Turning point
Ding Ying

THE tense situation surrounding denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula has reached a turning point. On October 11, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice formally signed a document removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. In response, North Korea said it would continue to disable its nuclear facilities and permit the international community to supervise and validate the process.
Experts on international affairs say the U.S. action has put denuclearization and the U.S.-North Korean relationship back on the right track. But they also caution that there is still a long way to go before denuclearization is fully realized and the two countries resume normal diplomatic relations.
A twisted process
The two countries have clashed since the Korean War in the 1950s. In 1988, U.S. President Ronald Reagan listed North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. In his 2002 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush named North Korea, along with Iraq and Iran, as the three "axis of evil" states threatening world peace.
By designating North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism, the United States not only put North Korea under political pressure, but also imposed strict restrictions on its exports and eligibility for foreign aid. Therefore, winning removal from the list was North Korea's top priority in ameliorating its relationship with Washington, said Xu Baokang, a senior commentator on international affairs, in an article in People's Daily on October 14.
Tensions between the two countries have eased since August 2003, when China, South Korea, North Korea, the United States, Japan and Russia held the first round of six-party talks aimed at resolving the nuclear issue.
In accordance with the second-phase actions announced on October 3, 2007, for the implementation of the September 2005 Joint Statement, North Korea began to disable its three nuclear facilities at Yongbyon in November 2007. On June 26 this year, North Korea submitted a declaration on its nuclear programs to China, the chair state of the six-party talks, and blew up the nuclear reactor cooling tower at Yongbyon two days later. But the United States failed to follow through on its promises to remove North Korea from the blacklist and abolish sanctions like the Trading with the Enemy Act, instead suggesting the six countries set up a validation mechanism to monitor the disablement process. North Korea accused the United States of breaking its promise and violating the "words for words, action for action" principle agreed upon in the September 2005 Joint Statement. On August 26 this year, North Korea suspended its nuclear disablement, and on September 19 announced it would restart the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. The nuclear issue had stagnated once again.
In early October, the United States sent envoys to Pyongyang, where the two sides reached a consensus: The United States would remove North Korea from the blacklist without precondition, while North Korea would resume nuclear disablement and accept nuclear inspectors.
These developments have broken the stalemate in the six-party talks and guaranteed future progress. "The newly reached consensus is a positive sign," Xu said in the People's Daily report.
The United States suddenly conceded, Xu said, because Bush is approaching the end of his term. "He didn't want his diplomatic efforts on the nuclear issue to be in vain, hence he finally made a policy adjustment," Xu said.
Xu mapped out what might come next: Once the United States removes North Korea from the blacklist and lifts economic sanctions, North Korea will seek foreign trade, investment and financial cooperation. International financial institutions will offer North Korea financial aid, foreign enterprises will increase their exports and investment, North Korean assets in the United States will be unfrozen, and limitations on North Korean products entering the U.S. market will be abolished. All these will benefit North Korea's economic development.
Professor Zhu Feng from the School of International Studies at Peking University said it was compromise that finally enabled the two sides to reach consensus. "The other countries in the six-party talks also played important roles in this achievement," he said, and the recent consensus was crucial for maintaining dialogue between North Korea and the United States.
Zhu explained that although Washington insisted on validation, it made some concessions in areas that Pyongyang considers sensitive. If North Korea had refused validation, the six-party talks would have remained paralyzed and North Korea would have remained cut off from international aid.
Zhu said the consensus would also benefit the United States, as it prepares for a new presidential administration. "It will guarantee that the next U.S. Government continues to engage in dialogue with North Korea under the framework of the six-party talks."
More efforts required
Observers also considered North Korea's reaction a positive sign. It showed that North Korea's non-proliferation stance has not changed and that the denuclearization process would move forward, said a report in Beijing Youth Daily on October 13. But experts also stressed that more efforts are needed to realize the final goal.
The second-phase actions are an action-for-action process. "The U.S. decision to remove North Korea from the list was only intended to implement the second-phase actions and break the stalemate," Xu said, pointing out that the agreement could still be derailed. For example, the nuclear disablement might not meet validation standards, the United States might not provide enough economic compensation, or Washington might find an excuse to put North Korea back on the blacklist. Any misstep in the process could endanger the agreement's implementation, Xu concluded.
The Beijing Youth Daily article said that uncertainties still remain because of the half century of animosity between North Korea and the United States.
It had taken a long time and many rounds of negotiation, which produced few results until the fifth round in 2007, said the newspaper, "Facts prove that North Korea will not make rash compromises on issues concerning its security and sovereignty."
The North Korean Foreign Ministry stressed on October 12 that how Pyongyang carries out the October 3, 2007 agreement would depend on whether the U.S. implements the blacklist removal and fulfills its economic promises.
"Besides, we must notice that even with the disablement crisis resolved, the overall denuclearization process currently lags far behind schedule," said Beijing Youth Daily. All parties concerned must work harder to implement the second-phase actions as soon as possible, so as to realize denuclearization on the Korean Peninsular, the newspaper added.
Zhang Liangui, an expert on North Korean studies at the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, agreed that validation is key to nuclear disablement. The six countries are expected to meet again soon to discuss the method and standard of validation.
In addition, he said that the related parties should figure out how to improve the structure of the six-party talks and set up a corresponding mechanism to ensure that no country can go back on its word after making a promise.
 

—The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item

A defining moment
Gordon Brown

THIS is a defining moment. A new chapter of the human story is being written and will be studied by our children, and their children, and their children after them. It is up to us whether 2008 is remembered for a financial crash that engulfed the world or for a new resilience and optimism from a generation, which faced the economic storm head on and built the fair society in its wake. The people of America made their choice last week. They picked a progressive President, inspiring the world with their belief that in difficult times people need their government to ensure more - not less - help and security is available for families and business. I’m looking forward to co-operating with the President-elect in building a new global society in which the advancement of people - their homes, jobs, savings and pensions - is always put first.
Today we are seeing not just the collapse of failed institutions but also the collapse of a failed laissez-faire dogma. In this first financial crisis of the global age the old free market fundamentalism, no matter how it is dressed up, has been found wanting. These aren’t abstract questions of political theory but woven into the stuff of everyday life. It’s a question of how we ensure people get a fair chance and a fair say in life and how we make sure everybody, including banks, abides by rules. It’s about what should be done to make sure that people’s Christmas savings are safe, about making banks lend and pass on cuts in interest rates, about how people can keep the homes they’ve worked so hard to buy.That’s the conversation that people all over Britain will be having around their kitchen tables tonight, so let me tell you my take. Our government is pro business; I believe in markets, entrepreneurship and there are many areas of the economy that need the spur of more competition. But the events of the past months bear witness, more than anything in my lifetime, to one simple truth: markets need morals. ‘Greed is good’ is no prescription for the good society, but neither is it the mark of a good economy. It is the progressive values - rewarding hard work, co-operation, responsibility while penalising excess and reckless risk-taking - which will ensure our market economy works efficiently and fairly.
No country can stop the world slowdown, but it’s only progressive governments - in Britain a Labour government - that will take decisive action to protect people on middle and modest incomes. While the very privileged can look after themselves in times like these, the rest of us need to know we’re not on our own. That’s why this government has acted to protect homeowners from repossessions, is negotiating GBP4bn to tide small businesses over and has introduced an energy package, including higher winter fuel allowances for the elderly. It’s also because we care about fairness that Labour has taken action to save banks. We haven’t done that to help the bankers, but to help people like you who put away your savings in the bank, or need a loan to buy a house or start a business. We’ve done our bit, so we’re determined the banks will do theirs. Banks must now not only cut mortgage rates but start lending again. All banks getting public money need to pass some tough hurdles - such as not rewarding the executives who got them into this mess and not paying cash bonuses this year to people sitting on the boards of banks we are supporting.
Countries and continents - all of us - are making painful transitions. But beyond this transition will emerge an opportunity-rich global economy for those countries best equipped to prosper. So getting people through the downturn fairly is the most pressing progressive priority. But there is another, deeper way in which progressive values have truly come of age. We have a choice about whether the global interdependence of this new economic era is a force for justice or the driver of even greater social inequality. One billion skilled jobs will be created around the world in the next two decades and that offers boundless opportunities for those who acquire the right skills to climb as far and as fast as their talents will take them. When the experts talk about ‘social mobility’ they mean the universal human instinct - the longing that our children can have a better life than ours and than our parents had before us. That’s what this new global economy offers, but only with an energetic progressive government committed to unlocking all of the talent of all of the people.
Winning the global race to the top will require British firms to move up the value chain - to focus on niche products, high technology services, custom-built goods and specialist green products and services. That means we should not slow down our plans to double investment in science and continue Labour’s high levels of investment in quality education. But it also means we must be more ambitious still - building green companies and green jobs as we make the transition to a low-carbon economy; and expanding private and public investment in the new technological infrastructure of the 21st century as the modern equivalent of the new deal investments made in roads and bridges in the 20th century. We are in tough times and of course the fairer future is not certain. But the lesson from recent times and now from the victory of Obama - whether it be on financial instability, the creation of jobs, or climate change - is that only progressive answers, clear public purpose working for the benefit of all, can meet the big challenges we face.

—Khaleej Times

No point in media honeymoon for new US President
Norman Solomon

THE next two months will span, quite literally, an interregnum. The word isn’t often used in American politics, but especially this time around the definition seems quite apt. The interregnum now under way qualifies as an “interval of time between the end of a sovereign’s reign and the accession of a successor.” Generally, a sovereign doesn’t go quietly, and George W. Bush is unlikely to be an exception. Doesn’t get me wrong — the politeness and surface graciousness has already begun, and we can expect plenty more faux gestures of ultra-civility from the incumbent president between now and Jan. 20. But, as reflected in the Bush administration’s current rush to lock in as many damaging administrative rules and executive orders as possible, the maneuvers behind the scenes will be nasty indeed up till the moment Bush moves out of the White House.
Overall, the news media like winners, and an incoming president is the biggest winner of all. The period between his opponent’s concession speech and the swearing-in has traditionally been a time of many media upsides without the burdens of actual incumbency. Despite the vast amount of media analysis and commentary occurring between election and inauguration, the new president’s actual policy outlooks aren’t likely to receive a lot of tough scrutiny during that period. Leaders of the defeated party don’t want to seem like sore losers, and prominent supporters of the winning ticket are extremely unlikely to pick a fight with the triumphant duo. While news coverage is focused elsewhere, there are some very important points being made right now by progressive commentators who are warning that some Obama positions will be — or at least should be — on a collision course with substantial portions of his political base. Sooner or later, this clash will occur. For democratic discourse, it would be better sooner rather than later.
“It’s a natural reaction — and certainly a commonplace media reaction at the moment — to want to give Barack Obama a ‘chance,’” writer Tom Engelhardt commented days ago. “Back off those critical comments, people now say. Fair’s fair. Give the president-elect a little ‘breathing space.’ After all, the election is barely over, he’s not even in office, he hasn’t had his first 100 days, and already the criticism has begun.” Engelhardt has been writing and editing on public-affairs subjects for a long time. He founded the website TomDispatch.com, where his incisive pieces appear several times a week. While acknowledging the strong tendencies to want to hold back from criticizing the president-elect, Engelhardt points out that “those who say this don’t understand Washington — or, in the case of various media figures and pundits, perhaps understand it all too well.” He adds: “Political Washington is a conspiracy — in the original sense of the word: ‘to breathe the same air.’ In that sense, there is no air in Washington that isn’t stale enough to choke a president. Send Obama there alone, give him that ‘breathing space,’ don’t start demanding the quick ending of wars or anything else, and you’re not doing him, or the American people, any favors. Quite the opposite, you’re consigning him to suffocation.” Not exactly the kind of assessment we’re liable to encounter as we click through the network channels or turn the mass-media pages.

—Arab News