Paper
Douglas H. Paal
{
"authors": [
"Douglas H. Paal"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"Korean Peninsula"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia",
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"East Asia",
"North Korea"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
North Korea Poses No Real Threat to the World
Successive American administrations have failed to understand that the North Korea is not prepared to give up its nuclear weapons. The only hope for a shift in North Korea's behavior seems to be an eventual successor to Kim Jong Il.
Published on May 26, 2009
Source: RIA Novosti
Following North Korea’s underground test of a nuclear device on Monday, RIA Novosti spoke with Douglas H. Paal on the implications of the test.
A: The accumulated mistakes of successive administrations to understand that the North Koreans really want to have a nuclear weapon and that they are not prepared to trade it away. There are honest disputes among many people about whether or not North Korea was at one time or another time willing to trade its nuclear weapons. But I think that now, since 1990 through 1994, despite agreements that Clinton had as well as the various agreements under president Bush, it is now very clear that North Korea wants a status very similar to India, where they obtain recognition of their right to retain nuclear weapons, but otherwise normalize relations with their neighbors and the United States.
Q: So what is the solution to the problem: the six-party talks, or something else?
A: The six-party talks are probably the only mechanism that, if there was a desire by Pyongyang to reach a solution, could provide the means to solve it. However, the situation has deteriorated to the point now where the six-party talks have been rejected by the North and I think China would have a very hard time getting the North Koreans back to the six-party talks. And to answer your fundamental question, I think we need to see some kind of change in North Korea. They currently have a powerful domestic motivation for what they are doing and we need to see domestic motivations adjusted in order to get them to take seriously the concerns of their neighbors and the United States.
A: The six-party talks are probably the only mechanism that, if there was a desire by Pyongyang to reach a solution, could provide the means to solve it. However, the situation has deteriorated to the point now where the six-party talks have been rejected by the North and I think China would have a very hard time getting the North Koreans back to the six-party talks. And to answer your fundamental question, I think we need to see some kind of change in North Korea. They currently have a powerful domestic motivation for what they are doing and we need to see domestic motivations adjusted in order to get them to take seriously the concerns of their neighbors and the United States.
Q: Would it be right to say that as long as Kim is in power nothing will change?
A: That appears to be the case. Because it is a one-man leadership he can change things anytime he wants to. Now, they appeared to be focused on the succession arrangements, they are rapidly promoting the young son, they are creating arrangements around that son to have a kind of regency, in case Kim dies. To back him up they need the support of the military…and to demonstrate their importance to the country’s survival. The nuclear missile capabilities appear to be at the heart of that.
Q: Do you think North Korea poses a real threat or is it just a political game that they are playing?
A: I am a little different from some observers, because I think the threat is very small. North Korea lacks the industrial capacity to build large numbers of long-ranged missiles. They will not be able to build so many weapons as to become a strategic factor in the region. But I have to acknowledge that they do pose a threat to South Korea both through short-range missiles, and the possibility of using the nuclear weapons in the South, even though there are just a few, or artillery from the North to the South. That would be the end of the North regime if they were to attack the South, but they still have that capacity. Moreover, they may force the Japanese to reconsider their very modest defense program. The Japanese have the capacity to move to a nuclear weapon, I do not think they will, but they certainly can. Certainly, politically Japan will debate whether or not move to a nuclear weapon in the short term because of this development in North Korea. And they do feel threatened by the North Korean short-ranged missiles and nuclear weapon. But as I said, North Korea is an industrial midget and not really in a position to pose a large-scale threat to the neighborhood.
About the Author
Douglas H. Paal
Distinguished Fellow, Asia Program
Paal previously served as vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase International and as unofficial U.S. representative to Taiwan as director of the American Institute in Taiwan.
- America’s Future in a Dynamic Asia
- U.S.-China Relations at the Forty-Year MarkQ&A
- +1
Douglas H. Paal, Tong Zhao, Chen Qi, …
Recent Work
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.
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- Russia Is Approaching a Political CrossroadsCommentary
Two divergent trends—Putin’s hardline vision of how to prosecute the war in Ukraine, and a growing desire for change in Russia—could tear the regime apart.
Tatiana Stanovaya
- What Should We Take From Andrey Melnichenko’s Essay in the Economist?Commentary
Andrey Melnichenko’s essay offers no answer to the fundamental question of how, under any kind of negotiated settlement, Europe can protect itself from the Russian ressentiment that is inevitable in all scenarios except for an outright victory for Putin.
Leonid Bershidsky
- Parliamentary Elections in Occupied Ukraine Risk Backfiring for the KremlinCommentary
Despite unhappiness on the ground, Moscow is determined to use both carrot and stick to ensure there is record support for United Russia in occupied Ukraine.
Konstantin Skorkin
- Lukashenko’s Concessions to Kyiv Reflect Russia’s WeaknessCommentary
The recent damage inflicted by Ukrainian drones and missiles on Russia has made Belarus aware of its own vulnerabilities—and surprisingly amenable to Kyiv’s demands.
Artyom Shraibman
- Could Ukraine Succeed in Torpedoing Putin’s Approval Ratings?Commentary
It is not a phenomenon unique to Russia that the public of a country at war (even the aggressor) enduring airstrikes will not overturn its government but rather show solidarity with it and blame its woes on the enemy.
Vladislav Gorin
