The economic and political integration of East Asia has been dramatic yet the North Korean nuclear crisis threatens to reverse this progress. While each nation in the region has its own unique set of interests and perspectives on the Korean nuclear issue, divisions between progressives and conservatives over how to deal with the crisis cross national boundaries. Two different views of how to further regional convergence and resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis have emerged. A vision of evolutionary, multilateral regional convergence sees parallel interests of all the nations in the region in economic growth, political stability, and a non-nuclear Korea, and believes these interests can be satisfied through multilateral negotiation. This view has been challenged by the hard-liners in the Bush administration who seek rapid regime change in the North and resurgence of American hegemony in the Asia Pacific. Rapid regime change in the North is unlikely to be realized, and if it were to occur, it would likely be massively destabilizing, imposing massive costs on both Koreas and repolarizing the Northeast Asia region. The U.S. and its allies need to recognize the reform dilemma North Korea faces. True reform of the North cannot come until progress is made on the fundamental security issues. The most hopeful sign is that recently the Bush administration has muted its calls for regime change and begun to work through six party talks toward a negotiated settlement.
Ⅰ. Introduction<BR>Ⅱ. Changing Global Context and Changing American Foreign Policy<BR>Ⅲ. The North Korean Nuclear Crises<BR>Ⅳ. Other Powers and the North Korean Crisis<BR>Ⅴ. Two Approaches to the Korean Nuclear Crisis, Two Visions of the Future of Northeast Asia<BR>Ⅵ. Which Vision Is More Likely to Further Regional Convergence?<BR>Ⅶ. Which Vision Will Prevail?<BR>Works Cited<BR>Abstract<BR>
(0)
(0)