Current Conflicts - Discussing Tasks for Regional and Interregional Conflict Prevention regarding the Korean Peninsula and the Nuclear Crisis

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to thank you most warmly for inviting me to Shanghai once again. It is a pleasure to be here to see you again. Franz Müntefering, Chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, has asked me to pass on his best wishes. In a few months, Franz Müntefering will visit the People's Republic of China. He is already looking forward to the official talks and to meeting people here. One of the purposes of the visit is to further deepen relations between our two countries.

Regional cooperation and European experience

Ladies and Gentlemen,...

Two developments can currently be observed in East Asia. On the one hand, the region is becoming ever more important to the world economy. The People's Republic of China is the motor driving this development. As was the case during the industrial revolution in Europe, centres of growth and finance have established themselves here. It remains to be seen whether as yet under-developed areas of China will also benefit from this momentum. At the same time, classic security problems are evident in East Asia. These include conflicts such as the one over Taiwan, or the conflict between North Korea and South Korea (and the US). In addition, unresolved border disputes still exist. Competition for raw materials will increase. There are also unspoken power rivalries such as that between Japan and China. Over the past few years, whilst Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Libya have all signed binding commitments to renounce nuclear weapons, Asian states have gained possession of the bomb and developed delivery systems. Other countries in Asia are seeking to possess nuclear weapons or already have all the necessary components. Conventional military build-ups are also continuing unchecked. The risks which weak states pose to themselves and others are growing.

Thus, whilst further trading nations are developing on the one hand, a large number of unsolved security problems exist. Yet economic momentum requires a reliable and peaceful environment. East Asia and the world thus have an existential interest in trying to resolve the conflicts.

What strategies are appropriate for management of the conflicts which exist? Can experience gained elsewhere in the world be transferred to East Asia? What conditions must be met in order to convert peaceful co-existence into lasting peace? As a European, I would like to pass on the insights which we have gained. Of course, my intention is not to merely to sing Europe's praises. On the contrary. It was only in the aftermath of devastating wars that we in Europe gained these insights. Only after a long learning phase, and as the result of intelligent decisions by our policymakers, was a zone of sustained peace able to be created in Europe. Left-wing parties made an important contribution to this process. As early as 1925, the German Social Democrats called, in their basic programme, for international disarmament and demanded the creation of European economic unity and the formation of a United States of Europe.

Naturally, the European model cannot be transferred to Asia in exactly the same form. Asia will need to find its own way. Yet the European experience can provide motivation and serve as proof that regional cooperation - even a very high level of integration - is possible even in an environment with many conflicts.

Europe therefore very much welcomes the fact that China is increasingly following multilateral approaches to crisis prevention. It was here in Shanghai, four years ago, that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation was established. This organisation provides a forum for consultation for its members - China, Russia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Usbekistan. The institution is in its very early stages, its structure must still be fleshed out. The resolution of the majority of border issues between the states involved represents an initial success. Promotion of other regional organisations is equally important. After some years of reluctance, willingness now also appears to be growing in your country to strengthen ASEAN - the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The ASEAN Regional Forum represents an important step towards creating a "regional security architecture" in Asia. 

Institutionalised regional cooperation is vital for a peaceful world. If such regional peaceful orders existed, within which there was no threat of the use of force, or actual use of military force, and if this approach was underpinned economically, socially and legally, the world would be in less danger. Working to achieve this is a major challenge.

The importance of disarmament and arms control for regional integration

The European integration process was, importantly, accompanied by talks on disarmament and arms control. This had two advantages. Firstly, it minimised the chances of attempts to solve conflicts by military means. Secondly, it helped trust to develop between the partners. Strategies and procedures for arms control are ideal components of regional integration. So progress also needs to be made on disarmament and arms control regimes in Asia. Which tasks need to be dealt with at present?

I believe three processes currently need to be taken forward with the help of the People's Republic of China:
 

1. We need a solution to the Korean nuclear crisis
2. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must be reinforced
3. Agreements on arms limitation and disarmament must be initiated in Asia

These three processes are interdependent and can be complementary.

The Korean nuclear crisis

Both China and Europe have a great interest in a solution to the North-Korean nuclear crisis. Firstly, the Non-Proliferation Treaty was weakened by the withdrawal of North Korea. Secondly, North Korea is providing missiles, technology and knowledge to countries bordering Europe. Thirdly, the North-Korean crisis is prompting new weapons build-ups. I believe that a constructive approach to solving the crisis with North Korea requires the following three things:

1. Flexibility on the part of both the US and North Korea
2. A stronger role for China, which has a key part to play vis-à-vis North Korea
3. Constructive European Union involvement

The Six-Party Talks in Peking remain crucially important in this context. A conflict was already avoided in 1994 with the signature by the US and North Korea of the Framework Agreement. Conflict resurfaced in 2003, however, when North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and announced that it had two nuclear weapons. Prior to this, neither side had been prepared to effectively implement the agreement. The weakness of the 1994 Agreement lay in its bilateral nature.

For this reason, the Six-Party Talks, involving the People's Republic of China, Russia, Japan and South Korea still represent the most suitable framework for negotiations. Even these talks themselves only became possible once North Korea had abandoned its unrealistic insistence on conducting talks with the USA "on an equal footing".

It is particularly important for the People's Republic of China to be involved and act as a mediator in this crisis. Chinese cooperation in the provision of energy and cereals is vital for North Korea's survival. This means that China could have a decisive influence on the North-Korean negotiating position in the framework of the Six-Party Talks.

Naturally, the US is also a decisive factor. Yet, over the past few months, both North Korea and the United States have been giving contradictory signals. The spectrum ranged from military threats and American calls for regime change to signals of willingness to negotiate. In this context, security of expectation could make a vital contribution de-escalating the situation. Only if demands on both sides are realistic can the talks be successful. These negotiations not only represent an opportunity for peaceful resolution of the current crisis, but also for further cooperation in the region. Should lasting regional cooperation develop as a result, stability and security could be secured in the long term.

In terms of security policy, it is mainly inter-regional measures which are needed to defuse the conflict. It is precisely in this area that the USA needs to play an active role. The North Korean negotiating position calls for a security guarantee and diplomatic recognition by the US in return for abandonment of the national nuclear weapons programme. This approach is understandable to a certain extent. After all, the Bush administration has, since 2002, been describing North Korea as part of the "axis of evil". And, at the beginning of the year, the designated US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, identified the country as one of the "outposts of tyranny".

Yet I believe it makes little sense to reduce the North-Korean crisis to a purely bilateral framework of negotiation between North Korea and the US - although this has long been one of North-Korea's demands. The inclusion of the other relevant actors in the framework of the Six-Party talks is, and will remain, sensible. Only a framework agreement worked out on a multilateral basis by the USA together with the major players in the region - China, Russia, Japan and South Korea - would guarantee North Korea's security. In addition to security, though, North Korea essentially needs economic and financial assistance. It is vitally important to recognise that the prosperity of Asia, and therefore also of North Korea, is only possible in a peaceful environment. Economic cooperation is, and will remain, an effective instrument for guaranteeing peace in the long term. A dense network of economic ties between countries reduces the danger of military aggression.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty must be reinforced

As I have already pointed out, regional conflicts are a major factor in the international system today. This means that the North Korean nuclear crisis and its outcome will have far-reaching implications for the security-policy situation across the world. A peaceful solution to the North-Korean nuclear crisis is likely to influence the success of the European negotiations with Iran on ending its nuclear programme - and vice-versa. It would be desirable if the People's Republic of China were to support the EU's efforts in this context and bring its influence to bear on Iran as much as possible.

Were the negotiations to fail, the ambitions of other countries to obtain nuclear weapons might be boosted. Increasing and uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapons would erode the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Yet the NPT has been a reliable instrument in combating nuclear proliferation for 35 years. It is therefore important that the conference due to take place in New York in May to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is successful. Were North Korea to agree once again to abide by the rules of the NPT it would be a major step in the right direction. Such a development would have a significant impact on global security and would also be in the interests of the Chinese. It would therefore be desirable if China were able to find a joint position with Europe in the framework of the NPT Review Conference.

Alongside the nuclear question, the issue of conventional disarmament and arms control also remains crucial. Here too, Asia could profit from European experience with measures to build confidence and security. The CSCE process in Europe made a vital contribution to ending the Cold War in Europe and brought about a range of arms control treaties. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was significant in this context, as was the Open Skies Treaty, together with agreements in the area of small arms and verification. In Asia too, this type of agreement on arms limitation and disarmament must be set in motion. This remains vital for confidence-building and continued and closer economic cooperation.

Conclusion

It has to be in the interests of all of us to seize the opportunities available for regional cooperation in Asia and prevent escalation of the North Korea crisis. At the same time, however, we should be aware that this process may well be a long one. The Korean nuclear crisis remains the key issue for arms control in Asia. But these efforts must also be accompanied by further initiatives. The more intensively and sustainably these approaches are pursued, the more regional stability and peace can emerge. This would benefit both Asia and the peaceful world order.