 |
|
Kim Ji-suk, Editorial-page editor
|
Kim Ji-suk, Editorial-page editor
The Pew Research Center is a private American "fact tank," an institution that, unlike "think tanks," speaks with facts. A survey of public opinion in fifteen countries that Pew performed last week produced some interesting results. Findings about the further deterioration of America’s image overseas was widely reported in the press, but the section about Iran, which, like North Korea, has been pursuing missile projects and nuclear weapons, is also worth looking at. Between 70 to 80 percent of people in Western countries (including the U.S., Europe, and Japan) think Iran presents a danger to its region and to the world. In Middle Eastern countries, however, 60 to 80 percent think Iran presents little or no danger at all. More than 90 percent of Western populations think Iran should not possess nuclear weapons, while in the Middle East it is only Turkey where a majority (61 percent) is opposed to Iranian nukes. In Egypt and Jordan, opinion is split (with both sides just over 40 percent), and in Pakistan 52 percent of the public actually supports Iran having nuclear weapons, three times more than the 15 percent who are opposed to the idea. In the West, two thirds think that Iranian nuclear arms would eventually fall into the hands of terrorists, but in the Middle East and Islamic countries more than 60 percent think such weapons would only be used for defense purposes. In other words, most in the Middle East support Iran having nuclear arms to fend off the U.S. and Israel. You have to wonder what the results would look like if a similar survey were done in Northeast Asia regarding North Korea and its nuclear program. Views about "the North Korean threat" would vary significantly from country to country, but opinion would be overwhelmingly opposed to the North possessing nuclear weapons. That is one of the biggest differences between the situation for North Korea and Iran, and that surely has to mean a lot for strategy among neighboring countries and the U.S. There is another decisive difference. Iran is the world’s fourth largest oil producing country, after Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the U.S. It exports 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, and 60 percent goes to Korea, Japan, and other Asian countries. The U.S. cannot control Iran’s oil exports, and the U.S. has already been playing the economic blockade card with Iran since 1979, to little result. There is just no comparison between Iran and North Korea, the latter country having little means to earn foreign cash and facing chronic energy problems.Even so, three years ago, when the U.S. invaded Iraq and Baghdad fell weeks later, it was Iran that went to the Americans, saying it was willing to discuss everything, including its nuclear plans. At the time, the U.S. ignored those calls under the assumption that Iran’s government was about to collapse. Now that Iran has made a lot more progress with its nuclear plans and missile technology, however, the U.S. has had a change of attitude and is willing to have direct talks. It took a whole three years for the U.S. to face reality. North Korea has put its latest card on the table, namely its preparations for the test fire of a long-range missile. The goal is probably to change the U.S.’s attitude, which has given more priority to pressuring North Korea than to negotiating with it. That part of U.S.-North policy is similar to its one with Iran. The moment Pyongyang fires that missile, however, it will become an entirely different matter. The six-party talks will be all but completely scrapped, and relations between the U.S. and the North will have crossed a bridge of no return. The conflict could continue to grow until the next U.S. president takes office in 2009. Once it fires that missile, the North would have few cards to play. If further sanctions go through after the missile test fire, the North might have to start on another "arduous march" (gonanui haenggun), as it calls the period of severe economic hardship in the 1990s, but U.S. president George W. Bush would have little to lose as far as domestic American politics are concerned. He could speed up construction of the missile defense (MD) program, and accomplish a more advantageous reorganization of military power in the Asia Pacific region, including the ongoing integration of U.S. forces with the Japanese military. Being just on the verge of firing a missile might be somewhat effective for North Korea, but the moment it launches it, the exact opposite effect will take place. North Korea needs to know it will never be like Iran.
