In the first session, we discussed the current status of the nuclear programs in the Korean Peninsula which are in fluidity including the prospects and the future desirable postures. We listened to the presentation by seven panelists followed by the discussion. In comparison 1 year ago, there were the dramatic changes in the Korean Peninsula including the DPRK and inter-Korean relationship and U.S.-DPRK relations. It seems that across there is a favorable turnaround, but when it comes to the specific progression not much result is yet seen. It is necessary to continue to monitor whatʼs going to happen very carefully. That was the concurrence of the panelists.
But DPRK indeed dramatically changed its gear and started the summit talk with the United States. That has contributed to the improvement of the situation. I am pretty sure that was a good opportunity to promote strongly the denuclearization in the peninsula. About the future prospect, some said ʻdifficult to succeed, easy to failʼ by one of the panelists. There are lots of intertwined and tangled factors, pull one by one very carefully we have to tackle each issue. This cannot be realized in a short period of time and if weʼre going to be too impatient there is the high possibility that we might fail.
Some of the panelists said, the speed and pace of the changes of today is too quick, there was a concern.
But at the same time, the Trump administration of the United States cannot be said rock solid. Therefore,
DPRK is quite aggressive in accelerating their pace in negotiating with President Trump.
About the changes in the posture by DPRK, there has not been change in their basic policy when it comes to the securities and maintenance of the regime, but rather on the part of the United States and corresponding the changes to DPRK there seem to be the changes in the specific policies. What has been changed is the U.S. and South Korean policies some people said. In order to maintain the securities and regime of DPRK at their cost they resorted to the development of nuclear programs. It is inconceivable that they relinquish as a program very easily therefore very few prospects to realize denuclearization in the short period of time. But at the same time, the time is needed but still the security for the country and maintenance of the regime if they are convinced those can be done without resorting to the nuclear weapons it is possible to denuclearize in the Korean Peninsula. There were lots of such opinions.
About the denuclearization process in the Korean Peninsula, we need to build up a give and take relationship. Itʼs not that the United States unilaterally asked for the relinquishment of the nuclear weapons to DPRK. If DPRK starts to close the missile-related facilities and nuclear weapon facilities and dissemble them and a part of the sanction should be lifted in correspondence to the level of the actions of DPRK. We need to take the corresponding actions in the international community.
For DPRK, the President Moon of South Korea is quite positive. There is the lack of, however, coordination and collaboration between the three parts; Japan, the United States and South Korea and United States is not necessarily given the full support to the moves by the South Korea. Thatʼs one of the concerning situation. The end of the armistice in the Korean Peninsula that is the problem of two Koreas. But when it comes to denuclearization and stability of the Korean Peninsula this gives impact on East Asia and the earth as a whole. International countermeasures have to be considered.
One of the proposals and recommendations, Beckner has been very honestly working on the establishment of Northeast Asia nuclear free zone in order to solve the problem in the Korean Peninsula not only the agreement among the parties concerned, it is a must to institutionalize the denuclearization and the stability of peace. Some kind of regional mechanism is needed which is lacking right now in Northeast Asia. I believe nuclear free zone can be considered as one of such core measures. In order to promote this to give the safeguard and verification for the denuclearization there should be the coordinating body working on this. About the future negotiations, if youʼre going to focus on only inter-Korean situation there is the heightening of the concern on the part of the United States and also for China, they might be sandwiched by dilemma between China-DPRK relationship and U.S.-Sino relationship and also Magnolia is one good example because they are successful in establishing their single nation nuclear free state and they can be acting as the intermediary to promote such zone to be established in this area.
As for the Japanese involvement, because of the rapid changes in this area, it seems that Japan was put outside of the mainstream discussion. But Japan should consider itself as the important player, not just to follow the policies of the United States.
We need to be involved very strongly about the disarmament and security maintenance in this region. That was the suggestion and point raised and also if we are able to found Northeast Asia nuclear free zone and if Japan can participate, there will be the reliance and assurance given not to deploy the nuclear weapons by the U.S. force in Japan in order to proceed with denuclearization process in DPRK. This is more convincing especially because of the rapid change in fluidity. From the beginning of this year this is for sure that we are faced with turnaround of the situation. In order to realize the denuclearization process, I believe this is a very good opportunity, but yet there are so many hard questions and hardships to be solved. We have to be cautious, but positively all the related countries should collaborate to come up with the appropriate measures.
Thank you very much. That was the report from the discussion of the workshop one