Focus 580; Target North Korea: Pushing North Korea to the Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe

In the first hour today we'll be talking about North Korea and the relationship between North Korea and South Korea between North Korea and Japan between North Korea and the United States. President Bush has described the government of North Korea as the world's most dangerous regime. However our guest for this hour of the program Asia scholar Gavin McCormick says that it is too easy to portray Pyongyang as evil. A recent Rather he says more recent moves moves to connect with the South to improve relations with Japan mean that at least there are elements within the government of North Korea interested in finding a new way to relate to the world outside. He suggests a lest be diligent kind of approach to the north and one that is comprehensive and indeed he says tensions between the north and south between the north and the Japanese and between the north and United States all have to be resolved in order to give the North Koreans the opportunity and the incentive to change the way that they relate to the rest of the world. Our guest Kevin McCormack is professor in the Research School of

Pacific and Asian studies at the Australian National University and has done many studies of East Asian history and politics. His work is widely translated and read in Japanese Korean and Chinese. He's the author of a book titled target North Korea. The subtitle is pushing North Korea to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. It's published by. Books out of New York and should be available bookstore near you as we talk. Questions and comments are certainly welcome. And the number if you'd like to call in. If you're here in Champaign Urbana is 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We do also have a toll free line that was good anywhere that you can hear us around Illinois Indiana. If you would happen to be listening over the internet as long as you're in the United States you may also use that toll free line that's 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Professor McCormick Hello. Good morning. Thank you for talking with us. Certainly person it's my pleasure to be with you. Well I'm sure that in great detail we'll see if we can explore the subject area

but just to begin with I'm. Drawn to the subtitle of the book and maybe you might talk a little bit generally about how you feel that the the way particularly the United States has approached the north and related to North Korea. You would argue that that was counterproductive and in fact that taking that kind of very belligerent stand might be more likely to lead to conflict than not. Yes David of course. But by by giving the subtitle pushing North Korea to the brink of nuclear catastrophe I'm implying that that's the worst possible thing that we know that we mustn't do that we must find another way to engage. And it seems to me from my analysis that said that North Korea is not an aggressive country. It's not like it's not like I mean some people sometimes compare it with Hitler and with the fastest aggressive powers. But I think that's not the record. The record is that it's a

fearful embattled country that that really wants above all to survive. And but it's also in tone. It's experience of the 20th century lived lead to think of itself as the great victim country of the 20th century rather than an aggressive country neighbor countries have no sense that North Korea is planning to invade them. After all it's tiny country 23 million people surrounded by the giants of China and Japan and with very much the largest South Korea very far more powerful and far more economically strong. South Korea just down the road. So it's it's the part of North East Asia that's been left out of economic growth that's been left out of the of the development of this region that most specialists would say is going to be the center of the world economy through the coming century. So the question is what went wrong and how can how to deal with it now.

Well it seems to me that what went wrong was that the the major powers in the world United States and Japan basically through the Cold War just simply ignored North Korea or treated it as an enemy with whom we could be no dealings. But when the Cold War ended they simply let it go. And North Korea. Needing to were anxious to get the attention of the United States and help. Thanks to the American nuclear threat itself for all of those years throughout the Cold War it adopted the path of nuclear weapons. Now that was that was extremely unfortunate. But under the circumstances North Korea felt that term that that was the way to get American attention and of course it got American attention. But what it wants to do is to trade in its its its nuclear. For guarantees of its security and for lifting of

sanctions for the region to the position of a normal country in the region. Now under under the previous American administration the Clinton administration. The deal was done in 1994 known as the agreed framework under which North Korea froze its nuclear programs. And the United States in return promised to build some nuclear reactors to produce energy. But of the kind that would not lead to the possible production of nuclear weapons and then agree. Basically that agreement hold until the Bush administration came just before the Bush administration came in. They were very active exchanges between young young and Washington Madeline Albright Clinton's secretary of state with young young young young. Number two man went to Washington and had the Clinton administration remained in office another six months. It's almost certain that they would have the normalization of

relations. But for all sorts of reasons the Bush administration came to power declaring North Korea part of the axis of evil and we were back to square one. Very soon the North Korea withdrew from the from the Nonproliferation Treaty. And the crisis that we've experienced since the end began I don't think it had to begin. Now the clear is that it is actively pursuing its nuclear weapons program because relations broke down and I think that it was tough but we are faced with now is the need to get those negotiations back on track again. Just to take that a little bit further I think that on both sides that is the inside of North Korea the United States. They look back at that agreement the Agreed Framework and each accuses the other of failing to follow through. That is the United States made promises to the Koreans to help them satisfy their energy needs. And the Koreans made promises to United States

about curtailing their efforts to build nuclear weapons. And it seems that neither side followed through on the the American side. The Clinton ministration entered into this agreement however they had a Congress that was dominated by Republicans who were not in who were apparently not interested in keeping the promise of the administration and then now we have found out that even though the North Koreans had they would they would stop developing nuclear weapons it seems that even during the during the after the agreed framework was agreed to that they were continuing to develop nuclear weapons. So it seems that neither side kept their promises. That's David that's that's that's possibly the case however. I have to say first that that the American commitment was rather more than simply the construction of the light water reactors and the provision of fuel or fuel in the mean time until where the energy came on stream the heart of the American commitment was to move towards

normalization of economic and political relations and that the North Korea event was really crucial. It meant ending of sanctions. It meant being able to come in from the CO. It meant being able to relate to the IMF and the World Bank and to all of those sort of institutions that that upon which any program of economic development in the world today really depend. Well the United States having made that promise took no steps whatever until as I say in that brief period in the very late moment of the Clinton administration when things did look to be going very well. But that was a long time. 1994 to 2000 almost nothing was done. And 2000 it's already it's it's too late. On the other hand. North Korea. What did North Korea do. Will the be agreed framework related specifically to Patani I'm based on. Weapons programs and now they were they were subordinate clauses in the agreement that that referred to

comprehensively to two other agreements like the north south agreement on the North South Korean agreement on non-nuclear development and what happened after in 2000 and two was that James Kelly the deputy assistant secretary of state went to Pyongyang and he claims that Pyongyang and admitted to him that it had a second track nuclear program. That's to say a program to produce nuclear weapons of the Hiroshima type rather than the Nagasaki type. Which could be built from from enriched uranium. In other words but that North Korea admitted confessed to him that it had a program based on on the on the the technology of producing weapons through this uranium of course North Korea's very enriching uranium resources. So it has its own uranium. Now the

question about that admission North Korea denies it. It's denied it. I think consistently since Kelly alleged did the other authorities in the region the Chinese the Russians and so on are highly skeptical about it. There's been no confirmation. So can we really be in the Word of. And the other question I think is why would North Korea. That point has made it admission so damaging to its to its case. A forum for him improving and normalizing relations with the United States. It is believed to think that it simply said look we know we have this program and we've been hiding it tend to value out of him and we now confessed to it. We have a caller to bring into the conversation and let me introduce Again our guest for anyone who might have tuned in the last five or 10 minutes Gavin McCormack is professor in the Research School of Pacific an Asian Studies at the Australian National University and has written a lot about

Japan China Korea. His most recent book or a recent work that you might take a look at if you're interested in reading more about the subject is titled target North Korea. It's published in paperback by Nation Books and questions and comments are certainly welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. We have color in champagne and they are on line 1. Hi good morning. You've already sort of done with the point that I actually was going to call in about the greed front framework and I think there was some discussion here that elicited. The idea that it was it was mainly the diplomatic and economic loosening that didn't go ahead but that the US was actually even not complying with the agreed framework. Regarding the construction timetable and and fuel oil deliveries and all sorts of ways of not complying but not not drawing a lot of attention to it.

And this was said to be because of the takeover in the house of the Republicans and Jesse Helms elevation and in the Senate. We don't know what the current administration would have done without those impediments but it seemed I really went sort of up in the air when you said the Agreed Framework sort of held because it really didn't it was. Perfidious on both sides it seems. And yes sir yes and of course the yes you're right that the agreement to construct the reactors even which in a sense was was the core of what North Korea agreed to freeze its its nuclear energy programs. They said their programs were just for the production of energy states that they have the potential of producing weapons. So OK North Korea says we will freeze those programs in return you construct for us these two light water reactors. Well by 2000 and to

all that exists of those two light water reactors that were supposed to come on stream producing energy in 2003 last year all that existed was were the foundations and the large hole in the ground. So undoubtedly the United States dragged its feet on that part of the agreement. North Korea has a has a huge energy problem in its whole economy's been the state of virtual collapse during the 90s because of its energy problems. So it reviewed the the American failure to proceed with the construction of a lot of reactors extremely seriously. Not North Korea. It it. I think everybody agrees that it did freeze its plutonium programs I mean the the plutonium wastes from the nuke from the reactors were kept in ponds under a International Atomic Energy Association under their photographic supervision and they were experts there on the spot.

So I think everybody agrees that that the agreement North Korea kept. But the question is the the subsequent allegations and the subsequent allegation to in relation to the possible enrich uranium based program which say North Korea denies it's in most recently and there's been the further complication that the Pakistani the so-called father of the Pakistani bomb AQ Khan has said that he went he made many visits to Pyongyang and that he he he was involved in the transfer of technology centrifuge technology for for the enriching uranium. So that that's a further piece of evidence that does suggest that North Korea may have had a second track. It seems to me to be possible about that is that. Is that the in by about 98 1998 four years into the Agreed Framework and no sign of any progress that North Korea

may well have decided that it's time to take steps to ensure. Or that it's that. It would be covered in the event of the framework breaking down in the relationship with Pakistan work plus it may well have taken delivery over the stick over GM. He denies that it actually did in the thing with it so be consistent we'd have to assume that they took this stuff more or less on the shelf and didn't do anything with it. Well who knows. Could be say this is one of the murky murky points that we simply don't know about this possible second track. There was just the announcement something about an allegation that North Korea was selling uranium hexafluoride which is part of the enriched centrifuge process but I don't know whether that's the you know there's so many black advances it seems to me in this relationship. I was listening to a nuclear expert our North Korea expert discussion show inside the Beltway on the Internet and there's no acknowledgement at all that there was any

you know noncompliance by the U.S. and it's all put upon the North Korean side and it's pretty outrageous that that expecting that. The call to go in and bring up the other side of the point I wanted to ask about the military in around the DMZ and the pulling back. And I know that there has been some agreement that military bases have been pulled out of the center of Seoul which has been a sticking point with with a lot of South Korea South Koreans of many sides but I also heard in the middle of the night a report on the VOA about relocating of short range missiles. And the idea was that military Americans were being pulled back from the tripwire of the DMZ and that actually you would think well they're Millet pulling military back that's a good thing while it's actually allows people to speculate that they could continents.

You know. And Gage meant that the business about moving short range and medium range the US being the ones doing the moving around I went to the VOA website found no documentation of that particular report and went to some Asian journals I went to some Australian journals looking for and I found no report of this kind of item at all and I still don't know whether you know what to make of that. Well I think that a provocative too. I think there's no question but that too. But the American military capacity to respond to any events on the ANY ANY ANY ANY move across the the demilitarized zone by North Korea would be met by devastating massive and immediate response so there's no question about that. B The what's happening I think not only in South Korea but in Japan that the American military presence is increasingly being

integrated into a global structure. Not limited to the immediate area or in the South Korean case South Korea or in the Japanese case Japan. But American forces are part of a global a global organization and a liable to be moved to the Middle East to other parts of the world from those bases in the Pentagon has been engaged in this review of its of its global military position for some time now and The Donald Rumsfeld and in these these moves I think a part of that process. It's difficult for me to perceive that any diminution of the American commitment to you know to respond to any event in their career. But I'm not they are not a missile expert either so you know particularly the details of these particular missiles I can't really comment on. Again we're getting close to a midpoint here of the folks who have questions.

I just. Yes just before we do that I mean I wanted to say one further comment on the nuclear. Yes go ahead please. Yes and that is that. The the way that the North Korean threats were going or the Korean issue is constructed is usually to say that North Korea's developing nuclear weapons and that that's a great threat to the peace. Well I think that misses is that North Korea is the country which has faced for longer than any country on earth direct and explicit nuclear threat itself and it's responding to that threat. It was threatened during the Korean war itself. I mean the American president and chief of staff were all in favor of dropping nuclear weapons on North Korea. But but held back at the end the fear that Russia might retaliate possibly against against Japanese. Cities after the Korean War in 1953 it was three years before the United States introduced nuclear weapons

into into South Korea kept them just south of the demilitarized zone of course in breach of the armistice agreement kept them there for about 30 years and then after the South Korean insistence eventually withdrew them. But but the American running for a renewal of the Korean War was always predicated on the use of nuclear weapons and the explicit use of the nuclear threat against North Korea is what North Korea says is the reason for its its need to develop a deterrent. So I think that. So until and until and unless the threat against nuclear. The nuclear threat against North Korea is removed. They will say well we simply we have to draw the logic of the nuclear powers of Russia China Britain France and so

on is that the only way the defense can be sure would is by the imposition of a nuclear deterrent. When North Korea says well what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Do we face much more serious much longer threat than any other country on Earth and therefore in our room until we have guarantees about security and until we have normalized relations with the rest of the world this has to be a full room for security. Well that that gets that moves in the direction of the next area that I wanted to get into and I think that it's important because so much of the reporting about North Korea talks in terms of its impenetrability and how it is it's impossible to understand how they're thinking and how they view the world and and you in the book suggest that that's not the case at all that in fact all you really have to do to get a pretty good understanding of how North Korea feels about itself in the rest of the world is to look at the experiences of roughly speaking the last 50 years or so and look at what happened

to the north during before and during World War Two. Their experiences with dealing with the Japanese and then afterwards during the Cold War there as you point out. They're feeling threatened by the most powerful military power on earth us and that one can see how it is that that would develop a very perhaps suspicious and paranoid perhaps justifiably so very defensive mindset and would lead you to feel as apparently the North Koreans do that they are a threat and that they are a victim state rather than being the aggressor. As we often see here in United States or at least that you know this administration has talked about. Yes. The expression is used sometimes of North Korea. It's not so much the taiga state on the rampage but the. Keep time stay tuned. You know the porcupine is the animal which which

when it senses the presence near a top of a hostile force it cools it eats it sort of Stephens it sparkles and tries to fend off any possible attack. And that's not a bad sort of image seems to me to describe North Korea heavily armed but but in the view of none of its neighbor countries is that the step being intended as aggressively towards towards its neighbors particularly of course South Korea which is the place that should know best role. North Koreans are sometimes said to be strange an inscrutable people but they're Koreans just as South Koreans are Koreans and and increasingly in the north and south are able to get together and find the common cultural linguistic and so on roots as the basis for. Or for working together on also confirm what sorts of projects. So yes the 20th century was a was a disaster for for Korea

particularly for North Korea. In still a case of that kind in North Korea while the whole of Korea was of course the Japanese colony for the first time from the 20th century to this day Japan has not normalized its relations with with its ex colony in the past in very recent days. There's been major moves in the direction of achieving that normalization. But it's a very very long delayed I mean it's a you know Japanese colonial rule in the nearly 60 years ago and still Japan there's no relations with this process with its neighbors. So the the the mythology that the Founding Fathers Smiths of North Korea are all myths and stories. Nickel story is supposed to be rooted in the history of the resistance of the guerrilla forces against Japanese fascism. So the North Korean state is

born on the basis of the stories of the anti-Japanese fascist grillers of the 1930s and the founder of the state. Kamil song was a partisan hero and his some of course his but he is the man who rules rules North Korea today and incidentally will leave the present leader of North Korea whom George Bush professes to love and whom he describes as a member of the axis of evil and so on. When Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi pissed at him last week he remarked even in the Japanese diet just yesterday that to everybody's astonishment he said that he found Kim Jong Il a gentle and cheerful manager gentle and cheerful man with a good sense of humor and an astonishingly fast mind. Fast fast to make connections fast thinking. That's roughly what two men. When Albright found when she had a long conversation with him in the year 2000 as we'll so this thing in other words he

says that it's also what South Korean Nobel prize winning President Kim Dae-Jung what he said when he met him in 2000 as well. A man that you can do business with. Well I mean if you're a man that you can do business with when it's time to do business with him I think it's it's very interesting to look at these recent attempts that is recent at least in the last couple of years of the Japanese government to improve relations with the North. As you say Mr. Koizumi has gone a couple of times it's been good for him at home apparently opinion polls show an increase in positive support for his government. Just how important or potentially important do you think is the attempt to improve relations between Japan and North Korea. Oh it's extremely important. I mean it's once if the relations between those two countries could be normalized that means

that to them that that the the basis for the North Korean state the basis for its being a a dozen states has some scholars call it a mobilized state a state that is fully determined. Protect itself if Japan is the major threat Skinstad becomes a normalised relationship than you know North Korea internally undergoes necessary transformation in its blissful porcupine bristles have to have to relax and it has to become more normal in in relating to the Crimean visit. Indeed have been extremely important when Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi first went to Pyongyang in 2000 and to in September 2002 in Washington I think was rather shocked and and it was then that the Kelley allegations about North Korea's secret nuclear program were

released and the kybosh really on on those Japanese moves to towards normalization. The other thing that happened was the the the sensational news that all of the Japanese citizens had been abducted by North Korea in the 1970s and 80s. Some would bid some were still alive. But that news has caused a huge shock in Japan and it. Such a shock indeed that it became impossible for Koizumi to to proceed with the steps towards normalization that were launched in 2002. So he took a very bold step I think of going back to Pyongyang. Just about a week ago. And that is it has the promise of of getting relations getting negotiations towards re normalizing relations back on track. It depends however on on North Korea satisfying Japan about the very strange cases of the

of the deaths of I think it's 10 abductees back in the in the 1970s and 80s North Korea has already returned the families of the five who were returned in 2000 to their children now grown up children. They flew back with him in the plane last week. But still there's quite a lot that North Korea has to clear up. The Chairman Kim Jong Il in North Korea has said now that he's that he's the investigations that the Japanese require are being undertaken. So there's some there's some. Optimism about this popularity you say has been given a boost. But this to a lot of very hostile opinion in Japan towards any any settlement with it with North Korea so it's not really clear that the outcome is going to be a good outcome. I think perhaps we have a caller here to talk with in Chicago

on our toll free line line number four. Hello. Caller is the caller there. I'm not sure if we're having a phone system problem or what's going on there well we'll see if we can check in of course other people who are listening are welcome if you like to call in. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. Now let's try for a Chicago line for Hello. Yes. We get Korea from South Korea. Send them to Iraq and I was wondering if the reduction in truth in troop strength in South Korea might perhaps relax the atmosphere and make it less tense and possibly open up dialogue more without the threat a TRUE. I don't know that that's going to make very much difference but the reason for this deployment redeployment is that the

United States is shorter. Troops in Iraq and it's and that's part of it and the other thing is the Pentagon study of its global military deployment which is slated to conclude that it should be much less reliant in future on Lodge encampments of troops living overseas and rely much more on mobility mobility and high speed redeployment and keep much smaller detachments of troops in units or in its bases so I don't think that the see any suggestion that they're lowering the gun to tool in South Korea even though the the long term perspective is probably for a reduction of troops imminently based there. Would it perhaps reduce the threat between South Korea and the United States. Because I know in many places where there are U.S. bases there's a great deal of stress in the host

country country and the military U.S. military. It was of course the case that the fewer troops there are the less likely to be to be clashes between troops and the civilian population in South Korea and in deed also in around the base areas in Japan particularly in Okinawa where fiction between the American troops and fairly high crime rate and where there's a large group of young men training for war. You know they go after they go drinking on the town and all kinds of things can happen. Well the ability of those incidents happening is reduced but to the extent that the numbers of men doing this are reduced so you need that to that effect I think can be expected. OK. Thank you Ira. Thank you and again other questions are welcome. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 here for Champaign Urbana toll free 800 2 2 2 1 4 5 5.

Our guest for this hour of focus is Gavin McCormack He is professor in the Research School of Pacific in Asian Studies at the Australian National University. He has done many studies of East Asian history and politics. His work has been widely translated and read in Japanese Korean and Chinese. A recent book if you're interested in reading about North Korea is titled target North Korea pushing North Korea to the brink of nuclear collapse or catastrophe Pardon me. And the published by Nation Books and questions welcome 3 3 3 8 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5. They're also we've talked a little bit about the fact that that Japan is trying to improve its relations with the North for some time now. There has been also a similar kind of effort between the two Koreas between the north and the South most recently there was a meeting involving senior military officers from both the north and the south and a plan apparently a plan for them to meet again. They're interested in

trying to promote and improve communication between the armed forces of the north and the south. The idea being reduced tension the possibility that something could happen to initiate conflict and so forth. Can you talk a little bit about what has been happening between the government of the north and the south to see what the. Again due to improve relations there. The of course there was no greater hostility for North Korea than in South Korea during the long cold war years and during that period I mean roughly one in 10 of the Korean people have have families divided by the the North-South tradition. And unlike the division in between East and West Germany the dividing line in Korea was a complete be able line. There was no no people crossed it no no mail no telephone no communication whatever across that line for

for a very many many decades until the Cold War ended. Once the Cold War ended and and once a democracy came to South Korea I mean South Korea had a prolonged period of struggle. They overthrew a military dictatorships and established a democratic system. In 87 and west the it's developed then slowly the thought that turn that the confrontation with the Kim brothers and sisters in North Korea was crazy and that they should find ways to talk to them and to that process lead one climactic event to be the visit to Pyongyang by South Korean President Kim Dae Jong who later won the Nobel Prize. And since the commission came back saying well he said now that there will be no war in the Korean Peninsula that was his first remark when he went back to do

so. And since then there's been a complex of negotiations deal cooperation agreements the the railway has been restored and it would be possible if the United States would allow it it would be possible to have the trains running again between Seoul and Kenya and it would be a couple of hours on the train up the road from Seoul and one would be in Pyongyang. There are agreements on the development of the export processing zone. One of them just across the border from South Korea in North Korea. I talked to people in Seoul who are involved in organizing this and they say yes it's astonishing they say takes them about an hour from central solved drive up the road into North Korea. They go up there several times a week to look for. Developments in this in this export processing zone plays. So what's happened is that is that the fear of North Korea has steadily dissolved in South Korea.

And what happened at the same time was what I think American listeners should should pay attention to is the fact that term in South Korea the sense that North Korea is a threat is weakening. But the sense that the United States is danger is growing in that. So that you know the anti-Americanism the sense of fear and hostility towards the United States is quite strong. There's even one survey recently that said among South Korean students that about I think the figure was 20. 60 and 70 percent actually supported the idea of a North Korea having nuclear weapons. There are also the statistics on the numbers of people in South Korea who believe that the greatest threat to them is from the United States rather than from North Korea. Very very startling sort of figures. And I think they suggest that the drop in South Korea is in the long term I think a clearly headed for unification and beyond

that and also want to say that it seems to me that when we look we have to look beyond the Cold War frame. And I think that there are increasing signs that East Asia perhaps northeast Asia is heading towards some kind of a European style unity or some kind of European Union kind of kind of formula for unity in the north. There is the problem that remains if North Korea South Korea relations can be normalized if North Korea Japan relations can be normalized. Then the four I think potentially quite rapid progress towards the station. Operation Community of some kind in the East Asian community. And in that case the United States would face a difficulty because one of the bases in Japan and South Korea for there to

defend against North Korea would have North Korea's no longer needs to be defended against. I think South Korea and Japan might well say Well thanks very much but we appreciate the troops that are having being here but we don't need them anymore. And I think that there's a lot of evidence from Washington that that the that Asian dependence on the United States might one day might one day come to an end because all the security problems being resolved it rather a lot of them. And the fear that Japan might begin to walk its on walk. It's not not a reassuring thought in Washington. Well that gets to the very idea that I was just thinking of myself and that is that. I suppose one would have to say that the United States by virtue of its economic and military power can't be a can't ever be ignored but having said that if you look at what has happened in the region what's likely to happen with the

Japanese in their interest in the region and the Koreans feeling that no matter where you live in Korea that there really is only one Korea and that sooner or later. There will be a unification and the interest of all of these countries in the region enhancing their both their political and their economic relations it seems that there is the danger and I could understand people in Washington seeing and that the United States in all of this would be sidelined. I don't know if you could say the United States would be irrelevant but that it just it the decent countries would simply go and decide what's what is in their best interest and as much as they can ignore the interest of the United States. Yes that that's clearly a nightmare in Washington. The I mean the term I mean the importance for Washington of having Japan essentially adopting a dependent position towards the United States and that's really the

sort of the highest level that that Japan remain in that kind of the century subservient role so that the thought of Japan turning towards Asia and throwing its weight to a co-op and the Asian union of some kind which might. I mean that wouldn't entitle the renegotiation of the operation ship with the United States. That doesn't reassure Washington atoll. And then Richard Armitage the deputy secretary of state to remark some years ago in a paper of his that the goal for the United States course to have Japan become the Great Britain of the station and what that means of course is that an ally that would send troops to fight alongside the United States who were never required and the United States diplomatic and other objectives around the world will be the opposite of that would be Japan that returned to

Asia and became the food with with China and with other East Asian countries in the construction of some kind of East Asian community. Given that however the the experience of World War 2 and the conduct of the Japanese in China and Korea in Southeast Asia I would expect that a lot of people in that region would be very suspicious of the Japanese and hesitant and and would look for example at the Japanese failure to this day to acknowledge crimes that were committed by Japanese troops. And I wonder how it is that people how it is that people would look at the Japanese and would would see them as in a sense trying to do perhaps economically what they could not do militarily. Well look this is the big deal. For Japan indeed and just at this moment I mean the

reason I mean I mean the United States of the moment is to attend a conference at Stanford University on memories in East Asia. And it's a major political issue in the sense that if this is to be the construction of a community an East Asian community or a North East Asian community for the future then in order to develop a shared vision of the future they must be first a shared understanding of the past. And that's the big problem. And as you rightly say that's that's the bet's what Japan is called on to do now is to develop a an understanding of the of the 20th century of the disasters of the. The start of the 20th century that can be shared with China with Korea and with the rest of Asia. And of course the problem is that during the long cold war Japan was able to ignore all of these all of these wartime issues and it's only in the 1990s that it was required to face them.

So now the Japanese courts there are a whole series of actions underway in the Japanese courts by Chinese and Koreans victims of forced labor or sexual slavery of atrocities. And all of these things. Because the people repeatedly coming up in the news these terrible stories of atrocities and so on. It's time that the Japanese Government bit the bullet and adopted a comprehensive policy of admission of responsibility and and compensation to the victims somewhat like the the the policy that's been followed by the German government from from much long ago. We have another caller here and about five minutes left so we'll talk next with someone in Urbana. Line 1 below would seem to me that missing from the equation in the future of China I think that's going to be the fourth wouldn't it.

Yeah of course. Yes I mean it's. I mean there are many aspects that we haven't we haven't touched on in the discussion but Turner of course is the rising power in the Chinese economic dynamos the you know is largely responsible for the growth and expansion that exists in the global economy today and and it's it continues to expand at an astonishing astonishing rate and it's not only its economic expansion the fact is that term when the United States decide to give up late in 2010 to that term there was no way of resolving this matter by force. Therefore it said well what are the ways of it and because China is the source of most of North Korea's. Food and energy supplies. So the United States who call on China to put pressure on North Korea. And that leads to the growth of the establishment of what's called the six sided Nation conference for negotiations on the nuclear

question and on North Korea in general that say in the six countries being North and South Korea themselves China Russia and Japan and the United States. And in that in that structure China's played an increasingly important role in the two rounds of the of the six sided Nation conference. And there's another due I think in late June and the United States is finding that it's not so easy to simply to ask China to put pressure on North Korea or in fact China has put a great deal of pressure on the United States and the U.S. position has changed greatly in these negotiations from an initial position. But there's absolutely no way in which the U.S. would consider any security guarantees to North Korea to a concession now that will perhaps something can be done along those lines. And secondly from an initial

position that North Korea would first have to agree to a complete verifiable and and so on. Immediate. Destruction demolition of its nuclear weapons a position now that a phased process of moving towards that ultimate goal is possible. That I think is the U.S. concessions on those areas now largely due to the pressure being brought to bear against the United States by the other by four of the six countries. That's to say China Russia and South Korea three of the countries especially those opposed three so so China is a major diplomatic force as well as a major economic force. And the U.S. is going to have to deal with that with an increasingly assertive and confident China in the future. Yeah that's that's the point. Excellent point thank you. All right thank you for the call well we will have to leave it at that because we have come to the end of

our time. Our guest McCormack He's professor in the Research School of Pacific and Asian studies at the Australian National University. If you'd like to read the book we've mentioned it's titled target North Korea pushing North Korea to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. It is published by Nation Books in paperback and you should be able to find it in the bookstore. And Professor McCormick thank you very much for talking with us. Thank you so much David. All the best.