|
Office of Research
Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction |
| March 27, 2001 South Korea's Hopes For North/South Accord Dimmed, But Not Dashed |
ditorialists in East Asia and Europe viewed South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's March 7 Washington visit as both a turning point in bilateral relations and another example of Bush administration policies that are more assertive and less conciliatory than those of its predecessor. These observers criticized the U.S. for "throwing cold water on the ongoing process of reconciliation and cooperation on the Korean Peninsula," but Seoul commentators held out hopes for the revival of the process. Most agreed that "President Kim is the one who will have to bear the consequences if his opening to North Korea is shut down." Some writers did, however, judge that Pyongyang's dilatory and extortionary tactics had much to do with Washington's adoption of a tougher stance.
Highlights follow:
'BUSH CAST CLOUD ON SEOUL'S SUNSHINE POLICY': South Korean commentators were unprepared for Washington's virtual dismissal of Seoul's conciliatory "Sunshine Policy" vis-a-vis Pyongyang. Seoul's moderate Hankook Ilbo declared that "the Bush administration's perceptions of North Korea, especially the harsh remarks by President Bush, were very shocking." Elsewhere, Germany's left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau likened the repudiation to having received "a slap in the face from the boss." Many Asian observers agreed with a writer in Hong Kong's independent South China Morning Post who stated, "It is hard to watch the most sensible foreign policy of the former Clinton administration being crumpled before our eyes." Another editorial in the same paper even claimed that the U.S. is trying to goad North Korea into reverting "to its prior belligerence, thus becoming the 'rogue state' needed to justify building a costly missile defense system." With an EU delegation slated to go to Korea expressly to support North/South reconciliation, Seoul opinion columns held out hope that the process can be revived, contending that "in this situation, the most important thing is for North and South Korea, as key players in the Korean Peninsula issue, to continue to pursue these hard-won reconciliatory exchanges in a consistent manner."
HERMIT KINGDOM HAS NO APOLOGISTS: While writers criticized the "unrepentant Cold Warriors" in the White House, many recognized why Washington remained skeptical of the North's commitment to peace. Tokyo's liberal Asahi noted Pyongyang's ominous announcement that "it could no longer suspend the testing of long-range missiles indefinitely." The South China Morning Post declared: "If Pyongyang truly wants more aid and engagement, it must learn the meaning of the word reciprocity." And Singapore's independent Straits Times chided the North's leadership: "There has to be an end to the nonsense of multi-million dollar payments and other pre-conditions for inspection 'rights'. It would also advance its cause if it stops the war-like talk of the past fortnight, and pursues constructive moves."
EDITOR: Stephen Thibeault
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 59 reports from 16 countries March 8-27, 2001. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
SOUTH KOREA: "Rumsfeld's Defense Strategy And The Korean Peninsula"
Independent Dong-a Ilbo editorialized (3/27): "If the United States should adopt a policy aimed at China, however, it would inevitably heighten tensions between the United States and China, which would directly affect the Korean Peninsula.... If a U.S. foreign policy, such as Secretary Rumsfeld's proposal, were adopted...we cannot rule out the possibility of new confrontations among the four neighboring powers. We are concerned about an imprudent struggle for hegemony among the superpowers."
"Need For Inter-Korean Reconciliatory Process To Continue"
An editorial in independent Joong-Ang Ilbo held (3/26): "The United States still seems to be fine-tuning its North Korea policy. However, even within the United States, criticism is being heard about the Bush Administration's hard-line approach toward North Korea, and the EU is showing strong signs of support for South Korea's engagement policy with North Korea. In this situation, the most important thing is for North and South Korea, as key players in the Korean Peninsula issue, to continue to pursue these hard-won reconciliatory exchanges in a consistent manner."
"Need To Send Clinton To North Korea As Special Envoy"
Research Fellow Kim Keun-sik of the Asia-Pacific Peace Foundation opined in independent Hankyoreh Shinmun (3/26): "Under the current circumstances, in which North and South Korea have dramatically improved their relations, the United States....is well aware that it cannot completely ignore the possibility of resuming the dialogue with North Korea opened by the Clinton administration. If the United States and North Korea correctly understand each other's demands and are willing to find some common ground through sincere dialogue, they could find an easy way to resume negotiations."
"Worrisome U.S. Neo-Cold War Approach"
Independent Hankyoreh Shinmun put forth this view (3/22): "Since the launch of the Bush administration, the United States has been creating friction with other nations. The major reason for this is that, without consideration for the situations faced by other nations, the members of President Bush's diplomatic and security team, most of whom are 'warriors of the Cold War era,' do not hesitate to make harsh and unilateral remarks. At the heart of this discord is the missile defense shield that the Bush Administration has been pursuing.... One of the reasons why U.S. diplomacy is being criticized at home and abroad is because, even after the Cold War has ended, the United States still clings to the obsolete perceptions and approaches of the Cold War era. This attitude, as illustrated by the U.S. push for missile defense, inevitably creates tension and confrontation with other countries. We are enjoying the hard-won opportunity for genuine peace on the Korean Peninsula for the first time in 50 years and fear that such a neo-Cold War approach by the United States might touch off an unnecessary crisis on the peninsula and in Northeast Asia. We urge President Bush and his foreign affairs and security team to shed their self-centered perceptions and adopt a more reasonable policy that suits this new world."
"Price For Diplomatic Blunder"
Senior Reporter Kim Young-hie observed in independent Joong-Ang Ilbo (3/21): "One of the justifications the United States cites for its missile defense is North Korea's Taepodong missile. So, if South Korea supports U.S. missile defense, this will conflict with the ongoing reconciliatory and cooperative move between North and South Korea. South Korea needs to maintain friendly and cooperative relations with China and Russia because their support is indispensable in advancing inter-Korean relations. As for the United States, which is well aware of these circumstances, opposition by North and South Korea to its missile defense can be seen as a 'Korean national conspiracy.'. South Korea might have to pay the highest price for its recent diplomatic blunder. Through a series of controversies in which it supported the ABM treaty, and a couple of days later, reversed its position and apologized, South Korea narrowed its own maneuvering room over U.S. missile defense. As a result, the U.S. spotted South Korea's weakness, and Russia felt betrayed by South Korea.. The U.S. missile defense plan stands in the way of South Korea's long-term plan to bring about peace on the Korean Peninsula. However, current U.S.-South Korea relations do not allow South Korea to oppose the U.S. missile plan. This is why South Korea should take a strategically ambiguous attitude toward it."
"Bush Regime's Excessive Tilt Toward the Right"
Washington correspondent Yoon Kuk-han judged in independent Hankyoreh Shinmun (3/21): "We are concerned about the two-month-old Bush administration's growing tilt toward the right. Shortly after his inauguration, President Bush advocated centrist conservatism that embraced the progressives and the conservatives.. Even during his election campaign, he had tried to get rid of his extreme conservative image, espousing 'compassionate conservatism.' Given his selection of cabinet members and his policies so far, however, we cannot find such efforts anymore.... The Bush administration has noticeably shown its interests lie in security issues, such as building high-tech weapons, rather than in mediating regional conflicts.... Despite strong opposition by China and Russia as well as its allies, the Bush administration has pushed ahead with its missile defense, which is in the interest of the big defense industry. We suspect that the Bush Administration's hard-line attitude toward North Korea might be closely linked to conservative and rightist forces."
"Need To Reormulate Framework Of North-South Talks"
Independent Joong-Ang Ilbo intoned (3/16): "The government should immediately recover from the shock delivered by the United States and begin to readjust the framework of inter-Korean negotiations by clarifying its position on North Korea policy. At the same time, the government should double its persuasion efforts with the United States. To do this, the government first needs to build confidence on the Korean Peninsula by maintaining its policy of reconciliation and cooperation with North Korea. On this foundation, the government should propose that substantial measures to ease military tensions on the peninsula be on the agenda of the inter-Korean negotiations. During his visit to Washington, President Kim Dae-jung should have
left military issues as a matter to be addressed by North and South Korea, rather than delegating them to the United States.. The government should step up its efforts to upgrade and develop the current inter-Korean talks, so that North and South Korea can discuss 'comprehensive measures,' including military issues, through the talks. This development can help South Korea sharpen its ability to persuade the United States. In addition, by successfully holding North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-il's visit to Seoul as scheduled, the government can increase the momentum for establishing reconciliation and peace between North and South Korea."
"Three Areas of U.S. Skepticism"
Washington Bureau Chief Song Hee-young argued in conservative Chosun Ilbo (3/15): "An atmosphere is brewing within the Bush team that President Kim should be a target of U.S. 'skepticism' along with North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-il. Some people cite President Kim's political career, which is tinged with strong nationalism, and his past criticism of the United States. Others suspect that the agreement between President Kim and Russian President Putin over the ABM Treaty was not merely a diplomatic mistake, but might reflect Kim's true intentions.... The worst-case scenario is that combined doubts about Kim Jong-il, Kim Dae-jung, and Korean economic reforms could turn the whole Korean Peninsula into a 'place of distrust.'"
"Call On U.S. Hawks"
Independent Hankyoreh Shinmun stressed (3/15): "We do not know whether the recent harsh remarks (by U.S. politicians) would actually affect the Bush administration's North Korea policy. However, it is obvious that since the launch of the Bush administration, U.S.-North Korea relations have not proceeded smoothly, throwing cold water on the ongoing process of reconciliation and cooperation on the Korean Peninsula.... If U.S. policy on the Korean Peninsula were to assume the confrontational nature of the Cold War era, as U.S. hawks suggest, and emerged as a serious obstacle to establishing reconciliation, cooperation, and peace on the Korean Peninsula, the United States would find it difficult to avoid strong...criticism from the Korean people."
"U.S. Unpreparedness"
Senior reporter Kim Young-hie observed in independent Joong-Ang Ilbo (3/14): "Where did President Kim's calculation go wrong? He underestimated how unprepared the U.S. side was for a summit at this time. The confusion created by Bush administration officials during his stay in Washington was truly a sight to see. The remarks by the secretary of state and the national security adviser, which came out on the same day, were in conflict. Furthermore, the secretary of state changed his remarks over three days, moving back and forth between a tough and a moderate line. President Kim became a victim of the Bush administration's early internal strife over North Korea policy.... Nevertheless, this does not mean that the ROK-U.S. summit failed.... The harsh and direct remarks by Bush and his security team are only a small piece of their unrefined thoughts, which may or may not be reflected in the soon-to-be determined U.S. North Korea policy. Bilateral policy coordination has just begun between the two countries."
"Six Principles Of U.S.' North Korea Policy"
Conservative Chosun Ilbo told its readers (3/13): "These six principles, which were published by the State Department following the ROK-U.S. summit, revealed considerable differences between Korea and the United States in their perception of North Korea and their policy direction. The key to these principles, which reflect the tough stance of the Defense Department more than the relatively moderate State Department position, is that the Bush administration will formulate a new North Korea policy through an overall review of its predecessor's policy.. It is obvious that while our North Korea policy is based on 'dialogue,' the U.S. policy is more focused on whether North Korea acts consistently with universal standards. In this situation, the government's North Korea policy will inevitably be affected, forcing it to change its policy considerably."
"North-South Ministerial Talks Are Drawing Attention"
Independent Hankyoreh Shinmun asserted (3/13): "No one can deny that the Bush administration's overall perception of North Korea is much more negative than we expected. This perception could place serious obstacles in the way of peace and national reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula."
"Our Hope To The Bush Administration"
Moderate Hankook Ilbo concluded (3/12): "The Washington ROK-U.S. summit left confusion and concern among opinion leaders in the United States and Korea. The Bush administration's perceptions of North Korea, especially the harsh remarks by President Bush, were very shocking. Even in the United States there are rising concerns about the Bush administration's hasty, hardline attitude and its inconsistent remarks.... The Bush administration should not forget that even though North Korea might be a regional matter in which the United States has strategic interests, the North Korean issue is a matter of life-and-death to the Korean people, and one on which their national security and future depends. So, we cannot help but consider the repeated, harsh remarks by President Bush and other high-ranking U.S. officials about North Korea during this summit and on its sidelines as a reflection of their disregard, not only for President Kim, but for the Korean people."
"Outcome Of President Kim's Washington Visit And His Task"
Independent Hankyoreh Shinmun opined (3/12): "We are very concerned about the Bush administration's negative perception of North Korea which seems to originate from distrust. For U.S.-North Korea relations to improve, the United States cannot pressure the North to make tangible changes while ignoring the possibility that North Korea has already changed and the results this change has so far produced. Trust is not established through unilateral demands, but through reciprocal efforts."
"Tasks Left To North, South Korea"
According to conservative Segye Ilbo (3/12): "The problem is that the United States' hardline attitude toward North Korea stems from the 'uncertain' and 'unpredictable' nature of North Korea, rather than from our engagement policy with the North. This means that we have no choice but to assume the difficult task of mediating strained and conflicting relations between the United States and North Korea. This is because, as long as North Korea does not change itself, we cannot expect U.S.-North Korea relations to improve; and without improved U.S.-North Korea relations, we cannot expect inter-Korean relations to further improve. Following the ROK-U.S. summit, it is obvious what North and South Korea need to do. North Korea should resolve doubts raised by South Korea and the United States about its conventional weapons as well as its nuclear and missile programs. As long as such doubts continue to exist, the United States' call to amend the Geneva Accord will gain more momentum.... The most important thing is for North Korea to convince the outside world that it is making its way toward openness and reform."
"Confusing U.S. North Korea Policy Direction"
Government-owned Daehan Maeil emphasized (3/10): "The direction of the Bush administration's policy toward North Korea is very confusing. Of course, this is understandable given that the working-level officials who will deal with North Korea policy have yet to be chosen, and because bilateral policy coordination between Korea and the United States is still
in its early stages. However, it is very frustrating to see Secretary of State Colin Powell, as the highest diplomat in the United States, change his remarks so easily. It is of no help in securing
peace on the Korean Peninsula that the U.S. government shows incoherent signs in setting up its North Korea policy and sends confused messages to North Korea. We hope that the United States immediately establishes its North Korea policy and completes the selection of its working-level officials, so that it can operate subsequent consultative channels agreed upon between South Korea and the United States on the basis of mutual bilateral cooperation."
"Bush Demands Verification Of Change In Korea"
Conservative Chosun Ilbo opined (3/9): "Aside from our side of the story that this summit served to establish trust between the two leaders, it revealed a big difference between South Korea and the United States when it comes to President Kim's North Korea policy and its strategic direction. As a result, once it begins working out the details, the Bush government could require the South Korean government to adjust its engagement policy, leaving room for possible conflicts in the future. These developments, in a word, stem from bilateral differences in the basic perception of the North Korean regime.... Consequently, an improvement in relations between North and South Korea, and between the United States and North Korea would depend solely on how transparently North Korea makes its way toward change and peace."
"Korea's North Korea Policy Put To The Test"
Independent Joong-Ang Ilbo editorialized (3/9): "The problem is that little progress was made regarding whether North Korea has changed or will change, a position President Kim hoped to persuade President Bush to accept through these summit talks.... During the summit, President Bush thwarted President Kim's efforts by clearly expressing his skepticism about establishing and pushing a North Korea policy that takes changes in North Korea as an established fact.... Therefore, to ensure peace on the Korean Peninsula by satisfying both the United States and the North, the government should first reassure the United States by carrying out its North Korea policy in a more transparent manner and by revamping its national security team."
"Conflicting North Korea Policy"
Independent Dong-a Ilbo held (3/9): "At their first summit meeting, President Kim and U.S. President George W. Bush saw eye-to-eye on the general issues related to the Korean Peninsula. However, their opinions clashed over the specific policy approaches to be taken. The opposing views of the two sides can potentially hinder cooperation between Korea and the United States.... We cannot help but focus on President Bush's call for enhanced transparency on North Korea's part. He stressed the need to solve nuclear issues and expressed his skepticism about the North Korean regime.... His remarks imply that North Korea is still on the list of 'rogue countries' and that improved U.S.-DPRK relations are unlikely unless the North Korean government voluntarily dispels mistrust. President Kim's summit meeting with Bush stands in stark contrast to the North Korean special envoy Jo Myung Rok's meeting with President Clinton last October."
"General Agreement Between Korean And U.S. Presidents And Their Task"
Independent Hankyoreh Shinmun pointed out (3/9): "The two leaders shared the view that the planned inter-Korean summit would positively contribute to ensuring stability in Northeast Asia as well as on the Korean Peninsula, brightening the prospective for North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-il's reciprocal visit to Seoul. In this sense, it is desirable that the two leaders made clear their agreement on North Korea policy, even if only in general terms. Of course, we should pay heed to the fact that President Bush expressed his negative views on North Korea during a joint news conference with President Kim.. It is highly likely that this perception will
have a negative impact on progress in inter-Korean and U.S.-North Korea relations. However, the lingering worries--that the two countries are in conflict over their North Korea policy and that the framework for our North Korea policy might be shaken to its root--proved to be overblown.. The United States has yet to decide its own North Korea policy. Nor has it established the line-up of working-level officials who will participate in negotiations with North Korea or execute substantial policies. Therefore, South Korea and the United States should engage in more in-depth discussions to further coordinate their North Korea policy."
"Reconfirmed Mutual Cooperation Between Bush And Kim Over North Korea Policy"
Conservative Segye Ilbo editorialized (3/9): "This summit served as an opportunity to dismiss some negative views in Korea that our government is in conflict with the U.S. government over North Korea policy, and to reconfirm there are no problems in fine tuning bilateral North Korea policy.. Even though deep doubts and caution about North Korea surfaced during this summit, there is no need to jump to conclusions that bilateral policy coordination in the future would run into problems. This is because given that the United States comprehensively recognized our North Korea policy, the 'concerns' and 'opposing views' that might happen between the two countries in the future could easily be addressed. Rather, we might be able to induce more concessions and compromise from North Korea by harmonizing our engagement policy with the hard-line U.S policy."
"After The U.S.-ROK Summit"
government-owned Daehan Maeil stated (3/9): "We hope that the U.S.-ROK summit talks will accelerate the thawing of the Cold War regime here on the Korean Peninsula. To do so, the United States and Korea must be creative in dividing the role of how to solve the Korean Peninsula issue, which is simultaneously a domestic and international concern. This means that Korea should take a leading role in improving inter-Korea relations, while the United States deals with North Korea's weapons of mass destruction. This two-pillar approach in negotiations with North Korea should proceed smoothly.... In future talks between the United States and Korea, Korea should remind the United States that in dealing with a so-called 'rogue state,' one should not only apply pressure, but also assistance in order to help it to become a responsible member of the international community."
"Stupid NMD Controversy"
Kang Byong-tae penned this editorial in moderate Hankook Ilbo (3/8): "The United States has justified its NMD as a tool to counter nuclear attacks from 'rogue states' like North Korea and possible accidental attacks from Russia and China. However, it is inconceivable that North Korea would launch 'suicidal attacks' on the United States, even if it obtained nuclear weapons.... The impact of NMD on our national interests is much more serious and far-reaching than in Europe. It would be stupid to blindly cling to the Korea-U.S. alliance without thinking of this situation."
NORTH KOREA: "U.S. Secretary Of State's Remarks Flailed"
Pyongyang's KCNA filed this piece (3/26): "Recently U.S. Secretary of State Powell insisted that not only the 'missile issue' of the DPRK but the 'issue of reduction of its conventional military forces' should be discussed. [Worker's Party daily] Rodong Sinmun in a signed commentary today dismisses his remarks as preposterous, shameless and brigandish sophistry. It says: 'The DPRK has been exposed to the military threat of the U.S. imperialists for scores of years. It is an invariable ambition of the United States to destroy socialism in Korea. This U.S. assertion is aimed at further complicating the DPRK-U.S. dialogue and sparking acute confrontation between them. His remarks also disclose Washington's sinister
intention to completely disarm the DPRK in a bid to crush it with ease. The U.S. talk about the 'issue of reduction of conventional military forces' is nothing but sophism intended to justify the U.S. troops' occupation of South Korea and its arms buildup and the other side of the war scenario to have a military edge and strike the DPRK by surprise on its basis. His remarks...are totally illogical and unreasonable. If the United States keeps insisting on this new issue in a bid to put pressure upon the DPRK and wring concession from it, it will only render the situation more complicated."
"U.S. Hostile Policy Toward DPRK Under Fire"
Pyongyang's official KCNA fulminated (3/15): The U.S. imperialist warmongers have become all the more pronounced in their hostile policy towards the DPRK to isolate and stifle it, while groundlessly pulling it up. In this regard Rodong Sinmun today in a signed commentary says: The United States takes a defiant attitude towards the situation on the Korean peninsula which began witnessing a sign of detente. This clearly indicates its aggressive nature and ambition to stifle the DPRK by force of arms and its black-hearted intention to torpedo the dialogue between the north and south and put the brake on the movement of the Korean nation for reunification.... The U.S. imperialists' brigandish 'policy of strength' can never go down with the Korean people who value the dignity and soveregnity of the nation more than their life and soul."
"Dangerous U.S.-Japan Military Nexus Under Fire"
Pyongyang's official KCNA argued (3/15): The new U.S. administration is getting feverish in its efforts to tighten its military alliance with Japan. The U.S.-Japan military nexus is aimed to realize their ambition to invade the DPRK at any cost.... The administration singled out closer military alliance with Japan as a main link in the chain of the moves to carry out the strategy to stifle the DPRK and is now moving in this direction. But the international community is opposed to the U.S.-Japan military nexus, terming it a development detrimental to the detente on the Korean peninsula. It is foolish and rash for the United States to try to stifle the DPRK through the military tie-up with Japan. The tightened U.S.-Japan military nexus will only compel the Korean people to heighten revolutionary vigilance and increase the DPRK's self-reliant defence capability.
JAPAN: "Issues 'Too Heavy' For PM Mori To Shoulder?"
Liberal Asahi observed (3/16): "There is skepticism over whether 'politically dead' Prime Minister Mori could have a substantive discussion with President Bush in Washington on March 19 concerning such issues as the DPRK and NMD deployment. Following President Bush's meeting with South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, Japanese government officials suggested that Japan needs to 'get a grip on' Washington's tough new stance toward Pyongyang."
"Skepticism Must Be Eliminated"
An editorial in liberal Asahi opined (3/9): "President Bush expressed 'skepticism' about DPRK leader Kim Jong Il during his summit with South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, revealing a new approach--different from the South's 'sunshine policy'--toward the North. Bush remained cautious throughout the summit about the resumption of a dialogue with North Korea, as urged by Mr. Kim. But there is no basic difference in the U.S. and South Korean diplomatic approaches toward Pyongyang, as President Bush later expressed support for the 'sunshine policy' and the agreed framework on the suspension of the North's nuclear arms development. In what was believed to be a move reacting to President Bush's hard-line stance, Pyongyang said last week that it could no longer suspend the testing of long-range missiles indefinitely.
"The North must realize that its brinkmanship diplomacy is only deepening international distrust. The Bush administration should also consider the diplomatic achievements by former President Clinton in dealing with the DPRK. The Bush White House should consider sending a special presidential envoy to Pyongyang."
"U.S., South Korea Should Work More Closely With Regard To DPRK"
Business-oriented Nihon Keizai held (3/9): "President Bush's expression of 'skepticism' of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is expected to have a subtle effect on South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's 'sunshine policy' toward North Korea. The North, reacting to the stalemate in ties with the United States, is normalizing relations with European nations and strengthening
ties with China and Russia, both of which are at odds with the United States over its proposed NMD deployment. Should U.S. and South Korean positions toward the North fall into disarray, it would complicate the situation on the Korean Peninsula, to which Japan cannot be indifferent. Hopefully, the 'DPRK cards' possessed by both the United States and South Korea will be effective in dealing with the North. In light of the fact that South Korean President Kim was the first Asian leader to meet with President Bush, we cannot help but realize how light and superficial Japan's diplomatic presence is. Japan is just sitting tight and watching developments on the Peninsula."
"U.S.-Japan-South Korean Alliance More Important Than Before"
An editorial in top-circulation, centrist Yomiuri observed (3/9): "During his talks with South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, President Bush expressed strong skepticism of DPRK leader Kim Jong Il. The North Koreans hold the key to whether the United States will resume negotiations with them. We strongly urge the North to implement the U.S.-DPRK nuclear accord and suspend missile test-firings. Close and strong policy coordination among the United States, Japan and South Korea has become more important than ever before in order not to send the North Koreans a 'mixed signal.' The three allies should resume policy coordination talks at an early date."
CHINA: "U.S. Secretary Of State Powell In A Quandary"
Yang Jiao commented in Beijing Youth Daily (Beijing Qingnianbao, 3/15): "U.S. Secretary of State Powell has been in a quandary ever since the new administration took office. Hardly had he expressed willingness to have a dialogue with the DPRK than President Bush announced a tougher stance toward that nation. Scarcely had he made commitments to peacekeeping in Kosovo and a more relaxed Iraq policy than Cheney and the Pentagon struck a discordant note. It seems that Bush's men have simply not taken the experienced Gulf War general seriously. The diplomatic chaos has had a negative impact on the DPRK issue.... Just as a senior expert of the New York Times has put it: 'Probably George W. Bush does not know whose advice he should follow."
"Bush Cools Off DPRK-U.S. Relationship"
Yan Feng commented in the Xinhua Daily Telegraph (3/11): "All signs show that the Bush administration is likely to adopt a tougher policy toward the DPRK. By visiting the United States, Kim Dae Jung intends to exert his influence on the formation of Bush's policy toward the DPRK, in a hope that the United States may continue to improve its relationship with DPRK"
"Coordinate Policy, Clarify Stance"
Ren Yujun commented in the official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 3/12): "Analysts say that Kim Dae-jung's U.S. visit represents a mixture of truths and feints. The
conclusion the United States has drawn from his visit is: He is neither for nor against the American missile defense plan."
"U.S. Puts Forward Harsh Claims On North Korea"
Pro-PRC Macau Daily News had this editorial (3/11): "Following the release of information about the meeting between South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and U.S. President George W. Bush, the new U.S. administration's North Korea policy is becoming clear. The differences between the United States and South Korea on North Korean issues are more obvious. These differences will affect the process of relaxing tensions on the Korean Peninsula and the situation in the entire northeastern Pacific region.... One thing that surprised international community is that the Bush administration has some reservations about the U.S.-North Korean
agreement regarding the freezing of North Korea nuclear plans, which was implemented early in 1994. The United States has requested North Korea to change one of the clauses. This so-called 'new strategy' is actually a fall back in America's North Korea policy--going backward to the Cold War era."
HONG KONG: "U.S. Determined To Make An Enemy"
Jonathan Power remarked in the independent South China Morning Post (3/23): "It is hard to watch the most sensible foreign policy of the former Clinton administration being crumpled before our eyes. Particularly so when it is being done for the most malevolent of reasons: to resurrect an enemy that had decided to make its peace with America so that the advocacy of missile defense for America can be seen to be based on a real rogue-missile threat rather than, as hitherto, a make-believe one. President George W. Bush is being given the benefit of the doubt with his new hardline policy towards North Korea, even as he overrides his more-farsighted Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Mr. Powell had tried to get in on record - before the 'Gang of Two', Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, could bend the novice president's ear to say otherwise--that the Bush administration intended 'to pick up where [former] president Clinton and his administration left off.'.... The outcome of this potentially deadly dual in the highest echelons of the U.S. government will probably determine whether we have peace in our time in East Asia, or not."
"Bush Casts Cloud On Seoul's 'Sunshine'"
Greg Torode wrote in the independent South China Morning Post (3/10): "There were many forecasts of clouds on the horizon for South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's 'Sunshine Policy' of rapprochement with his northern enemy following his meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush. But the reports of bad weather in the offing are far from confirmed. The meeting confirmed the effective shelving of any immediate talks with Pyongyang amid an array of concerns held by the United States. But the edgy policy of the new Bush administration toward Pyongyang remains very much a work in progress, and initial caution after the heady last days of President Bill Clinton was always to be expected. As suspicious as the new Republicans are, there are signs they are not yet speaking with one voice. Some spirited internal debates lie ahead before a policy review is completed. And White House sources suggest that even the date when this review will be finished has yet to be hammered out."
"Bush Gets Tough"
The independent South China Morning Post's editorial maintained (3/9): "President George W. Bush has taken a hard look at the North Korean policy he inherited from Bill Clinton and clearly does not trust it. As a result, just where that leaves South Korea's policy of seeking rapprochement with the North remains unclear.... The skeptics are already calling it a cynical effort to guarantee that North Korea reverts to its prior belligerence, thus becoming the 'rogue
state' needed to justify building the costly missile defense system Mr. Bush wants so much to have. But there is a less duplicitous possibility. So far, the North has demanded much foreign aid while giving almost nothing in return, a few symbolic gestures aside. The border between the two Koreas remains as over-armed as ever, with Pyongyang refusing even to discuss ways of reducing the military threat. It is this refusal which explains most of Mr. Bush's suspicions and his talk of needing to verify agreements. So this could be a bit of brinkmanship. If Pyongyang truly wants more aid and engagement, it must learn the meaning of the world reciprocity."
PHILIPPINES: "U.S. Policy Shift Puts Seoul's Kim In A Bind"
Julius Fortuna noted in the independent Manila Times (3/15): "The result of this summit places South Korea in a bind because it wants the peace process to proceed. After years of being
used as an instrument in the Cold War, it now wants to have peace with its brethren in the north. How South Korea will react to this virtual dictation by Washington depends on how Kim Dae Jung can galvanize his country for reunification.... The new American position is retrogressive because it wants to revive the tensions of the Cold War that the world has rejected."
SINGAPORE: "Koreas Tied Up In Knots"
The pro-government Straits Times asserted (3/27): "It is becoming apparent that the Korean detente, into which so much has been invested, is stalling.... Any precipitate [U.S.] move would not help the Korean de-escalation. Scuttling the 1994 agreement, which admittedly is remote, will set the US off against its allies Japan and South Korea, parties to the deal.... As far as tinkering with the question of verification. This is fair. Pyongyang has to consider a quid pro quo, for its own sake. There has to be an end to the nonsense of multi-million dollar payments and other pre-conditions for inspection 'rights'. It would also advance its cause if it stops the war-like talk of the past fortnight, and pursues constructive moves."
"Bush, Kim Cross-Eyed"
The pro-government Straits Times declared (3/16): "President George W. Bush does not trust North Korea and its leader Kim Jong II--period.... Mr. Kim went to Washington fully expecting the new president to take a cautious line on North Korea, while his administration does a 'thorough' policy review. What he encountered was an idiosyncratic display from his host that bordered on whimsy.... Secretary Powell, had raised expectations of a conciliatory line before the Kim-Bush meeting when he said the U.S. was inclined to pick up on talks with Pyongyang where the Clinton people had left off. Then the president went bushwhacking, all but erasing the path Mr. Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had marked. President Kim is the one who will have to bear the consequences if his opening to North Korea is shut down or in any way impeded by the Americans. It was a gross, regrettable thing to have done, sending away a martyr to peace not only embarrassed, but also possibly diminished back home."
"To School For Bush"
The pro-government Straits Times stated (3/8): "It is possible--certainly, it is a wish--the [Bush administration's] novices and unrepentant cold warriors among them will come away from the Kim meetings with a sharper focus of Asia's place in the global scheme and, perhaps, abandon some curious notions. One such notion--reflex might be more precise a word--is that a duplicitous North Korea could never change its spots. This is the impression that has been conveyed by Mr. Bush's Washington.... Mr. Kim's...his task is to ascertain whether the Bush administration's disdain for the Bill Clinton tenure will mean a wholesale rejection of his
reaching out to Pyongyang. That effectively will mean rejection of Mr. Kim's time frame in achieving detente with the North. It would be an unmitigated disaster for Asia, and for the United States' future security dealings with Asia, were this to happen."
THAILAND: "Battling To Stop Dangerous Weapons"
The lead editorial of the top-circulation, moderately conservative, English-language Bangkok Post commented (3/11): "Japan played host last week to an important new round of security talks.... Such meeting bring potential adversaries together. But the empty place at the table for all such meetings in our region belongs to North Korea. Pyongyang is a world-class developer of missiles, and a dangerous salesman on the world markets. North Korea is both arrogant in its weapons program and careless in its choice of customers. For nearly two years, since firing a missile directly over Japan without warning, Pyongyang has agreed to stop live weapons testing. Recently it has threatened to resume tests and restart its development of nuclear
weapons. Clearly, this aims at intimidating East Asia, including our ASEAN region."
VIETNAM: "Cracks In South Korean-U.S. Relations"
Hong Ky wrote in the army's Quan Doi Nhan Dan (3/9): "Kim Dae Jung tried hard to convince the Bush administration to make a commitment to pursue the Clinton administration's policies on North Korea, in order to create favorable conditions which can further the reconciliation process in the Korean Peninsula, but he has failed.... South Korea also reacted cautiously to U.S. proposed National Missile Defense plan, and this move by a 'traditionally close ally' of the United States has more than surprised it.... The United States and South Korea have an over-half-century-old alliance, therefore, the recent disagreements are not so great and fundamental that they can damage relations between the two countries. They are also bound tightly to each other by mutual strategic interests and South Korea still totally relies on the United States for a security assurance. However, the recent disagreements, though not very severe, still demonstrate that there are visible cracks in the U.S.-South Korea alliance."
BRITAIN: "Courting Korea"
The independent Financial Times observed (3/27): "By agreeing in principle to dispatch a high-level delegation to North Korea this spring, the European Union has signaled that it intends to become more involved in one of Asia's most explosive flashpoints. North Korea's leaders will be quietly celebrating in Pyongyang. They have been pushing for the Europeans to play a mediating role to offset the Bush administration's tougher line. For that reason alone, the European initiative will give pause for thought in Washington.... The U.S. worry is that the EU intervention will encourage North Korean 'barter diplomacy', whereby Pyongyang extracts huge sums from the United States, Japan and South Korea for minimal concessions on its nuclear and military programs. That is why President Bush argued for realism when he met President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea in Washington.... At a time of tension, it makes sense to keep lines open to dangerous regimes. But not at the price of division between the United States and Europe."
"Taiwan Arms Sale Holds Key To U.S.-China Ties"
Stephen Fidler stressed in the independent Financial Times (3/14): "The Republican staffers said that conservatives had been comforted last week by Mr. Bush's skeptical comments about the value of rapidly resuming negotiations with North Korea over ending its missile program. The president 'assuaged a lot of fears that he may be just regenerating Clinton policies' said one."
GERMANY: "Fear And Sunshine"
Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau noted (3/27): "In less than a week, South Korean head of state Kim Dae Jung has exchanged half of his ministers. The double exchange in the foreign and defense ministry points to the double pressure which is currently affecting Seoul's foreign
policy. On the one hand, the U.S. administration has to be appeased, because Kim and his old team would like to evade the hot missile defense issue.... On the other hand, Seoul cannot give up on its policy of détente. This much is made clear by the appointment of Lim Dong Won, the previous head of the secret service and a man active in North-South policy for more than a decade. In the new cabinet, he is the most outstanding 'sunshine' preacher--no matter how low his profile may be in other areas--and thus Kim's closest advisor in this matter. To make it through this difficult phase of foreign policy the country needs domestic stability. And this is what is lacking."
"Korean Crisis"
Herbert Kremp maintained in right-of-center Die Welt of Hamburg (3/15): "North Korea has interrupted its dialogue with the South without scheduling a new date for talks. It is a reaction to the skepticism with which President Bush reacted to Kim Dae Jung's policy of détente during their meeting in Washington. The Americans are slowing down the speed of negotiations [because] Pyongyang keeps delaying a halt to the production and deployment of missiles...[and] is threatening to break the 1994 treaty about freezing the production of weapons-grade plutonium.... Secondly, the Bush team considers the strategy and position of Kim Jong Il and his military to be unclear, and Kim Dai Jung to be naïve and weak.... Third: Neither a stabilizing regional network nor an arms control mechanism is in place to accompany the reunification of the two Koreas. The call for a pull-out of U.S. troops would be the first result that one could expect [in case of reunification].... The Pax Americana would come to an end in a place where China, Russia, and Japan meet as rivals. What would follow?"
"Change Of Course"
Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger judged in an editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (3/9): "South Korean President Kim Dae Jung could not expect that his visit to Washington would make President Bush start cheering about Clinton's North Korea policy. Nevertheless, the fact that Bush decided to suspend all talks with the communist power and view the North only as a threat must be a setback for Kim Dae Jung. He must also consider it a veiled warning not to lose his sense of reality while pursuing his 'sunshine' policy. This disagreement could create dangerous tensions. Kim Dae Jung is seeking dialogue with the North and considers a regional missile defense expendable. Bush is demanding that Pyongyang stop proliferating weapons of mass destruction right away and without receiving advance rewards. It is a well known fact that Bush considers a missile defense system necessary.... Bush's change of course with respect to North Korea also has domestic consequences. Secretary of State Powell appeared to like Clinton's regional policy. The fact that Bush himself has reined in Powell now is grist to the mill of critics in his own camp who accuse Powell of not being tough enough."
"A Slap In The Face From The Boss"
Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (3/9) noted in an editorial: "At some point, the Bush administration says, it will continue the dialog with North Korea--when conditions have been met and everything has been checked and confirmed. Washington is the one to decide when all of this will take place. Of course, South Korea may continue its policy of détente. Factually, however, Bush is leaving his ally Kim Dae Jung out in the cold. At the same time, Bush reined in his secretary of state. A day earlier, Powell had alluded to the possibility of the United States' continuing Clinton's policy and taking additional steps in the direction of North Korea. Kim's
cool reception by Bush was not only motivated by the South Korean leader's more positive perception of North Korean President Kim Jong-Il. After all, such differences of perception can happen. More importantly, Bush told Kim Dae Jung that he had no intention of having his favorite toy, missile defense, and its offshoot, theater missile defense, spoiled by some kind of détente. The boss has spoken."
ITALY: "U.S.-North Korea, Return To The Past"
New York correspondent Maurizio Molinari filed for centrist, influential La Stampa (3/8): "The United States considers North Korea to be a 'threat' and, for the time being, has no intention of resuming negotiations with Kim Jong-II's communist regime. To the contrary, all progress made in the past by the Clinton administration in the negotiations with Pyongyang will be 'subject to full revision.' This is the position of the new U.S. administration as President George W. Bush has outlined it to South Korean President Kim Dae Jung during a meeting at the White House yesterday. In his first difficult political meeting--after those with friendly nations such as Mexico, Canada and Great Britain--the new American president has chosen the line of firmness.... Bush slowed down Kim's enthusiasm towards the last stronghold of Stalinist orthodoxy and urged him to exert caution.... For Bush, North Korea is an 'rogue state' and represents 'a danger for America,' since its long-range missiles are the most direct threat of non-conventional attacks against American territory. The anti-missile shield project stems exactly from the need to defend America from such military actions."
"Bush: 'Pyongyang Is A Threat'"
Mario Platero wrote from New York for leading business Il Sole-24 Ore (3/8): "President Bush's message to South Korean President Kim Dae Jung could not have been clearer: North Korea continues to be a threat, and the United States will resume negotiations to normalize relations--started by the Clinton administration--only after a full review of U.S. policy toward the Kim Jong II regime. While a difference of opinion between the Bush Administration and South Korea was expected, nobody expected it to emerge so clearly. Yesterday's meeting was for Bush a sort of initial test on a still unresolved international problem, one on which the dialogue with interlocutors appears to be especially difficult."
RUSSIA: "Who Will Dominate Asia?"
Andrei Ivanov said in reformist business-oriented Kommersant (3/23): "[Both the United States and China] showed a desire to develop relations. They also revealed inability to remove their differences on the key issue of who will dominate Asia. Washington does not consider China a
friend. President Bush said the other day that China is a strategic rival rather than a strategic partner. On the one hand, Washington wants to appear tough on countries that do not meet democratic standards--it lists among them China and Russia, along with Iraq and North Korea. On the other hand, Washington holds a realistic view of the role China, with its growing economy and military might, is eager to play in Asia."
"Bush May Hinder Peace Process"
Yevgeny Verlin held in reformist Vremya MN (3/12): "The Republican administration, without a doubt, wants no agreement with North Korea for the simple reason that it needs that chief 'scarecrow' to justify the deployment of the notorious missile defense. Texan guy Bush's skepticism with regard to Asian sphinx Kim Jong Il, unless overcome, may seriously complicate the peace process on the Korean Peninsula. Pyongyang's rocket program is a real threat to South Korea and parts of Japan. Apparently, its development will continued continue as the most rational response to South Korea's plan to update its air force."
KAZAKHSTAN: "George Bush Is Not A Peacemaker"
Independent, bi-weekly Globe indicated (3/21): "These days Bush definitely is setting his priorities, and to achieve them he is ready to pay the price on secondary--in the view of the White House--issues. In practice, this means giving up peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East and on the Korean peninsula.... With regard to the Koreas, his policy may mean a regression to the Cold War era. Even for Washington's ally, Seoul, the change has come as an unpleasant surprise, as the North may collapse in quite an 'unpeaceful' way. Through his harsh statements, George Bush has limited the paths to a mutually acceptable integration of the Korean peninsula."
POLAND: "What Is Bush Aiming At?"
Zygmunt Slomkowski opined in leftist Trybuna (3/16): "It is difficult to understand why Washington is giving up a real chance to remove Pyongyang's missile threat at the negotiating table, and is entering instead the path of a political confrontation. There is only one explanation for this. Namely, just as the only solution the U.S. administration thinks possible in Iraq is the removal of Saddam [Hussein], so too with...Kim Jong Il. Seoul's dialog [with North Korea] actually legitimizes the latter, which is something the Bush team does not want to agree to."
CANADA: "Bite Me"
The tabloid-style Ottawa Citizen (3/19) editorialized: "It's an axiom of international relations that you don't call the people you have to deal with rude names if you're serious about negotiations. So perhaps the latest name-calling by North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, labelling the United States a 'cannibals' nation' should clue everybody in that even 50 years after the Korean War the communist dictatorship has no real interest in peace and little grip on reality. The rant followed President George W. Bush's reasonable skepticism about North Korea's 'transparency' in abiding by an agreement to halt 'nuclear research' activities. That North Korea would reaction with such fury suggests Mr. Bush might be onto something. Perhaps North Korea is merely revealing its true colours went confronted by a president who, unlike his predecessor, refuses to appease tyrants."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
