EAI Fellows Program Working Paper Series No.24

저자

Etel Solingen is Chancellor's Professor of Political Science at the University of California Irvine and Review Essay Editor of International Organization. Her most recent book Nuclear Logics: Contrasting Paths in East Asia and the Middle East (Princeton University Press 2007) is the recipient of the 2008 Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award for the best book on government, politics, or international affairs by the American Political Science Association, and of the 2008 APSA’s Robert Jervis and Paul Schroeder Award for the Best Book on International History and Politics.

Professor Solingen was Vice-President of the International Studies Association, President of the International Political Economy Section of ISA, and the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation Research and Writing Award on Peace and International Cooperation, a Social Science Research Council-Mac Arthur Foundation Fellowship on Peace and Security in a Changing World, a Japan Foundation/SSRC Abe Fellowship, a Center for Global Partnership fellowship, and Carnegie Corporation, USIP, Sloan Foundation, Columbia Foundation and other grants.

She is also the author of Regional Orders at Century's Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy (Princeton University Press 1998), Industrial Policy, Technology, and International Bargaining: Designing Nuclear Industries in Argentina and Brazil (Stanford University Press 1996) and editor of Scientists and the State (University of Michigan Press 1994).

Her articles on international relations theory, international political economy, comparative politics, institutional theory, comparative regionalism, democratization, and international security appeared in the American Political Science Review, International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, Comparative Politics, International Security, Global Governance, Journal of Democracy, Journal of Peace Research, Journal of Theoretical Politics, International Relations of Asia-Pacific, Asian Survey, and International History Review, among others. Her research has focused mostly on the Middle East, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Euro- Mediterranean region.

She served as Chair of the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation’s Steering Committee between 2004 and 2008, and is the recipient of a 2002 American Political Science Association Excellence in Mentorship Award and a Distinguished Teaching Award from the University of California Irvine's Academic Senate (1995).

 
본 working paper는 "EAI Fellows Program on Peace, Governance, and Development in East Asia"에 제출된 논문이며, 온라인 버전으로만 배포됩니다. EAI Fellows Program은 대만 장경국 재단, 미국 헨리루스 재단의 후원으로 진행됩니다.

Economic sanctions have often been considered the best alternative to the use of military force. However, academic and policy debates regarding the effectiveness of sanctions on Iraq, Iran, Libya and the DPRK have not been settled. There are significant discrepancies in the literature that addresses sanctions more generally, beyond the realm of nuclear proliferation. For instance, a study by Hufbauer, Schott, and Elliott (1990) found that sanctions were partially effective in 40 out of 115 cases (34 percent) between 1914 and 1990. By the latter part of the 1990s the literature appeared to return to the theme that sanctions/boycotts alone often fail to deliver the desired change in behavior. Pape (1997) found that only 5 of the cases listed in Hufbauer et al. (1990) met his definition of success, labeling all the rest “indeterminate.”

Examples of presumed failures include the DPRK (1990s, early 2000s), Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, and others. Pape’s conclusions joined a number of earlier studies (Galtung 1967, Doxey 1980, Knorr 1975) similarly skeptical of the effectiveness of sanctions, but were at odds with other, more optimistic studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Baldwin 1985, Martin 1992, Cortright and Lopez 1995). Some scholars (Elliott 1998, Baldwin 1998) argued that coding the effects of sanctions dichotomously--as either a success or failure--was a mistake given the many cases where the outcome was a mix of success and failure. Most cases, in other words, fall somewhere in the middle ground between absolute non-compliance and total compliance.

Much of this literature addressed sanctions rather than positive inducements, for the most part and at least until recently. The developing perception that sanctions were ineffective fueled interest in positive inducements, particularly economic inducements, as a tool of influence. In their study of engagement policies by South Korea, Taiwan, and China, Kahler and Kastner (2006) found preliminary confirmation that (1) Conditional strategies (linking economic ties to changed behavior in the target state) are less likely to succeed when the initiating state is a democracy and that (2) Transformative strategies (unconditional reliance on economic interdependence to transform the foreign policy goals of the target state) are more likely to succeed when a broad consensus exists in the initiating state.

The experience of Northeast Asian states with the DPRK is particularly critical because of the extensive use of positive inducements. How have Northeast Asian states responded to the nuclearization of the DPRK? What differences might one discern in those responses? What are the sources of those differences? What mix of positive and negative inducements was applied in each case? What follows is a very preliminary overview (prior to the conclusion of field research) of the evolving mix of sanctions and positive inducements by Japan, China and South Korea in connection to the DPRK’s nuclear program.

I. Japan’s Dilemma: DPRK Nuclearization and the racchi jiken

Many consider Japan to be the most likely target of the DPRK’s unconventional capabilities. Neorealist theories would predict such circumstances to constitute the most crucial driver in Japan’s response to the DPRK’s nuclearization, leading it to counter it with nuclear weapons of its own. Yet, contra neorealism, the most important driver in Japan’s policies on this issue does not seem to have been a push for nuclear weapons but a domestic debate over Japanese citizens abducted by the DPRK (racchi jiken) in the 1970s. This adds to a long list of anomalies for neorealist theory. Beyond that, to the extent that Japan’s policies vis-à-vis DPRK nuclearization have evolved in the last 15 years or so, they have largely shifted from the positive to the negative inducements end in the spectrum of instruments of statecraft. And the racchi jiken have been central to this shift.

Following the end of the Cold War, Japan and the DPRK held several rounds of “normalization talks” in the early 1990s. Japan also delivered 300,000 tons of rice to the DPRK after the death of Kim Il Sung and in 1995 Prime Minister Murayama Tomiichi expressed remorse and apologized for Japan's colonial rule and atrocities during World War II on the 50th anniversary of the end of that war. At this time Japan’s DPRK policy had engagement as its long-term goal as part of the Agreed Framework and to reassure an anxious South Korea. Domestic pressures over Nihonjinzuma (reparations) and the DPRK’s abductions of Japanese citizens remained a powerful barrier to normalization but did not thwart the general trend towards engagement at this point.

The DPRK launched its first salvo, literally, as part of its road to nuclearization, on August 31, 1998, in the form of a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan. Premier Obuchi expressed deep worries, adding that “Japan's people are extremely anxious” and that Japan needed a better “warning system” and its own satellite. Kan Naoto, the DPJ opposition leader, endorsed this idea. Mori Yoshiro, secretary general of the ruling LDP argued that “if the firing was intentional, it's quite fair to say that a war could have broken out.” Deputy Cabinet Secretary Hurukawa Tejiro, in charge of inter-ministerial talks on the DPRK, allegedly raised the possibility of banning all financial remittances, freezing assets of pro-North Korean organizations in Japan, and suspending trade and all visits. However MOFA remained concerned with the DPRK’s potential turn to nuclear weapons (Yonhap News Agency, 1998). Japan nonetheless pushed for sanctions at the United Nations but failed even as the US moved ahead with the KEDO light-water reactor project, leading Japan to sign the two reactors’ cost-sharing agreement, for which Japan had pledged $1 billion.

Domestic pressures to re-consider engagement with the DPRK have been a constant since. Among these voices, a group of younger Diet politicians warned that the DPRK was building Taepodong ballistic missiles (Maeda, 1999). Obuchi acknowledged that Japan’s position could not be completely aligned with that of the US or South Korea’s due to different domestic considerations in each case (Yonhap News Agency, 1999a). With the DPRK’s announcement of an imminent Taepodong-2 missile test in 1999, both the LDP and DPJ supported the suspension of remittances to the DPRK (Sims, 1999a). Abe Shinzo, a future LDP Prime Minister who also backed the measure, argued that Japan needed a stick-and-carrot approach which constitutional restrictions handicapped (Daimon, 1999). Meanwhile, a US-Japanese missile defense system was under consideration as were changes to Japan’s maritime defense capabilities and to the prohibition to deploy maritime SDF overseas. Japan also continued to offer the withdrawal of sanctions if the DPRK suspended the missile launch, lifted a ban on chartered flights, and restarted food aid (Sims, 1999b; The Japan Times, 1999; Yonhap News Agency, 1999e). Meanwhile the DPRK insisted in colonial reparations but Japan’s negotiator, Takano Kojiro, while reiterating Prime Minister Murayama’s 1995 apology for Japanese wartime aggression, rejected the need for compensation (New York Times, 2000).

Following the June 20 North-South Korean Summit, Japan's Federation of Economic Organizations (Keidanren) launched an initiative to spur business projects in the DPRK and a free trade agreement between Korea and Japan (Yonhap News Agency, 2000b). However, Japan perceived the pace of US and South Korea’s rapprochement with the DPRK to exceed its own ability to forge a domestic consensus (Hughes, 2002). In 2001 Japan offered to buy all of the DPRK’s Rodong missiles, many ready for export to Middle Eastern countries, in exchange for freezing of, and external oversight over, the DPRK’s missile program (Yonhap News Agency, 2001a). Under Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi the Diet also approved Japan’s Coast Guard (JCG) permission to fire on fushinsen (suspected spy boats), invoked later in the sinking of a suspected DPRK vessel initially spotted within Japan’s 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and pursued into Chinese territorial waters in December 2001 (Hughes, 2002, p. 72).

Koizumi’s Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Abe Shinzo headed a government taskforce dealing with the abductees’ (racchi jiken) problem. Koizumi raised the issue strongly with South Korea’s President Kim Dae Jung (Asahi Shimbun, 2002c). Against the background of credit union scandals involving pro-Pyongyang groups in Japan there were renewed calls for freezing all negotiations over normalization and for designating the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chongryun) as a subversive organization (Asahi Shimbun, 2002b). As Hughes (2002:75) argued, the racchi jiken had become a precondition for normalization even though MOFA’s position in 1991 had been that there would be no preconditions for a final settlement...(Continued)