Better Understanding North Korea: Q&A with Seven East Asian Experts, Part 1
Editor’s Note:This is the first of two postings of a Q&A conducted primarily by the Federation of American Scientists regarding the current situation on the Korean Peninsula. Developed and edited byCharles P. Blair,Mark Jansson, and Devin H. Ellis, the authors’ responses have not been edited; all views expressed by these subject-matter experts are their own. Please note that additional terms are used to refer to North Korea and South Korea, i.e., the DPRK and ROK respectively.
Researchers from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) asked seven individuals who are experts in East Asia about the the recent escalation in tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Is North Korea serious about their threats and are we on the brink of war? What influence does China exert over DPRK, and what influence is China wiling to exert over the DPRK? How does the increase in tension affect South Korean President Park Guen-he’s political agenda?
This is the first part of the Q&A featuringDr. Ted Galen Carpenter,Dr. Balbina Hwang,Ms. Duyeon KimandDr. Leon Sigal。Read part two here.
Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter
Senior Fellow for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute
Q:以前，您已经为美国从韩国撤军并让其应对自己的安全。但是，联合练习和表述“Extended Deterrence Policy Committee”suggests that the United States and South Korea likely are moving in the opposite direction. Can you explain to our readers why less, not more, U.S. involvement in South Korea would improve the security situation on the Korean Peninsula?
A: The primary issue is not whether reducing U.S. involvement would improve the overall security situation on the Korean Peninsula, but whether it would reduce the risk of the United States becoming involved in a nasty war that has only peripheral relevance to America’s own security and other vital interests. As it so happens, though, withdrawing U.S. troops and bases probably would improve the security environment on the Peninsula. Ending the U.S. security commitment to South Korea would create a powerful incentive for Seoul to devote far more effort than it does currently to strengthen its own defense. As matters now stand, it is much too convenient for South Korea to rely on Washington’s defense guarantee and be a free rider on American taxpayers. Given North Korea’s bellicose, unpredictable nature, it is irresponsible for Seoul to be spending only 2.6 percent of the country’s gross domestic product on defense, yet it continues to do so. That may please South Korean taxpayers who enjoy the U.S-provided subsidy, but it means that the ROK’s deterrence and war-fighting capabilities are not sufficient for the current security environment. Given the ROK’s heavy reliance on the U.S. for defense, North Korea might be tempted at some point to see if America’s willingness to go to war to protect South Korea is real or a bluff. It is almost certainly real, but if Pyongyang believed otherwise, a tragedy would ensue. Conversely, no North Korean leader would ever assume that a well-armed South Korea would not fight to preserve its independence. Since South Korea’s population is twice that of North Korea’s and the economy is about 40 times as large, there is no reason for America to incur needless risks to defend another country that should be perfectly capable of defending itself.
Q: The United States’ security policy towards the ROK is still framed as a matter of “extending deterrence” as it was during the Cold War. To that end, the two countries recently established aforementioned “Extended Deterrence Policy Committee,” a development that effectively institutionalizes this mode of joint defense planning. This, in turn, has precipitated a “反挑衅计划” to prevent acts of aggression by the DPRK. Do you think that “extended deterrence” is still an efficacious approach to improving the ROK’s security? More specifically, how can the success of the “Counter Provocation Plan” be critically assessed when evidence of its failure (for example, acts of aggression by the DPRK) are typically construed as a basis to do more of the same?
A: Extended deterrence is inherently less credible than primary deterrence—deterring an attack on one’s own country. An adversary always has reason to wonder whether a guarantor power would really risk the destruction and casualties of war merely to protect an ally or security client. That credibility is especially uncertain when an adversary has the capability to attack the homeland of the guarantor power, but it is in doubt even with respect to a country like North Korea that does not have that ability. The North Korean leadership might delude itself into thinking that the U.S. would not fight a costly, bloody war just to save South Korea.
The “counter-provocation plan” is unwise on two levels. If the U.S. is committed to deterring a second Korean War, it should make it clear to Pyongyang that any North Korean military offensive would be met with a devastating retaliation with the goal of extinguishing the trouble-making North Korean state. The prospect of a limited, “tit-for-tat” response could actually encourage the DPRK to test whether the U.S. extended deterrence policy regarding South Korea is real. At the same time, the tit-for-tat approach to an incident always entails the risk of unintended escalation that spirals out of control, producing the larger war that it’s supposedly designed to prevent. It is a strategy that has major drawbacks and almost no benefits.
问:你认为th(在这里我解释)ere is a reflexive tendency in the United States to apportion much of the blame for North Korea’s negatively viewed actions on China for failing to constrain its “ally.” Others may argue that the pressure has been successful in getting China to be more assertive with sanctions and taking other measures – such as cutting off the sale of crude oil, tightening inspections of cargo shipments destined for North Korea, etc. – to punish or pressure the North Koreans. Is the narrative that China has the ability to constrain North Korea a useful one, even if overstated?
A: China does have some ability to constrain the DPRK, but there is a tendency among U.S. pundits and policy experts to exaggerate that ability. Granted, China is one of North Korea’s few allies, and is by far its most important ally, providing that dysfunctional country with most of the food and energy supplies it requires. But that does not translate into being able to treat North Korea as a puppet. The relationship is not akin to the Soviet Union’s total domination of satellites such as East Germany during the Cold War. Kim Jong-Un’s regime has its own interests, policies, and priorities, and an especially high priority is developing the country’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.
北京有令人信服的理由不想对平壤施加巨大压力，即使是为了回应平壤反复蔑视中国的意愿。施加这种压力可能会冒着朝鲜政权爆炸的可能性，而北京则不愿意在其边界上的风险混乱。此外，美国不提供北京的赌博动力，并接受这种不可能的结果的可能性。除了可能发生的难民危机外，可能的长期结果还可能是朝鲜在亲公司下的统一。政府。从中国的角度来看，更糟糕的是，联合韩国将继承韩国与美国的共同安全联盟。朝鲜曾在华盛顿及其盟友统治的中国家园和东亚其他地区之间充当缓冲。现在，这种缓冲区将消失，北京将面临美国军事基地的前景。没有中国领导人会驯服区域战略平衡的这种转变。
If Washington wants Beijing to put more extensive pressure on Pyongyang to end its missile and nuclear programs and stop its warlike rhetoric (at the risk that the North Korean state might collapse), it must offer China some meaningful incentives. The most significant incentive would be to agree to withdraw all U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula and terminate the alliance with Seoul upon Korean reunification. That step would eliminate Beijing’s worries that by coercing North Korea, it would risk having a U.S. military client—and U.S. bases—perched on China’s border. Unfortunately, there is no sign that U.S. leaders are willing to take the long-overdue step of ending its alliance with South Korea.
Q: What do the ongoing standoffs with North Korea and Iran say to you about the power and effectiveness of U.S. diplomacy vis-à-vis nuclear-related issues of great concern? The United States has been engaging these countries in one way or another (sometimes by ignoring them, sometimes by negotiating with them) for over a decade and yet few salient issues are ever solved. Certainly there is plenty of blame to be shared, but is there anything that the United States can do to be more effective when negotiating with its adversaries? If so, why aren’t such tactics in use?
A: To be effective, diplomacy must be based on realistic demands and a willingness to offer meaningful benefits to the opposing party in return for improved behavior. Washington’s policy toward Iran and North Korea fails on both levels. The demands are utterly unrealistic. In Iran’s case, Washington insists not only that the government refrain from developing nuclear weapons, but that it even give up the ability to enrich uranium and control the nuclear fuel cycle. In North Korea’s case, the U.S. demands that Pyongyang abandon a nuclear program that it has invested more than two decades of effort and billions of dollars, and which has already produced at least a few nuclear devices. Those goals are simply not realistic. Both Iran and North Korea have significant incentives for wanting to build at least small nuclear deterrents. Not only do they face major regional rivals, but they take note of how the United States has pursued forcible regime change against countries that did not have such deterrents. The fate of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya have not gone unnoticed.
希望伊朗和北朝鲜接受Washington’s good intentions as the principal guarantee of their security is a bit much, given that track record. For those countries even to consider taking such a risk, there would have to be extremely appealing benefits offered in exchange for abandoning their nuclear aspirations. But the U.S. has offered meager incentives—nothing more than the部分的lifting of sanctions. The bottom line is that no country would cave-in to Washington’s demands in exchange for such paltry concessions—unless that country had no alternative. But neither Iran nor North Korea is in a position akin to Germany or Japan during the final days of World War II. Therefore, they are not likely to accept the diplomatic equivalent of unconditional surrender. Unless Washington drastically changes its negotiating strategy, the stalemates with Tehran and Pyongyang will continue—or degenerate into outright war.
Balbina Y. Hwang博士
Research Fellow at the Institute for National Security Strategy (Korea)
问：过去的几个月，新的领导人不仅带到了朝鲜，还带入了韩国和中国。紧张局势的增加如何影响韩国总统帕克·盖恩（Park Guen-He）的政治议程，例如是对其他优先事项的分心还是强迫外交政策变化？
A: The North Korean threat is an existential reality for South Korea, and has been so from its inception as the Republic of Korea in 1948; indeed, the ROK’s very existence was directly in opposition to the establishment of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the North. As such, the possibility of tensions with North Korea has always been the foremost priority for every leader of South Korea. Additionally, the specter of theNorth’s nuclear threathas existed for the last five presidents (since Kim Young Sam). Given this reality, North Korea was not the central issue in the last several presidential elections in South Korea, and the South Korean electorate clearly prioritized the resolution of domestic issues, such as improvement of the economy and social welfare, inthe last election。In this regard, the current media focus on the threats emanating from North Korea are a temporary distraction, but will not diminish domestic pressure on President Park to accomplish her pledges to transform the economy and society. Ironically, increased North Korean bellicosity may have reduced any dilemmas President Park may have faced about re-engaging North Korea. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for her to pursue any engagement in the short-term, and her responses to any real attacks from the North will likely be firmer and more pro-active than she may have liked or wanted.
Q: How are attitudes about the North Korea changing among South Korea’s public – in general and during the current situation? Additionally, what do the latter think of the response so far by South Korean President Park and the United States?
A: The tendency of most analysts is to make sweeping conclusions about South Koreans’ changing attitudes towards the North: five years ago, it was common to conclude that South Koreans no longer viewed its northern brethren as a threat; after the two incidents in 2010 (North Korean attacks on the Cheonan andYeongpyongIsland), it was assumed that suddenly South Korean attitudes towards the North had dramatically changed. Attitudes towards the North cannot be generalized into generational differences – it is often mistakenly assumed that the older generation who lived through the Korean War considers the North a threat while the younger generations do not. Such conclusions are not only inaccurate, they are not particularly useful. The reality is that South Korean society is far more diverse and pluralistic than outsiders assume, and sentiments towards the North are highly complex. Any particular South Korean (regardless of age or gender) may simultaneously express both heightened anxiety over North Korean threats while also dismissing the possibility of a military attack against the South as improbable if not impossible. Or many citizens may express skepticism and cynicism about using engagement to persuade North Korea to change its behavior and ambitions – for example towards denuclearization – but the same citizens also support engaging the North and using inducements instead of force to achieve change. While such views may seem contradictory and even illogical to many outsiders, they represent a default psychology for the 20 million citizens who live within an immediate 100 kilometer target zone of a North Korean artillery threat.
What has fundamentally changed in the last two decades is a dramatic shift in South Korean perceptions about the nature and sources of the North Korean threat: prior to theNorth Korean famine in 1994, it was thestrengthof the regime along the lines of the traditional cold war view, but evidence of a decaying and starving country changed South Korean perceptions of the threat as emanating from the Pyongyang regime’s fundamentalweakness。The specter of having to absorb a collapsed North seemed a far greater threat to the South Korean way of life than an invasion by a relatively weakened North. In this context, the Sunshine Policy seemed a logical policy to address the source of the imminent North Korean threat. Today, however, in the aftermath of little progress in confrontation with the North despite billions spent on engaging Pyongyang, three nuclear tests, and numerous missile launches, South Koreans understandably have far more complex perceptions of the threat posed by the North. The danger from the North today is paradoxical, emanatingbothfrom the regime’s growing military strength and its structural weakness, resulting in complex and thus seemingly incoherent views about the North.
Q:How do you think the recent escalation in tensions could affect the ROK’s public perception of the United States — in particular, its military presence on the Korean peninsula?
A: Due to complex South Korean perceptions about the North Korean threat (as discussed above) and North Korea’s increasing belligerence, the majority in the South have come to appreciate the crucial roles the U.S. military presence on the Peninsula and the U.S. commitment through its alliance contributes to deterring a major attack by the North. This does not mean, however, that traditional South Korean issues with the United States, such as resentment among some about seemingly disproportionate U.S. influence in Korean affairs, and the panoply of problems arising from an American military footprint have disappeared, or even been resolved. Such issues will continue to be politicized and remain irritants in the bilateral relationship, but the alliance is currently receiving greater popular support and acceptance, at least in the short term.
Ms. Duyeon Kim
Senior Non-Proliferation and East Asia Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Q:North Korea is continuing with acts of aggression and officials say it is preparing another missile launch. Is this another sign of Pyongyang preparing for war and are we on the brink of war?
A: Mistakes, miscalculations, or misunderstandings of intentions on either side of the 38thparallel could unintentionally trigger military conflict. The West Sea has always been a theater for inter-Korean skirmishes and a possible target for a North Korean attack on South Korean islands.
It was believed during the Kim Jong-il era that North Korea was not suicidal enough to start a war because the regime knew that the United States and South Korean militaries could instantly destroy it. Pyongyang’s objective is regime survival. Still, as witnessed in the North’s shelling of South Korea’s Yeonpyeong Island in 2010, Pyongyang can provoke enough just short of war believing that the United States would not strike back.
在金正恩时代，这种信念通常在今天似乎成立，但有许多变量和问号。It is said that the military – that has had no contact with the outside world unlike the Worker’s Party – essentially holds power, which could potentially drive the regime to its own destruction if military leaders decide to “go all the way” and initiate a war. Since Kim Jong-un has rallied his people in preparation for war, it is also unclear whether he would feel pressured to follow through with a display of force.
该地区华盛顿硬件的最新增强可以解释为具有多个受众和信息。它告诉北部和韩国，美国致力于捍卫韩国及其扩大威慑。这甚至可能有助于防止首尔在2010年受到重大打击之后，并决心下次遭到攻击时被武力进行报复。最后，它告诉中国为北部挑衅而准备的可能后果做好准备。
面临的挑战是美国应该在多大程度上表现出其能力，以免向朝鲜发送错误的信息，即它准备攻击政权 - 因此，平壤的要素再次错误地误解了美国的意图。北方一直声称其核和导弹的发展是为了阻止“敌对的美国政策”并对它攻击。
The Pentagon’s publically announced decision to delay an intercontinental ballistic Minuteman 3 missile test should have been the loudest cue for Kim Jong-un to dial back his military posturing and save face before his hardline military leaders. It was a free propaganda tip and chance for the young Kim to spin Washington’s move as a gesture of defeat, claiming victory for Pyongyang. However, the new round of war rhetoric may indicate that Kim Jong-un missed the opportunity or has other objectives.
毫不奇怪的是，平壤会为再次发射导弹做准备。北朝鲜导弹和核试验的持续有两个普遍的原因。从技术上讲，该制度将需要更多的测试才能完善这两种功能。从政治上讲，持续的测试可以证明朝鲜对其国内和国际观众的“能力”，因为它努力被公认为是核武器国家，并实现成为“强大而繁荣的国家”的目标。关键问题是即将推出的发射（据信是Musudan导弹）是否只是测试或目标。答案将决定美国，ROK和日本的回应。重要的是要缩小房间的任何误解和对双方意图的误解。
April 15th，朝鲜创始人的生日和金正恩的祖父金·苏恩（Kim il-Sung）可能是转折点。因此，我们将需要查看平壤出现哪些信号，以及它是否决定选择对话或持续的紧张局势。4月之后的事件15thcould also be a prelude to the fate of ROK President Park Geun-hye’s “trust process.”
Q:Why is North Korea beating such a loud drum and are they serious about their threats?
A: North Korea is predictable because it generally follows through with its threats in some form, depending on time and circumstance. History has shown that the regime tends to announce its plans before acting upon them. The unpredictable element has generally been timing. The key variable now is Kim Jong-un’s calculus and decision-making style, as we seem to be witnessing a young leader who acts quicker and may lack the kind of depth in calculations seen in his predecessors. It is unclear whether Kim Jong-un has calculated in an exit strategy. North Korea’s decades-old sound-bite has been that “Washington wants to attack us.” This is the starting point in understanding its behavior.
Kim Jong-un’s constant stream of provocations and threats seem to have combined domestic and international objectives but may be fueled largely by domestic drivers. Kim Jong-un needs to consolidate his power base, prove his power to his constituents (particularly the military), fulfill his late father’s legacy while establishing his own, and strive to be recognized by the international community as a nuclear weapons state. Kim Jong-un also needs to fulfill Kim Jong-il’s orders to become a “strong and prosperous nation,” an endeavor that began in 2012. In addition, the latest threats appear to be a reaction to U.S. and UN sanctions against its latest nuclear and missile/rocket tests. But Pyongyang’s end goal seems to be negotiating a peace treaty with the United States.
By creating a volatile, war-like situation on the Korean Peninsula, it helps justify Pyongyang’s demand to negotiate a peace treaty with Washington to replace the armistice agreement that ended the 1950-1953 Korean War and to ultimately rid U.S. troops from the peninsula. The U.S.’ long-standing position has been denuclearization before talks of a peace treaty, as reflected in the September 2005 agreement struck under the Six Party Talks. Kim Jong-un may also be trying to justify the regime’s decades-old propaganda to its people that the United States wants to attack North Korea.
Q:The past few months have brought new leaders to not just North Korea, but also the South Korea and China. How does the increase in tension affect South Korean President Park Geun-hye’s political agenda, e.g. is it a distraction from other priorities or forcing foreign policy changes? How are attitudes about North Korea changing among the South Korean public and what is their view of the South Korean and the United States’ response?
A: South Korea’s top national security concern is the North Korean problem, so the latest tensions do not change Seoul’s foreign policy priorities. Pyongyang’s third nuclear test, however, immediately tested and placed limitations on implementing President Park Geun-hye’s North Korea policy, which is rooted in what she calls “trust process.”
It is difficult to generalize about the ROK public’s attitudes toward the United States, ROK government, and North Korea, as it is divided like all democracies – you will always have the doves and hawks. At the same time, however, opinion polls have showed that the public generally supported a more hardline South Korean stance when Yeonpyeong Island was shelled. Another military provocation might narrow the political divide in the ROK, rather than splitting it as Pyongyang has typically desired.
Q:由于半岛上如此动荡的局势，是否应该进行对话来减轻紧张局势，韩国可以做什么？
A: While dialogue should always be a part of the policy toolkit and serves, at a minimum, as a useful tool for intelligence gathering purposes into such a reclusive country, the main question is: What can be discussed at the table after decades of negotiations and no sustainable breakthrough? North Korea has made it clear through official commentaries that it will not abandon its nuclear weapons and missiles, and that it is only interested in peace treaty negotiation and not Six Party Talks-like discussions. In other words, Pyongyang is saying it wants to keep its nuclear weapons while negotiating a peace treaty, which would be unacceptable for Washington.
In the aftermath of another nuclear and rocket/missile test and more war threats, it is politically difficult, if not impossible, for Washington to initiate dialogue with Pyongyang. The dust and noise would need to settle and this has typically taken around six months to a year before we see diplomatic movement. China is the only country that could reach out to North Korea, but the question is whether Pyongyang would be interested in such talks, as there is said to be deep-seeded anti-Chinese sentiment in North Korea. Seoul is also constrained under the current circumstance, but while President Park Geun-hye maintains a tough stance toward Pyongyang’s belligerence, she has also recently signaled the door remains open for dialogue and is willing to provide humanitarian assistance if Pyongyang chooses “the right path,” thus activating her “Korean Peninsula trust process.” Last week, Pyongyang rejected President Park’s offer of dialogue, calling it a “cunning ploy” and an “empty shell.”
An exit strategy needs to be devised that saves face for Pyongyang, reduces tensions on the Peninsula, and ultimately paves the way to eventually resolve the North Korean dilemma.
Dr. Leon Sigal
纽约社会科学研究委员会东北亚合作安全项目主任
Q: What influence, if any,couldChina exert over the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in this situation? Given that, what degree of influence, if any, is Chinawillingto exert over the DPRK in this environment?
A: In practice, much of the trade and investment is conducted by private Chinese firms and trading companies, heavily concentrated in predominantly Korean provinces of China along the border with North. These provinces, which are less prosperous than other parts of China, would plunge into recession in the event of a that China cut off trade and investment with these firms and companies. In practice, too, no one knows how North Korea would respond to a cutoff and what would happen to its nuclear assets in the event of instability. Above all, the steps taken to reassure U.S. allies also antagonize China—joint exercises that include flights of B-52 and B-2 bombers or the dispatch of aircraft carriers to Korea, expanding missile defenses, and helping South Korea to develop longer-range ballistic missiles (to add to the long-range cruise missiles it recently deployed). It is utterly unrealistic to expect China to abandon North Korea as the United States moves to shore up its alliances by military rebalancing.
Q: Major joint military exercises between the United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK) (such as the annual Key Resolve/Foal Eagle) have consistently been a flashpoint which Pyongyang uses to justify threats and escalatory behavior including nuclear threats. Is the situation today within the normal parameters for such a reaction or are there novel or unexpected aspects to the DPRK’s behavior? Likewise, has there been anything novel or unexpected in the United States’ counter-response?
A: The circumstances have made this year’s reaction more extreme than those in the past. First, after China cooperated with the United States to draft a U.N. Security Council resolution tightening sanctions, the North did what it always does whenever Washington and Beijing work in concert—raise tensions to provoke discord between them. China’s efforts to calm Pyongyang down instead of bringing it to its knees lead many in Washington to accuse Beijing of coddling its neighbor. Second, U.S.-South Korea annual joint exercises kicked off last month. Unlike the recent past, they included practice bombing runs by B-52 and B-2 bombers in South Korea and the dispatch of F-22 stealth fighter plans and an attack submarine to the peninsula. Third, more speculatively, Kim Jong-un seems to be adopting his own version of the Eisenhower administration’s “bigger bang for a buck,” building up its nuclear capability in order to reallocate some resources from military to civilian production. Whether that is his aim remains to be seen.
Q:How accurate do you think non-Asian media outlets have been in their representation of the DPRK’s intents and actions.
A: News media accounts have amplified Pyongyang’s rhetorical threats — often without noting that they came in response to military moves by Washington and Seoul. The threats all seem intended to underscore North Korea’s own posture of deterrence—and are explicitly predicated on prior action by the United States or South Korea. Paradoxically, the emphasis on Pyongyang’s verbal bombast tends to drown out the real threat Pyongyang poses: its unbounded nuclear and missile potential. Its February 12 nuclear test showed it is well on the way to perfecting a compact weapons design capable of being mounted on a missile. It now says it will restart its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon to generate plutonium and will enrich uranium for weapons. And it may be moving to test-launch a new missile capable of reaching Japan or possibly Guam.
Q:美国应该采取什么政策,what are the key dynamics that policy formulation should recognize and address?”
答:第一,每一方的步骤在Korea takes to bolster deterrence increase the risk of deadly clashes, as demonstrated by incidents such as the sinking of the South’s ROKS Cheonan in March 2010 in retaliation for the November 2009 shooting up of a North Korean navy vessel and a November 2010 artillery exchange in the contested waters off Korea’s west coast. Deterrence alone will not assure calm on the peninsula. The way to reduce the risk of further clashes is a peace process in Korea in parallel with renewed negotiations to rein in the North’s nuclear and missile programs. Pyongyang has long said it wants a peace treaty ending the Korean War. Probing whether it means what it says is in South Korean and U.S. security interests, especially now that North Korea is nuclear-armed.
其次，与中国进行战斗不会让朝鲜行为。没有华盛顿的免责声明合唱会说服北京，美国军事重新平衡亚洲的目的不是旨在遏制它。华盛顿需要陪同军事重新平衡对中国的政治和外交再平衡，并鼓励其盟友做同样的事情。合作必须是一条双向街道。
Expert Biographies
Ted Galen Carpenter国防和外交政策高级研究员圣吗udies at the Cato Institute. Dr. Carpenter served as Cato’s director of foreign policy studies from 1986 to 1995 and as vice president for defense and foreign policy studies from 1995 to 2011. He is the author of nine and the editor of 10 books on international affairs, includingThe Fire Next Door: Mexico’s Drug Violence and the Danger to America,Smart Power: Toward a Prudent Foreign Policy for America,America’s Coming War with China : A Collision Course over Taiwan,The Korean Conundrum: America’s Troubled Relations with North and South Korea,不良邻居政策：华盛顿在拉丁美洲徒劳的毒品战争,被媒体:外交政策危机和First Amendment,Beyond NATO: Staying Out of Europe’s Wars,andA Search for Enemies: America’s Alliances after the Cold War。Carpenter is contributing editor to the National Interest and serves on the editorial boards of Mediterranean Quarterly and the Journal of Strategic Studies, and is the author of more than 500 articles and policy studies. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, the National Interest, World Policy Journal, and many other publications. He is a frequent guest on radio and television programs in the United States, Latin America, Europe, East Asia, and other regions. Carpenter received his Ph.D. in U.S. diplomatic history from the University of Texas.
Balbina Y. Hwang目前是韩国首尔INSS（国家安全战略研究所）的兼职研究员。她还是乔治敦大学的客座教授，在那里她在东亚政治经济学上教课程。从2007年到2009年，她担任美国国务院东亚和太平洋事务助理秘书助理秘书Christopher Hill的高级特别顾问。从2009年到2010年，她在国防大学任教东北亚安全。在加入国务院之前，她曾是智囊团Heritage Foundation亚洲研究中心东北亚的高级政策分析师。Hwang博士是众多文章和书籍章节的作者，并获得了多个写作奖。她在国会听证会之前就提供了专家证词，并且是主要国际媒体的经常评论员。Hwang博士是韩国人，是韩国的富布赖特学者（1998 - 99年），在那里她进行了博士学位论文现场研究。Hwang博士获得了学位：乔治敦大学（博士）；哥伦比亚大学（MIA）； Darden – University of Virginia (MBA); and Smith College (BA).
Duyeon Kimis the Senior Non-Proliferation and East Asia Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation where her policy work focuses on nuclear non-proliferation, North Korea and nuclear security.
Prior to joining the Center, Kim was a career Diplomatic and Security journalist having served as the Foreign Ministry Correspondent and Unification Ministry Correspondent for South Korea’s Arirang TV based in Seoul. Her stories mainly covered North Korea’s nuclear programs, the Six Party Talks, inter-Korean relations, the Korea-US alliance, South Korean diplomacy, U.S. foreign policy and the United Nations. Kim has sat down with world leaders on countless occasions interviewing dignitaries including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and UN agency chiefs, former Indonesian President Megawati Soekarnoputri and senior officials across the world. While working towards her master’s degree, Kim continued to file reports for Arirang TV from Washington, DC while freelancing for South Korea’s JoongAng SUNDAY and KBS’ 50-minute TV news special “Ssam” covering U.S. reaction to North Korean provocations.
Kim has written for major publications including the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, World Politics Review and The New York Times. Kim was also interviewed on TV including CBS, BBC, AFP TV, South Korea’s KBS, South Korea’s Arirang TV and China’s Xinhua News Agency while quoted in The Washington Post, AFP, Korea Herald, Nature, Korea Times, JoongAng Ilbo, Seoul Shinmun, and Asia Times.
Kim holds an M.S. in Foreign Service concentrating in International Relations and Security from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and a B.A. in English literature from Syracuse University.
Leon V. Sigal是纽约社会科学研究委员会东北亚合作安全项目的主任。他的书，Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea, published by Princeton University Press, was one of five nominees for the Lionel Gelber Prize as the most outstanding book in international relations for 1997-98 and was named the 1998 book of distinction by the American Academy of Diplomacy. His most recent book,Negotiating Minefields: The Landmines Ban in American Politics, was published by Routledge in 2006.
Sigal was a member of the editorial board ofThe New York Timesfrom 1989 to 1995. He served in the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, in 1979 as International Affairs Fellow and in 1980 as Special Assistant to the Director.
He was a Rockefeller Younger Scholar in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution in 1972-1974 and a guest scholar there in 1981-1984. From 1974 to 1989 he was a professor of government at Wesleyan University. He was an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs from 1985 to 1989 and from 1996 to 2000 and a visiting lecturer at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School in 1988 and 2000.
Sigal is also the author ofReporters and Officials: The Organization and Politics of Newsmaking,Alliance Security: NATO and the No-First-Use Question(with John Steinbruner),Nuclear Forces in Europe: Enduring Dilemmas,目前的前景，奋斗到结束：1945年美国和日本的战争政治终止, andHang Separately: Cooperative Security Between the United States and Russia, 1985-1994, as well as numerous articles inForeign Affairs,Foreign Policy,大西洋月, andBulletin of the Atomic Scientists, among others. He edited美国国防支出的动态变化。
FAS核笔记本是最广泛之一sourced reference materials worldwide for reliable information about the status of nuclear weapons, and has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists since 1987.. The Nuclear Notebook is researched and written by the staff of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project: Director Hans […]
On 14 April 2023, the Belarusian Ministry of Defence released a short video of a Su-25 pilot explaining his new role in delivering “special [nuclear] munitions” following his training in Russia. The features seen in the video, as well as several other open-source clues, suggest that Lida Air Base––located only 40 kilometers from the Lithuanian border and the […]
2022年的洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室（LANL）学生简报中的一张照片显示，有四个人检查了似乎受损的B61核弹。
2023年2月初，《华尔街日报》报道说，美国战略司令部（Stratcom）通知国会，中国现在拥有的洲际弹道导弹（ICBMS）的发射器要比美国更多。该报告是过去四年中关于中国不断发展的核武器库和加深[…]的最新启示。