Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The US needs a new North Korea policy: a nuclear weapons free zone

By Peter Hayes - posted Monday, 6 December 2010


Once a zone is established, bilateral and multilateral negotiations would continue with North Korea over the pace of its nuclear disarmament. But, as noted above, only the zone offers a clear way for North Korea to disarm and get in return sovereign guarantees from nuclear weapons states that it will not be attacked by nuclear weapons - a necessary condition for North Korea to disarm.

A nuclear weapon free zone including North Korea, even one armed at the outset with nuclear weapons, is a precondition of stabilising the nuclear weapons and risk of war and nuclear war in the Korean Peninsula and beyond. It would be welcomed by China and Russia. South Korea would likely support such a zone upon close examination of the costs and benefits it offers relative to continuation of the current strategic drift. The strongest obstacle to such a zone would likely be Japan, but even that could be overcome by astute negotiations between the United States and China as to what ancillary benefits a zone would create for the two leading strategic antagonists in the region.

Finally, putting a plausible and credible zone in place that would stabilise the situation, devalue North Korea's nuclear capacities, and put the six parties back onto the denuclearisation track, would require that radicals, liberals, moderates and conservatives of any political hue in the US Congress confront the full implications of rejecting negotiation with North Korea. This policy divergence would become very clear in the period of negotiating and exploring the parameters of a zonal treaty which would take at least a year.

Advertisement

Due to the stakes, such a treaty would have a good chance of securing passage, however unlikely it looks today.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

2 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Peter Hayes is Professor of International Relations, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Director, Nautilus Institute in San Francisco and of Nautilus@RMIT at RMIT's Research and InnovationSection.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Peter Hayes
Article Tools
Comment 2 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy