SOURCE/LINK:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-15/north-korea-guam-locals-reliving-world-war-ii-military-crisis/8806754
North Korea: Guam locals say they are 'reliving World War II' amid escalating military crisis
Updated
As North Korea makes preparations for a potential
missile strike on Guam, locals say they feel like they are reliving
World War II at the centre of a geopolitical crisis they never asked
for.
Residents of the tiny Pacific island, who are confused as to why they have suddenly become the target of a rogue state's nuclear ambitions, on Monday demanded a peaceful solution to the standoff.
Pyeongyang has warned plans for a strike on the US
Pacific territory could begin in the middle of this month, leading to
locals to dub August 15 "D-day".
Until now, many locals have seemed nonplussed by North Korea's escalating threats, but others are increasingly concerned at the prospect of a looming war.
"We
do not ask to be placed under nuclear threat. That's not what we're
about," said Kenneth Gofigan Kuper, the organiser of a rally.
"Why
are we in the middle of this? What are the factors that led us to
become heavily in the national consciousness just because we're a target
of nuclear threats?"
Mr Kuper said he could not fathom why a peaceful island had been thrust onto the world stage.
"For
the longest time, Guam has been absent from the world consciousness,
and all of a sudden we're the target of a possible North Korean nuclear
attack and the world's eyes are turned to us," he said.
"Yes, we are a colony of the United States, in which the United States military owns about 27 per cent of the island.
"We want to show that there are 160,000 people who live there.
"We just don't want to be known as this military base."
'It's like reliving World War II'
Many of those taking part in Monday's
demonstration were members of Guam's indigenous Chamorro population, who
oppose the heavy US military presence on the territory.
Chamorro man Ronald Laguana said his island, which was
recaptured from Japanese control during World War II, has already
endured too many conflicts and invasions.
"It's a repeat in history, just like World War II, the Japanese and the Americans. That's what it is," Mr Laguana said.
"It's like reliving World War II again, and this is World War III."
Mr Kuper said he did not want to see history repeated and hoped peace could be preserved on the island.
Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
"What we want to show the world is that the
people who live here, who call this place home, who wake up and go to
sleep on this island, we want peace," he said.
"A lot of our
grandparents went through brutal occupation by the Japanese during World
War II because we were once again forced into the middle of a large
conflict.
"We don't want that to repeat itself in any future generation."
Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
What's a H-bomb, and has North Korea joined the thermonuclear club?
What can actually be done to deal with nuclear North Korea?
Understand the North Korean crisis
What earthquake science can tell us about North Korea's nuclear test
The critical 17 minutes: Can rocket science save us from fire and fury?
Kim ups the ante in game of nuclear brinkmanship — but how far is too far?
As sanctions bite, Chinese tourists flock to gawk at poor North Koreans
Guam's problems with the US don't stop with North Korea
Why a North Korean miniaturised bomb would be a game changer
Trump goes it alone on 'fire and fury' — and no-one knows what will happen next
North Korea threat is no longer one for the long-term planners
Where is Guam and how many US troops are there?
How far can North Korea's missiles reach?
Two against one: China, Russia at odds with US over North Korea
Connect with ABC News
SOURCE/LINK:
https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/possible-win-win-solution-to-the-north-korean-crisis/
https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/possible-win-win-solution-to-the-north-korean-crisis/
LINDA WERTHEIMER: China today confirmed it will host talks
this month on North Korea’s nuclear program. Officials from the United
States, North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia will attend.
Commentator Michael O’Hanlon says Washington should think about changing
its approach to making the region safer and more stable in the long
run.Michael O’Hanlon of The Brookings Institution has been giving a lot
of thought to how this crisis might be defused and how a long-term
resolution of tensions between the United States and North Korea might
be brought about. With his colleague, Mike Mochizuki, Mr. O’Hanlon has
written a book called “Crisis on the Korean Peninsula: How to Deal with a
Nuclear North Korea.” Mr. O’Hanlon, thank you very much for coming in.
Now your view is that what is needed is a ‘road map’ for the way
North Korea relates to Seoul and to the region and, of course, the
United States. I wanted to go over some of the elements of that plan.
But first, I want you to tell me why you think it’s necessary to think
big.
MICHAEL O’HANLON: Mostly because North Korea needs hope.
They’re in a hole they don’t know how to get out. Their economy is
failing. Their society is failing. And if we just negotiate on tactics
and on the short-term crisis of the nuclear weapons issue, they are not
going to see any way to fix their economy, and they’re just going to
wait for the next opportunity to use a dangerous weapons program to try
to extort resources from the international community.
Related
WERTHEIMER: Now the centerpiece of your plan is not the
nuclear disarmament part—that’s first—but the big part is conventional
disarmament, getting rid of tanks, planes, helicopters, artillery,
weapons, vehicles of all kinds on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea.
O’HANLON: That’s right. The real motivation is to get
the North Koreans to cut forces so that their economy can begin to
recover. Right now, they spend 25 percent of their GDP on their
military. It is by far the highest ratio in the world. It is about eight
times what we spend here in the United States, about eight or nine
times what the South Koreans spend, and you’ve got to find some way to induce them to do this. Part of the inducement is that we will give them economic aid, but part of the inducement is we will at least make small, reciprocating cuts in our own forces. We don’t give the North Koreans 20 billion bucks up front. We essentially, together with our partners, give about $2 billion a year not in cash but in building infrastructure, health programs, so forth, as we watch the North Koreans cut their forces. And then we can also offer the famous non-aggression pledge, which is so much in the news these days, as a final piece of this overall pie.
WERTHEIMER: Well, there’s also a problem with President
Bush buying into this. He’s said over and over again that he is opposed
to nuclear blackmail, which is what he perceives Korea to be doing. And
President Bush clearly has a very low opinion of North Korea’s leader.
He has said that he loathes Kim Jong Il, and that’s one of the milder
things he said.
O’HANLON: That is one of the milder things he said. But we
like to argue that we’re trying to build on some of the ideas you put
on the table, Mr. President. You’ve said the North Koreans have a
conventional military that’s too large. You and your secretary of
Defense and others have said they need a market economy, they need to move in the direction of reform. We’re trying to essentially force the North Koreans to change their regime without regime change. This is not an easy deal for the North Koreans to accept. They may very well say no because this requires them to take extraordinarily painful medicine, and to really change their country the way Vietnam has in the last 20 years or so, the way China has in much of its eastern regions. They can still potentially hold onto power, but they’re going to have to change their economy, even begin to change some of their human rights policy. And, therefore, we’re not buying out a weapons program. We are helping them
radically change their own failed way of organizing their society.
Author
Michael E. O’Hanlon
Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
Director of Research - Foreign Policy
The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
WERTHEIMER: But Kim Jong Il, obviously, has got to see this as headed for regime change. So why would he want to play?
O’HANLON: He would want to play if he’s convinced the
alternative is worse. If the alternative is either war because we will
go after his nuclear facilities at some point or continue deterioration
of his economy to the point where he can’t even sustain his own
lifestyle and that of his top leadership, he may feel that taking a
chance on these entrepreneurial zones and on this gradual economic
reform is a chance worth risking. After all, the Chinese did it and they kept their Communist Party in power. The Vietnamese did it and they kept their Communist Party in power. We have two very good examples, and we have one of those two countries willing to play a big role in this whole process and they…
WERTHEIMER: And that’s China…
O’HANLON: That’s right. That’s right.
WERTHEIMER: …which will be sitting at the table.
O’HANLON: Absolutely. And which has been probably our number-one partner in this whole recent business.
WERTHEIMER: Another point that you make in the midst of
this argument is that North Korea cheats. They made an agreement to back
down on their nuclear production and then they secretly started doing
it again. How does the United States, how do all these countries sit
down and make an agreement with a country that behaves that way?
O’HANLON: It’s not going to be easy, and you have to build
a plan that allows people to develop confidence as you implement it
year by year. It’s good to have the Russians involved as well because
the Russians have experience with conventional force reduction treaties.
They did with us back in the Cold War period, and the Russians can say
to the North Koreans, ‘Listen, the Americans are not going to use this
as a pretext to attack because you don’t have to show them where you
keep your leadership. You don’t have to show them where you keep your mobile forces. You have to account for most of your heavy weaponry. You can hide your state secrets. You can hide your top leaders and we’ll show you how because we used to do it when we were having this conventional force in Europe treaty with NATO.’ And so Russia can play a role helping reassure and spur on the North Koreans. China can say, ‘We can do economic reform and teach you how to do it and stay in power without losing control over your own society. It’s going to be tough. You’re going to have to learn some new things you really didn’t want to learn, but you have no choice.’ So having those two countries involved in the six-party talks and in any implementation of any agreement is
critical. It’s one of the reasons why the North Koreans may get the
necessary confidence to try this.
WERTHEIMER: What do you think the chances are that the talks that are about to start will achieve something?
O’HANLON: I think there’s some hope because I think the
Bush administration is at least wrestling with the idea of giving
greater inducements to the North Koreans. Let’s face it; this
administration has really wanted to hide from this crisis for a long
time. So we are in trouble if we don’t really focus on this and get it
right.
WERTHEIMER: Michael O’Hanlon of The Brookings Institution.
His book written with Mike Mochizuki is called “Crisis on the Korean
Peninsula.” Mike, thanks very much.
O’HANLON: My pleasure. Thank you.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário