Edition

The Right Way to Play the China Card on North Korea

IN THIS ISSUE: The Right Way to Play the China Card on North Korea, U.S. Diplomat Blasts China and Russia for 'Holding the Hands' of North Korean Leader, Experts: North Korea's Missile Was a 'Real ICBM'-and a Grave Milestone, European Nuclear Weapons Program Would Be Legal, German Review Finds, Australia and Nuclear Submarines, Scholars Demand Moon Halt His Nuclear Policy

Published on July 6, 2017

The Right Way to Play the China Card on North Korea

Jake Sullivan and Victor Cha | Washington Post

North Korea’s July 4 intercontinental ballistic missile test raises hard questions for the Trump administration: Is there any path forward that does not lead either to war or to living with a nuclear North Korea that can hit the continental United States? Can effective diplomacy prevent the “major, major conflict” that President Trump has talked about? There is growing recognition that the old playbook won’t work. Reviving old agreements North Korea has already broken would be fruitless. The Chinese won’t deliver on meaningful pressure. And a military strike could lead to all-out war resulting in millions of casualties. We need to consider a new approach to diplomacy.

U.S. Diplomat Blasts China and Russia for 'Holding the Hands' of North Korean Leader

David Nakamura and Emily Rauhala | Washington Post

The top U.S. diplomat at the United Nations blasted Russia and China on Wednesday for "holding the hands" of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, as the Trump administration struggled to respond to Pyongyang’s latest ballistic missile test.

Experts: North Korea’s Missile Was a ‘Real ICBM’ — and a Grave Milestone 

Joby Warrick | Washington Post

The North Korean missile that soared high above the Sea of Japan on Tuesday was hailed by state-run television as a “shining success.” But to U.S. officials, it was a most unwelcome surprise: a weapon with intercontinental range, delivered years before most Western experts believed such a feat possible.

European Nuclear Weapons Program Would Be Legal, German Review Finds

Max Fisher | New York Times

A review recently commissioned by the German Parliament has determined that the country could legally finance the British or French nuclear weapons programs in exchange for their protection. The European Union could do the same if it changed its budgeting rules, the study found. The German assessment comes after months of discussion in Berlin over whether Europe can still rely on American security assurances, which President Trump has called into question. Some have called for considering, as a replacement, a pan-European nuclear umbrella of existing French and British warheads. 

Australia and Nuclear Submarines

Mark Hibbs | Arms Control Wonk

Australia for many reasons is an exceptional country, including in the nuclear policy area: Nuclear weapons were tested on Australian territory, Australia owns intellectual property for enriching uranium, and uranium mined in the outback today fuels the world’s peaceful nuclear applications, but Australia has no nuclear weapons and it produces no nuclear electricity. And so far, Australia has no nuclear submarines.

Scholars Demand Moon Halt His Nuclear Policy

Korea Herald

A group of university professors and scholars demanded on Wednesday that President Moon Jae-in halt his push to scrap the building of new nuclear power plants and phase out those in operation. "(The government) should immediately halt the push to extinguish the nuclear energy industry that provides cheap electricity to the general public," the group said in a press release. During a ceremony in Busan last month to mark the permanent shutdown of the country’s first nuclear reactor, the Kori-1, the chief executive who took office on May 10 said his government will scrap all existing plans for new nuclear power plants and won’t extend operations of old reactors nearing the end of their initial life cycles.

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.