G7 leaders will convene in Japan for their annual summit on May 26-27, an occasion Japan wishes to use for deliberation on North Korean nuclear issues, reported Japanese media. Likewise, the White House said on May 17 that the North Korean nuclear issue would be a main topic during the two-day G7 Japan Summit.

Such concerns aren't difficult to understand. First of all, although the G7 summit's agenda is mainly economic, its previous summits did touch upon security issues in international politics. Given the geopolitical importance of the Korean Peninsula, Pyongyang's fourth nuclear test in January of this year undoubtedly became an important regional issue.

Japan, because of geopolitical and historical factors, has always paid close attention to North Korea's nuclear programs, while the United States, as the G7's core member, won't waste an opportunity to discuss Pyongyang's nuclear schemes. Being a primary target for international terrorism, Washington naturally worries about nuclear proliferation. Furthermore, the United States wishes to take advantage of this issue to expand its presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

Therefore, discussing the North Korean nuclear issue will very likely be on the G7 agenda.

Even so, I don't think that the G7 is the right occasion for discussions on the North Korean nuclear issue.

First, the G7 is limited in its international representation. The G7 is a group of seven industrialized countries – the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan. It was established in 1975 to coordinate economic cooperation among the seven developed countries. China acknowledges G7's role in global economic governance, given the economic interdependence between China and western powers. Despite this, as the North Korean nuclear issue is a major security concern, a proper venue for such talks should be the United Nations.

Second, the G7 is unable to represent the stakeholders in the North Koran nuclear issue. For a regional hot topic that involves the interests of many countries, the best solution is to have all stakeholders sit down to talk.

After the Cold War ended, the European Union along with some of its member states tried to intervene in this issue but their efforts were all in vain. The fundamental reason was that they were not stakeholders in this matter.

The only stakeholders in the G7 are Japan and the United States, after Russia was temporarily suspended from the G8 over issues in the Crimea. In other words, while neither both Koreas nor such stakeholders as China and Russia are involved, whose consensus does the G7 represent when the imminent summit discusses this issue?

Third, a G7 discussion of the issue will only complicate the situation. On March 3, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution No. 2270, which represented the world's unanimous response to Pyongyang's fourth nuclear test. The resolution not only imposed unprecedented sanctions on Pyongyang but also offered a path for North Korea to return to dialogue.

It is fair to say that this has been the best solution to the issue so far. Therefore, the top priority for all parties should be to carefully implement this resolution, rather than starting new complications.

Fourth, the G7 summit discussions may possibly enhance Pyongyang's belief that it has to possess nuclear weapons in order to survive. Miscalculations by Pyongyang and Washington, and the actual standoff on the peninsula are both fundamental reasons. North Korea also claims that it is developing nuclear strength to fend off pressure from the U.S.-led western world.

Bringing the North Korean nuclear issue to the negotiation table at the G7 summit won't help encourage Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear programs and would make the issue even more complicated. Even so, the author does not oppose mentioning that a non-nuclear North Korean should be a common objective of the G7 in its joint declaration.

North Korea's threat to regional and international society is apparent. Its new leaders, who came to power less than five years ago, have already conducted two nuclear tests and had "possession of nuclear strength" written in the country's constitution.

All signs show that North Korean leaders believe that as long as they persistently carry forward their nuclear program, the international society will eventually accept it. Therefore, a message from the international society that it would never accept a nuclearized North Korea is highly necessary.

The writer is an associate searcher with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

The article was translated by Chen Boyuan. Its unabridged version was published in Chinese.

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)