论文部分内容阅读
After months of heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula， North Korea began to show signs of openness to settling the nuclear matter through various platforms， including the six-party talks， which involve North Korea， South Korea， China， the United States， Russia and Japan. In the meantime， Pyongyang and Seoul restored communication lines and may soon reopen the joint Kaesong industrial complex. With these favorable new developments， all parties should focus their efforts on making progress in the denuclearization of Korean Peninsula.
Success
Four countries—South Africa， Kazakhstan， Ukraine and Belarus—have successfully sought denuclearization.
South Africa laid out its nuclear weapon agenda in the 1970s and went on to produce six nuclear warheads. However， under both domestic and international pressure brought on by its racial apartheid policy， the South African Government decided to remove its nuclear facilities in 1989. In September 1993， the International Atomic Energy Agency completed its nuclear in- spections in South Africa and confirmed the complete denuclearization of the country. Independently destroying one’s own nuclear weapons was dubbed the “South African denuclearization mode.”
Ukraine， Kazakhstan and Belarus became nuclear weapon nations following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. The numbers of nuclear warheads the three countries held were 5，000， 1，400 and 81 respectively. But in the mid-1990s， the three countries decided to dismantle their nuclear weapons and deliver them together with nuclear materials to Russia for disposal. Moving nuclear weapons to other countries for destruction was then named the “Ukrainian denuclearization mode.”
The two modes have different characteristics and backgrounds， but they can offer useful examples for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
The four countries initially believed that nuclear weapons would bring them national security and enhance their positions as military powers. But they soon found more harm was brought than good from their nuclear weapon programs. From the perspective of national security， a nuclear power status put those countries at risk. They not only needed to be concerned with the safety of their own nuclear facilities and weapons， but also became the potential nuclear attack targets of other nuclear powers. Moreover， from an economic perspective， the development and maintenance of nuclear arms were incredibly costly. They also invited the possibility of severe international sanctions， which could have a crippling effect on their economies. Since denuclearization， the four countries have made much progress in economic development. South Africa is now a promising emerging economy and a member of the influential BRICS group， which also includes Brazil， Russia， India and China. Likewise， the other three countries have been gradually moving away from their past problems of economic recession， social unrest and political instability. Kazakhstan， in particular， has made great strides in economic development. From 2000 to 2012， the average annual growth rate of Kazakhstan reached 8 percent， making it one of the three fastest-growing economies in the world next to China and India. Its per-capita GDP is as high as$12，000.
Though all four countries faced pressure from the international community， they chose to denuclearize voluntarily through political dialogue on the basis of mutual trust. After rounds of negotiations and consultations， they agreed to give up nuclear weapons completely and dealt with followup issues properly. In the meantime， the four countries all improved their diplomatic relations with the United States. They also received considerable compensation and assistance for economic development.
The experience of the four countries can serve as positive examples for North Korean leaders should they seek the path of denuclearization.
Chinese President Xi Jinping said when meeting with North Korean special envoy Choe Ryong Hae in May that denuclearization and long-lasting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula are common aspirations shared by all people in the region. North Korean should pay close attention.
The United States and South Korea should also draw upon the lessons mentioned above. The external security environment of North Korea is different from the four previously denuclearized countries. As North Korea faces a grim external security situation， persuading Pyongyang to pursue denuclearization will require Washington and Seoul to take major steps for cooperation.
New steps
Washington ought to take the initiative in easing military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula. U.S. troops on the peninsula and military exercises targeting North Korea are certainly not helpful for Pyongyang’s denuclearization. Military deterrence can only increase Pyongyang’s sense of insecurity and enhance its determination to pursue nuclear arms. The United States and South Korea are far superior to North Korea in terms of military might； therefore， it is reasonable for the former two to make conciliatory gestures first. In the meantime， Washington should coordinate actively with Moscow and Beijing， making concrete steps to guarantee the security of Pyongyang after its denucle- arization. Once Pyongyang feels confident in its own security， the denuclearization of the Northeast Asian country should not be far behind. Washington should also give up its double standards. The United States’ tacit consent to the nuclear development of India， Pakistan and Israel has not been good for denuclearization. Washington should adjust its nuclear policies and temper its accusations against North Korea.
In addition， South Korea should play its unique role in the denuclearization of the peninsula. Mutual trust between Pyongyang and Seoul is the political premise for settlement of the issue. New South Korean President Park Geun Hye called for North Korea’s denuclearization and enhanced mutual trust between the two countries when she was sworn in. South Korea needs to have consideration for North Korea’s security situation and refrain from attempts to demonize the latter. Though the behavior of Pyongyang is unstable， it has made much progress. Therefore， Seoul should offer more tolerance to its brother in the north for the sake of improving relations.
On the denuclearization of the peninsula， South Korea should not blindly follow in the footsteps of the United States because Washington’s East Asia strategy has other focuses apart from curbing North Korea. Seoul should become an independent new force in promoting the stability of Northeast Asia. It ought not to pursue security at the cost of the insecurity of Pyongyang. During her latest visit to China， President Park took a positive step toward the settlement of the Korean Peninsula issue when she reiterated Seoul’s commitment to a denuclearized peninsula. In the final analysis， the future of the peninsula is in the hands of South and North Korea.
Success
Four countries—South Africa， Kazakhstan， Ukraine and Belarus—have successfully sought denuclearization.
South Africa laid out its nuclear weapon agenda in the 1970s and went on to produce six nuclear warheads. However， under both domestic and international pressure brought on by its racial apartheid policy， the South African Government decided to remove its nuclear facilities in 1989. In September 1993， the International Atomic Energy Agency completed its nuclear in- spections in South Africa and confirmed the complete denuclearization of the country. Independently destroying one’s own nuclear weapons was dubbed the “South African denuclearization mode.”
Ukraine， Kazakhstan and Belarus became nuclear weapon nations following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. The numbers of nuclear warheads the three countries held were 5，000， 1，400 and 81 respectively. But in the mid-1990s， the three countries decided to dismantle their nuclear weapons and deliver them together with nuclear materials to Russia for disposal. Moving nuclear weapons to other countries for destruction was then named the “Ukrainian denuclearization mode.”
The two modes have different characteristics and backgrounds， but they can offer useful examples for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
The four countries initially believed that nuclear weapons would bring them national security and enhance their positions as military powers. But they soon found more harm was brought than good from their nuclear weapon programs. From the perspective of national security， a nuclear power status put those countries at risk. They not only needed to be concerned with the safety of their own nuclear facilities and weapons， but also became the potential nuclear attack targets of other nuclear powers. Moreover， from an economic perspective， the development and maintenance of nuclear arms were incredibly costly. They also invited the possibility of severe international sanctions， which could have a crippling effect on their economies. Since denuclearization， the four countries have made much progress in economic development. South Africa is now a promising emerging economy and a member of the influential BRICS group， which also includes Brazil， Russia， India and China. Likewise， the other three countries have been gradually moving away from their past problems of economic recession， social unrest and political instability. Kazakhstan， in particular， has made great strides in economic development. From 2000 to 2012， the average annual growth rate of Kazakhstan reached 8 percent， making it one of the three fastest-growing economies in the world next to China and India. Its per-capita GDP is as high as$12，000.
Though all four countries faced pressure from the international community， they chose to denuclearize voluntarily through political dialogue on the basis of mutual trust. After rounds of negotiations and consultations， they agreed to give up nuclear weapons completely and dealt with followup issues properly. In the meantime， the four countries all improved their diplomatic relations with the United States. They also received considerable compensation and assistance for economic development.
The experience of the four countries can serve as positive examples for North Korean leaders should they seek the path of denuclearization.
Chinese President Xi Jinping said when meeting with North Korean special envoy Choe Ryong Hae in May that denuclearization and long-lasting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula are common aspirations shared by all people in the region. North Korean should pay close attention.
The United States and South Korea should also draw upon the lessons mentioned above. The external security environment of North Korea is different from the four previously denuclearized countries. As North Korea faces a grim external security situation， persuading Pyongyang to pursue denuclearization will require Washington and Seoul to take major steps for cooperation.
New steps
Washington ought to take the initiative in easing military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula. U.S. troops on the peninsula and military exercises targeting North Korea are certainly not helpful for Pyongyang’s denuclearization. Military deterrence can only increase Pyongyang’s sense of insecurity and enhance its determination to pursue nuclear arms. The United States and South Korea are far superior to North Korea in terms of military might； therefore， it is reasonable for the former two to make conciliatory gestures first. In the meantime， Washington should coordinate actively with Moscow and Beijing， making concrete steps to guarantee the security of Pyongyang after its denucle- arization. Once Pyongyang feels confident in its own security， the denuclearization of the Northeast Asian country should not be far behind. Washington should also give up its double standards. The United States’ tacit consent to the nuclear development of India， Pakistan and Israel has not been good for denuclearization. Washington should adjust its nuclear policies and temper its accusations against North Korea.
In addition， South Korea should play its unique role in the denuclearization of the peninsula. Mutual trust between Pyongyang and Seoul is the political premise for settlement of the issue. New South Korean President Park Geun Hye called for North Korea’s denuclearization and enhanced mutual trust between the two countries when she was sworn in. South Korea needs to have consideration for North Korea’s security situation and refrain from attempts to demonize the latter. Though the behavior of Pyongyang is unstable， it has made much progress. Therefore， Seoul should offer more tolerance to its brother in the north for the sake of improving relations.
On the denuclearization of the peninsula， South Korea should not blindly follow in the footsteps of the United States because Washington’s East Asia strategy has other focuses apart from curbing North Korea. Seoul should become an independent new force in promoting the stability of Northeast Asia. It ought not to pursue security at the cost of the insecurity of Pyongyang. During her latest visit to China， President Park took a positive step toward the settlement of the Korean Peninsula issue when she reiterated Seoul’s commitment to a denuclearized peninsula. In the final analysis， the future of the peninsula is in the hands of South and North Korea.