Open communication for Peninsula peace

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea conducted its third nuclear test despite the opposition of various countries and international organizations.

Simply put, the international community is frustrated. It was reported that the test, which used a miniaturized nuclear device with greater explosive force, was successful. This represents further progress in the DPRK's nuclear capabilities, showing that the country will be able to produce a warhead small enough to mount on a long-range missile.

Besides the issue of nonproliferation, the DPRK's most recent nuclear test means that previous international efforts to prevent the country from pursuing its nuclear ambitions have once again been in vain.

At first, sanctions were widely believed to be an effective way to shape Pyongyang's behavior. The United Nations Security Council has adopted various sanctions over the years; the latest being UNSC Resolution 2087 in response to the DPRK's rocket launch in December. The resolution included asset freezes and travel bans on critical DPRK companies and officials. It strengthened and expanded the scope of existing sanctions, making them more effective and far-reaching.

Now, the US is seeking further action from the UNSC and the council is considering another round of sanctions against Pyongyang.

However, previous sanctions have failed to change Pyongyang's policy. All three nuclear tests were conducted in the context of sanctions and great international pressure, showing the DPRK will not bow to sanctions, since they do not have a devastating effect on its political regime. The country has been operating in a relatively isolated environment for such a long time that it has proclaimed itself a "self-reliant" state.

In fact, the DPRK is not concerned about the negative repercussions of its missile launches and nuclear tests. Given Pyongyang's prior experiences, it knew the nuclear test would greatly impact its relationship with the international community including the United States, Japan and the Republic of Korea. However, the negative effects are not irreversible. By using smart, diplomatic approaches the DPRK knows it can repair relations and improve its image in the international environment.

There have been calls for China to join in the sanctions against the DPRK, to isolate the country from international aid until it ceases its nuclear program. The problem is that it is against China's principle of building harmonious relationships with neighboring countries. Meanwhile, China will not yield to Western countries' attempts to punish a country, in part because it does not share the same Western values. Therefore, China will not join a union to tame the DPRK.

At the same time, however, the approaches preferred by China have also stagnated. China has always called for the related parties to seek denuclearization through diplomatic channels. But it has been difficult to get the parties concerned to the negotiating table, as mutual trust is fragile. Additionally, the US and the ROK usually set preconditions for talks with the DPRK, which has been the main obstacle in the way of dialogue.

As a result, the Six-Party Talks have been stalled for years. After the UNSC adopted the resolution condemning Pyongyang's satellite launch in December, the DPRK declared that the Six-Party Talks and the Sept 19 Joint Statement no longer exist.

The US, China, the ROK, Japan and the DPRK should be aware that stability in the region is at risk. Any provocation could further deteriorate the situation.

Yet despite failure and frustration, it is still too early to give up on the goal of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Actually, it is time to work out a comprehensive solution that takes into account the interests of all the parties concerned.

A solution to the DPRK's nuclear issue requires: open communication, avoiding an arms race, and regional cooperation.

First, the related parties should not waste time and energy haggling over the pattern or make-up of talks. Instead, willing parties should embrace open communication straight away. Regardless of whether they are bilateral or multilateral, an open discourse would be helpful in reducing the tension that has built up.

Second, an arms race should be avoided. The competition between the DPRK's nuclear and missile capabilities and the United States' nuclear umbrella will lead to further military buildup in the region. Moreover, the proposed US-Japan-South Korea anti-missile system will only make the situation more complicated. Ultimately, a zero-sum game is against every country's interests.

Finally, comprehensive solutions should be presented in an extensive framework, aiming at regional development and cooperation. Signs indicate that the new leadership in the DPRK has already begun to pay more attention to the country's economic development and reform. This is an opportunity for other parties to engage with the DPRK and involve it in the construction of a regional cooperation framework. A proposal about energy and economic cooperation in the Peninsula may be an appropriate starting point. Afterward, the mechanisms for security and common prosperity in Northeast Asia will catch up.

The author is deputy director of the Department of International and Strategic Studies at the China Institute of International Studies. www.chinausfocus.com