital such as loans, FDI, and exports was virtually impossible because of North Korea’s deteriorated economic conditions, poor investment environment, and low credibility. Reliance on foreign assistance seemed the only option. Socialist countries rallied to North Korea’s side, and it received a substantial amount of grant-type assistance from these allies. In the 1953–1960 period, total assistance was US$1.43 billion, or about 20 percent of North Korea’s GNP, and in 1957–1960 outside countries contributed 82.1 percent of national investment for construction (Yeon 1986, 71). Thanks to this largesse, North Korea was able to achieve very fast economic growth...(Continued)

Chaesung Chun is the Chair of the Asia Security Initiative at the East Asia Institute and an associate professor in the Department of International Relations at Seoul National University.   The Current Situation   North Korea, in conducting its second nuclear test on May 25, 2009, is repeating its earlier pattern of nuclear diplomacy: raising the level of military tensions by launching a long-range rocket and performing a nuclear test, and then searching for the most favorable position once negotiations resume. This vicious circle, composed of North Korea's brinkmanship and other countries’ multilateral sanctions will continue without any prospect of solving the North Korean nuclear problem in the near future. The so-called action-to-action paradigm cannot succeed, because the most fundamental principles of North Korea and the countries conflict with each other. Japan, South Korea, and the United States hope that a "stick and carrot" approach will elicit concessions from North Korea during the process of negotiations, but North Korea will not take steps toward giving up its nuclear program, unless its leaders feel sure that they are being given reliable, material guarantees for the survival of their entire regime, system, and state. Because their nuclear program is their ultimate bargaining chip, “sticks and carrots” focusing only on specific issues of the negotiations will be fall far short of solving the problems of North Korea as a whole.   Sixteen years have passed since the outbreak of the first North Korean nuclear crisis in 1993. The Geneva System, based on the Agreed Framework signed by the United States and North Korea in Geneva in 1994, lasted for eight years (from October 1994 to October 2002), but failed to manage the problems of nuclear proliferation and the normalization of relations. The success or failure of the new system of Six-Party Talks is yet to be seen, but as of now in 2009, negotiations based on the approach of the George W. Bush administration and, more specifically, the February 13 agreement of 2007 seem to be in a stalemate.   The North Korean problem is older than the North Korean nuclear problem. From the perspective of North Korea, the latter is its desired solution to the following questions: How will North Korea survive in the post-Cold War world, in which most socialist countries are no longer socialist? What kind of regime and system can North Korea sustain in this environment? How will North Korea compete with South Korea and resist absorption by the South? North Korea developed a nuclear program and pursued militaristic diplomacy as the most plausible shortcuts to solve the problems indicated by these questions.   For countries outside of North Korea, diplomacy has failed to solve either the North Korean nuclear problem or the more general North Korean problem. The Six-Party Talks that have been held by South Korea, the United States, Japan, China, and Russian Federation, and North Korea are stalled at the last phase of the second stage of what is termed “disablement,” and participants are now struggling to find a way to get into the third stage of the agreement of February 13. Reaching the issue of North Korea’s declaration and verification of its nuclear program is critical, because it will demonstrate a genuine intention to begin the process of giving up its program. Yet North Korea is desperately trying to strengthen its negotiating position vis-à-vis the Obama administration by first launching a long-range rocket and then by testing a nuclear weapon for the second time, reversing the achievements of the disablement stage and rejecting the Six-Party Talks altogether. North Korea desires to strike a comprehensive deal with the Obama administration through bilateral talks, and seeks a variety of political, economic, and diplomatic rewards such as a peace treaty, diplomatic normalization, economic assistance, the lifting of international economic sanctions, and possibly light-water reactors.   The five countries in the Six-Party Talks except North Korea have tried to evade facing up to the North Korean problem, because it is difficult to know how best to influence the future orientation of the North Korean regime, system, and diplomatic position. The structure of the Six-Party talks has also been narrowly focused on the problem of the nuclear program, leaving broader questions aside. The Northeast Asian international order, which is based on a strict and competitive balance of power, will be gravely influenced by the future orientation of North Korea, and therefore it is appropriate for the five countries most affected to deal with the North Korean problem directly. But by focusing so narrowly on the North Korean nuclear issues, these countries have maintained only minimal agreement on how to manage the nuclear problems that are involved, sometimes showing strategic and tactical differences on various specifics.   In spite of the five countries’ agreement on the Six-Party presidential statement criticizing North Korea's rocket launch on April 9, they have had a hard time finding common ground to deal with future North Korean problems. The United States has been determined to impose economic sanctions on North Korean firms by using a specifically targeted list, as well as to punish North Korea diplomatically by refusing to give serious and close attention to the North Korean nuclear problem. South Korea and Japan have maintained a policy of neglecting North Korea for different reasons. The two countries seem to continue minimal interactions with North Korea even if the North fails to meet the conditions suggested by these countries. China and Russia do not want to take the initiative either to punish or to side with North Korea, and only reluctantly facilitate cooperation among the other countries.   Existing Strategic Options   The North Korean problem is more than twenty years old. North Korea or, more specifically, Kim Jong-il will not give up nuclear weapons if he is not assured of the future preservation of his regime and system. A "holistic approach" to both the nuclear and the more general problems, is necessary. Such an approach is more feasible now, when the Obama administration has the advantage of a fresh start with most foreign policy issues.   However, strategic options under discussion in most of the countries that are involved are still narrowly focused on the North Korean nuclear problem, and they can be categorized as shown in Table 1.           We can also graph the approaches of the different administrations in South Korea and the United States (see Figure 1).   The North Korean nuclear problem is as much a political problem related to the ability of North Korea to survive as it is a problem of proliferation and military strategy. Against this backdrop, all the options outlined so far are not sufficient solutions. Even the four comprehensive negotiations in Table 1 are not comprehensive enough to deal with the "North Korean" problem and will face difficulties.   The Inherent Dilemmas for the North Korean Leadership   A proper strategic option should include a vision for the future of North Korea that is desirable not just for the populations of North Koreans, but also for most Northeast Asian countries and the United States. A long-term strategy aimed at the next decades should at least visualize a North Korea that is post-Kim Jong-il, with a new leadership, nuclear but economically poorer, or non-nuclear but with more international assistance. Looking ahead to a time when North Korea will coexist with other powers in an appropriate way, Northeast Asian countries will begin to coordinate their North Korean policy. To do so, neighbors will need to be clear about the nature of the North Korean regime and system.   North Korea is a divided country, which means that a strategic failure will increase the possibility of its being unified directly by South Korea in a fashion in which the latter absorbs the former. North Korea, unlike any other former socialist country, does not have room for strategic reorientation after failing a transitional phase.   North Korea is a totalitarian country, and needs extremely strong policy control and legitimacy. Separation of the North Korean people from the persistent tension and real or perceived threats from the outside world is indispensible to enable the country’s leaders to maintain totalitarianism in the twenty-first century.   North Korea is a relatively small, failing state, which cannot go through a long-term process of systemic reform without a heavy impact on every aspect of society. The wrong plan for systemic reform might bring about sweeping unanticipated consequences.   North Korea expects leadership change in the near future. The personality of the leader in this totalitarian state is crucial in determining the policy orientation of the country. The Third Leader in North Korea, whatever his strategic vision and policy environment turn out to be, will have far-reaching effects on all aspects of North Korean society.   From these observations about the essence of the North Korean political situation come the country’s dilemmas. North Korea faces three almost insoluble dilemmas as it plans its own future: (1) a dilemma between its nuclear program and its economic and political survival; (2) a dilemma between its need for economic reform and its need to maintain political totalitarianism; and (3) a dilemma between participating in the peace process on the Korean Peninsula and maintaining its political legitimacy.   Dilemma 1. The North Korean leadership may know that its economy cannot progress amid the current crisis over its nuclear program. At the same time, North Korea will also lose most of its political leverage, once it gives up its nuclear program, because only nuclear weapons have the power to narrow the tremendous gap between the two Koreas rather easily. Thus North Korea faces a dilemma between the option of maintaining its nuclear strategy and the one of giving it up.   Dilemma 2. North Korea, even in a very favorable postnuclear environment, cannot actively pursue economic reforms and opening, because its people will then gain information and material resources with which to question the legitimacy of the dictatorship. North Korean leaders are very cautious about the possibility of facing public opposition if the public is exposed to external influences.   Dilemma 3. North Korea has maintained a militaristic national strategy, culture, and social system by producing domestic tensions and antagonism based on its theory of war against capitalism and imperialism. The Cold War and the proclamation of imagined threats from the United States and South Korea have provided the North Korean leadership with its political legitimacy and powerful social control. If North Korea concludes a peace treaty with the United States and South Korea have provided the North Korean leadership with is political legitimacy and powerful social control. If North Korea concludes a peace treaty with the United States and South Korea, normalizing diplomatic relations, its strategy of selling the threat of the outside world to the North Korean pubic will no longer be effective.   Strategic Principles to Solve the North Korean Problem   1. Clearly state that North Korea will continue to exist in Northeast Asia, as long as it is able to maintain its system and state, while also conforming to international norms and standards. North Korea, in official and unofficial documents, has repeatedly argued that South Korea, Japan and the United States wish to "pose a threat to the North Korean system," "continue a hostile policy against North Korea," "invade North Korea," "start a nuclear war," and so on. These exaggerated expressions can be partially countered by clearly declaring that Japan, South Korea, and the United States do not have any hostile intention against North Korea in terms of its existence and survival. Vague or mixed expressions on the future of the North, however, will have a negative effect. For example, the former Bush administration stated that North Korea was a "sovereign" state, while it also named it as one of the "Axis of Evil." Moral judgment may deliver unintended messages even if it is accompanied by more benign political expressions.   2. Visualize the future of a Northeast Asian order in which a desirable North Korea coexists with neighboring countries. Verbal declarations that North Korea has a right to exist in a future Northeast Asia will not be persuasive enough, however: North Korea will need to be more convinced. For example, the way in which North Korea is represented strategic discourses about the future picture of Northeast Asia and strategic discourses of a future Northeast Asia will be a significant basis on which North Korea will situate itself in the future. Only a strategically drawn blueprint co-developed by all Northeast Asian countries will persuade the North that, if it gives up its nuclear program, will there be room for it to play a legitimate role.   3. Devise a new and future-oriented plan for the most desirable governance on the Korean Peninsula, and adjust the existing plan for reunification according to it. Reunification, for North Koreans, is a very threatening concept, especially when we consider the vast power gap between two Koreas in terms of international status, economy, and future development. Not only is the idea of unification by absorption beyond the pale, but unification by grand negotiation to pursue options such as making a confederation or federation based on political consent might also pose an unacceptable threat to North Korean leadership. Economically prosperous and politically democratic, South Korea would dominate a transitional Korean Peninsula in which the North Korea leadership would have a hard time surviving. In that sense, despite North Koreans' frequent reference to the ideal of reunification, they will not accept a policy of engagement by South Korea or the United States, if they think that the final destination is unification by the South.   South Koreans, for their part, will not give up the vision of reunification just to make North Korea more comfortable. However, when thinking about the rapidly changing political environment in South Korea and in the Northeast Asia region, the South should recognize that a long period of coexistence would be beneficial and necessary for the two Koreas to pave the way to some form of future peaceful and agreeable governance on the Peninsula. The new phenomena such as increasing integration at the regional level, deepening socio-economic interdependence among Northeast Asian countries, and the possibility of a democratic peace in the region might forecast what a new picture to the new relationship between the two Koreas could look like. If North Koreans understand that by transforming their own system, there will be numerous other, possibly "postmodern" ways of integrating the two Koreas peacefully, they may feel less threatened by an engagement policy on the part of the South or the United States.   4. Then, emphasize the universality of the norm of nonproliferation, and the inevitability of sanctions against any nonconforming acts of North Korea. The norm of non-proliferation is universal, in that it will prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in not only regional but global politics. Five countries except North Korea in the Six-Party Talks, agreed to the norm of nonproliferation, seeing it as a crucial step to prevent a further arms race and nuclearization in the region. North Korea has always argued that nuclear weapons are for deterrence against the United States’ hostile policy toward the North. North Korea will lose any logical need to develop its nuclear program if the United States and surrounding countries stick to the principle of "guaranteeing the future of North Korea."   5. Have a long-term plan for North Korea, especially for the Third Leader. It will take time and effort to convince the North other countries’ commitment to the above principles and ensuing policies based on them. It will also be hard for Kim Jong-il to radically change his "Military-First Politics." That system is the outcome of Kim Jong-il’s three years of painstaking efforts following the death of Kim Il-sung and the year 1997 when Kim Jong-il finally came to the forefront of North Korean politics. Kim Jong-il might have tried to find a new way to cope with the post-Cold War environment, but after a relatively long period of deliberation, he adopted a conservative and aggressive national strategy in the areas of politics, diplomacy, economy, and society under the name of "Military-First Politics."   The Third Leader(s) of North Korea who will inherit power from Kim Jong-il will face a similar situation under which he(they) should decide whether to follow Kim Jong-il's system or make a sharp break from the past and establish a wholly new national strategy, such as, one might hope a strategy of systemic opening and reform. It will take some time for the Third Leader to evaluate the environment and decide on his own strategy. What will be important for the region during that time will be clear strategic principles coordinated by surrounding countries. If the strategic principles discussed here are convincingly delivered to the North Korean leadership, the new leaders may give serious consideration adopting a new national strategy.   Pre-designed plans for the future of North Korea will help Kim Jong-il as well as the future Third Leader. Kim Jong-il himself will not try to transform "Military-First Politics" for various reasons, particularly domestic ones, may leave a message to his successor that the three North Korean dilemmas could be solved with the fresh start of a new Third Leader who does not have burdens from the past.   The five countries in dealing with North Korea should take a long-range perspective for the future and try to coordinate their visions. Only by devising a long-term North Korea plan, will they be able to encourage Kim Jong-il and the Third Leader to embark on a new strategy to revive the country without resorting to a nuclear program.   Policy Guidelines for South Korea and the United States   1. Devise a common strategy for "the future of North Korea" by engaging in strategic dialogue on that issue, not just on the issue of North Korea’s nuclear problem. It has been extremely hard to "study" North Korea due to the lack of data and information. Experience in dealing with North Korea for the last sixteen years, however, has allowed a learning process for both South Korea and the United States to find out what kind of state North Korea is, what purposes North Korea is really pursuing, and what coercions North Korea really fears. By systematically processing these past experiences and reflecting upon the results of the two countries’ policy, a new policy knowledge network will be established.   2. South Korea should develop a new discourse for "future governance" on the Peninsula that goes beyond the idea of making one "modern" nation-state, a concept that lacks imagination. Instead, pay special attention to the functioning of various regional networks and the new "globalized" South Korea. New visions of how the two Koreas can coexist peacefully under changing environments are needed, and may be found outside Korean borders. The concept of "national sovereignty" is changing slowly: it will enlighten the future course of a new governance of the Peninsula, but not right away.   3. Consult with other countries in the region, especially China and Russia, about a desirable future for North Korea. Also make clear what future would be undesirable, and suggest restrictions that might need to be placed on North Korea's future actions. Draw upon the common understanding that a transformed North Korea and a new inter-Korean relationship that will not hurt Chinese or Russian national interests, and that North Korea's conformity to international norms will benefit them.   4. Design a new multilateral framework to deal with the North Korean nuclear problem and the problem of North Korea itself. The current Six-Party Talks are losing momentum not just because of North Korea's provocations, but also due to rising skepticism in other countries as well. To solve the North Korean problem, the Six-Party Talks need to be restructured into a complex network of multilateral, minilateral, and a set of bilateral talks to examine diverse issues ranging from nuclearization to normalizing the North.   5. Strengthen the realist notion of prudence by keeping away from any moral judgment of North Korea; focus on specific issues guided by strategic principles. New systems of discourse and speech acts need to be developed to differently represent North Korea in public discourse. New concepts and new sets of hypotheses will convince not only the pubic in Northeast Asian countries, but also the North Korean leadership. "Smart" engagement should include both "hard" and "soft" means.   6. South Korea should devise a long-term engagement plan for North Korea, and establish when it will end its policy of "neglect" and begin to actively engage with the North. South Korea has been faced with North Korea's increasing hostile policy since the inauguration of President Lee Myung-bak. The lack of a reciprocal response from the North to the decade-long Sunshine Policy also makes the need to readjust the pace and the content of the engagement policy. Without a long-term strategy of engagement that goes beyond both the Sunshine version of engagement and the strategy of benign neglect, South Korea's policy cannot succeed. "A Third Approach," with a well-planned engagement on the one hand and a clear-cut scale of coercion to be applied against North Korea's wrongdoings, on the other hand, will be necessary.   7. The Obama administration needs to perform a bottom-up review not only of the North Korean nuclear problem, but also of the future status of North Korea in Northeast Asia. For this, preparation of an overall plan for the United States’ strategy toward Northeast Asia, will need to be done first. After North Korea's rocket launch and nuclear test, the United States administration will also initially focus on the policy means of economic sanctions and diplomatic punishment, while not pursuing any proactive dialogue, especially a bilateral one. But with a more long-term strategic plan in place, and a radically new way of thinking of the North Korean problem unlike that of the former the George W. Bush administration, negotiators will have a better chance to break through the current stalemate.   8. Search for new policy issues that will contribute to the project of "normalizing North Korea." This effort should be distinguished from simply rewarding the North for its behavior in the process of nuclear negotiations. The project of normalizing North Korea will include political, diplomatic, military, economic, and socio-cultural steps, which will be very much part of a state-building process. We need to convince the North that the common goal of South Korea and the United States is to further the successful long-term future of North Korea, so long as it functions within global norms. Projects might focus on long-term policy areas such as education, infrastructure, and state finance. South Korea and the United States, then, need to explore where their contributions will serve the most fundamental purposes.■