Special report: DPRK's Nuclear Test

The United States claims to soon impose its punitive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the wake of unanimously adopting Resolution No. 1718 by the United Nations Security Council on Oct. 14. Some Western media hold that the U.S. will resume the strategy of "cold-war type" containment as it cannot tolerate DPRK with a possession of nuclear weapons but "military options may be unacceptably risky". In the end, America is forced to accept such methods as sanctions and interceptions, which were often used in the era of cold war.

During the period of cold war, two different camps of ideological rivals had long been locked in a face-off, with a possibility for a nuclear war to be triggered at any moment. And the confrontation plunged the world into a balance of grave terrors, which was resolutely opposed by the international community. Consequently, cold warfare cannot possibly be sustained and the containment strategy by the U.S. did not succeed either. Apparently, the primary reason for the collapse of the former Soviet Union was not because of the US containment but because of its own internal factors. Likewise, it is also impossible for the United States to succeed in its containment of the development of newly emerging countries today.

At present, stern reactions of the international community to the DPRK nuclear test are by no means the same with the cold-war containment. The UN Security Council Resolution No. 1718 reflects the common will of the international community against the DPRK nuclear test and embodies the collective interests of all counties in their opposition to nuclear proliferation, and so constitutes a successful practice of multilateral diplomacy for seeking to stabilize security in Northeast Asia.

No one can deny the existence of some people in the U.S. who attempt to resume the cold-war type containment strategy but, after all, penetrating changes have taken place in the international relations and it is hard to translate the wish for resuming cold-war type containment into reality. With the growth of economic globalization and growing mixed, mutual-dependence of members of the international community, it is unlikely for a nation not to be harmed itself in containing another nation. A host of facts have proven that the U.S., who finds itself increasingly difficult to contain one or numerous countries with means of power politics, has suffered repeated setbacks in the past decade.

The relative power of the United States in the world has been falling despite a steady rise in its overall national strength. Though the U.S. still has fairly strong military might to cope with a crisis, it primary choice for the crisis settlement, however, hinges on communication and coordination due to the multifactor complexity of international crises, but not the first option of unilateral action capitalizing on its super-strong military might. This trend is epitomized by its UN diplomacy instead of shunning the United Nations on the latest issue of DPRK nuclear test.

Recently, the Bush Administration has readjusted its foreign policy and, first of all, the attempt to seek the cooperation of the UN at the time of crisis constitutes one of the endeavors to renovate its practices during a previous period. With regard to the effect of the policies the Bush administration has carried out toward the nations of the "axis of evils", most aspects of the international community can hardly give a positive appraisal of such policies. And these aspects of the international community, though not necessarily endorsing the relevant policies of DPRK and Iran, acknowledge that the U.S. should hardly shake off its respective responsibilities for the turmoil in Iraq, and impasses in DPRK and Iran nuclear issues.

The United States soon draws positive responses from the international community once it has learned some lessons and made some positive gestures in the sphere of international security cooperation, and such a trend needs to be maintained. Some readjustments in the US foreign policy themselves illustrate international cooperation and not the containment of the cold-war type, and this is precisely the fundamental path to the maintenance and management of security in the present era.

Editor: Yan