Everybody in the global community is talking about ME, especially the so-called “framework agreement” with Iran announced yesterday in Lausanne. However, I’m extremely interested rather in the opposite side of the same coin. I mean, the story on Iran is indirectly but closely related with another on DPRK. Why?
There are some reasons for such an argument. First of all, we should pay attention to limited capability of US military force. It can’t fight against enemies in two separate regions any more. This fact automatically leads to the reality that USG has to seek a peaceful resolution in one region, whenever its military force is forced to battle in another region on the globe. Now, the USG has been trying hard to keep its hegemony in ME militarily, which obviously brings about its peaceful attitude even to DPRK.
Secondly, it’s nuclear capability that matters in both Iran and DPRK. As far as I, former chief desk officer in charge of Japan-DPRK relationship in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, know, DPRK precisely follows every single movement of negotiations between Iran and US in terms of the former’s nuclear capability. Once the issue will be solved between the two countries, the same scheme might be applied to DPRK vis-à-vis US to tolerate the former’s nuclear capacity (hopefully).
In these senses, nuclear issues of DPRK and Iran are two different sides of the same coin, and we should keep eyes on what’s going on in both countries simultaneously to anticipate the future of the global community.
As I mentioned beforehand, everybody currently focuses only on Lausanne. Nevertheless, I just want strongly urge you, dear readers, to pay attention rather to Pyongyang and the Korean Peninsula.
The point is the establishment of AIIB led by PRC obviously causes endless turbulence in East Asia. It’s not just financial matter, but security policy issue, which is closely related to the historical fact after the WWII that US has dominated in the region. Acquiring a membership of AIIB is regarded as a confession of faith: When you join the AIIB, you automatically lose trust of US. For fear of that, Japan, for example, still hesitates to announce her willingness to get involved in the newly established arena in Shanghai.
Well, how about Pyongyang and Seoul? The former was refused to get the AIIB membership for the lack of official applications with detailed statistics of its economy (sic!). The end of “alliance of the blood” between Beijing and Pyongyang? NOPE. There hasn’t been such an alliance mentioned frequently among experts, since it’s not PRC but Japan and the former Soviet Union which jointly built up DPRK as a buffer state between communism (=USSR) and capitalism (=US). Therefore, not formal but substantial reason hinders Pyongyang from joining the AIIB.
The whole story becomes a little bit complicated at this stage. In accordance with the above mentioned criteria, “being refused to get a membership of AIIB” means an indirect confession of faith to Washington D.C. Pyongyang has been used as a center for money laundering in East Asia, which is almost unknown in the public. Without involving DPRK in the financial regime in the region, it doesn’t work actually. That is, of course, extremely good for US, which fights against the hidden intrigue led by the City of London (Don’t forget the fact it’s UK that officially declared her willingness to join the AIIB foremost in the world community!), but in vain.
In Seoul, there is only one policy option left. ROK didn’t hesitate to become a member of AIIB to save its disastrous economy to be otherwise collapsed soon. Taking this opportunity very strategically, Pyongyang scoffed at such a policy change in Seoul with its statement by saying, “Poor Seoul, where is your self-proclaimed “alliance” with Washington D.C.?”
What a horrible scenario it is for the people in ROK, when US-DPRK alliance will be emerging! This just means the end of the puppet state in the Korean Peninsula since 1948. US already implied this policy change by releasing its former classified document in terms of immoral activities done by South Korean military personnel during the Vietnam War. According to the official document of US Army, the South Koreans run houses of Vietnamese “comfort women” for soldiers, while they harshly criticized similar activities of Japanese Imperial Army during the WWII. What a contradictory statement it is! A Japanese proverb says: “One man’s fault is another’s lesson.” Obviously, this wisdom isn’t fully shared among the East Asians.
To wrap up, I’d say the next step for the Obama Administration will be “historical” reconciliation with DPRK. The framework agreement with Iran by US harms the Israelis, while another with DPRK damages the Japanese. My last question to all of you: Based on these facts, who should establish a new alliance then?