傅莹又撰文：美国在朝核问题上需要正视真问题 (中英文版）
提醒:点上方↑“新民学社”即可订阅本刊！更多交流请加新民君微信：xinmin104
长按二维码联系新民君
微信号：xxd6251
本文作者系全国人大外事委员会主任委员 傅莹，经作者授权盘古智库发表
本文大概1300字，读完约需3分钟
朝鲜于2017年9月3日进行了第六次核试验。此举无视国际上已有的核不扩散广泛共识，引发强烈反响和批评。抑制朝鲜发展核武器的努力一再遭遇挫折，令世人沮丧。同样令人失望的是，西方媒体再次把注意力投向中国、指责中国。
包括中国在内的国际社会在朝核问题上当然有防扩散的义务和责任，然而金正恩政府最在意的是美国的态度，挑战时看重的也是美国的反应。但美国却并未表现出真正解决问题的意愿，不愿付出实质努力和代价（即通过正视朝鲜的安全需求以达到无核化的目的）。
朝核问题渊源已久。1993年朝美双方签署《关于解决朝鲜核问题的框架协议》，规定朝鲜停建石墨反应堆，以轻水堆代之。但各方在协议落实上存在分歧，最终导致1999年，朝鲜重返核武开发的轨道。
2002年末，中方开启了中、美、朝、韩、日、俄参加的六方会谈。中方为推动取得突破性进展费尽周章，不仅艰难地劝说朝鲜放弃拥核企图，也苦口婆心地劝美国切实解决朝方合理安全关切。六方会谈一度取得重要成功，甚至曾启动了宁边核设施的去功能化。
然而，几乎每逢会谈取得重要进展，就会因突发事件而陷入危机。最典型的是2005年9月，正当六方准备开始落实《9•19共同声明》的关键时刻，美国因朝鲜“洗钱”问题开启对朝金融制裁。朝鲜则以第一次核试验作为回击。
奥巴马执政期间对朝实施“战略忍耐”政策，此战略只是装饰，其实质是不作为。和谈止步不前，美国只是随着朝鲜的核导活动升级而收紧制裁，背后被普遍认为是压垮朝政权的终极目标。
朝核问题因而陷入恶性循环。朝鲜陆续进行了四次核试验和无数次导弹试验。中方作为安理会常任理事国，履行了制裁朝鲜的决议，但是中方关于和谈的主张却一再被搁置。于此同时，美韩每年的联合军演规模越来越大、越来越高精尖。朝核问题则不断升温。
特朗普政府上台后，希望中国在朝核问题上有更多动作。为此，中方在联合国安理会支持加大对朝制裁，对进口朝煤、铁、铁矿石等原材料乃至海产食品一律禁止，也禁止同朝鲜新设合资合作企业。中方同时提出“双暂停”的主张，即美韩暂停军演，朝鲜暂停核导试验，给和谈一个机会。
然而，美国仍只是执迷于加大制裁，尽管显然光靠制裁无法抑制朝鲜开发核武器的进程。现实是，在严苛的外部制裁和封锁下，2016年朝国内经济增长是过去17年来的最好状况，农业产出也有了提升。而同时，在缺乏和谈制约的情况下，朝鲜更加无节制地试导试核，而与中国的双边关系严重滑坡。
美国一方面无视中国等方提出的建议与关切，另一方面又期待中国发挥对朝鲜的影响力，令观者嘀笑皆非。同时，美国坚持在韩部署“萨德”反导系统，进一步为难中国。这套系统拥有X波段雷达，可以监视广大中国内陆。它对保护韩国免于朝炮火打击并无实际作用，只会破坏东北亚地区的战略稳定。
美国目前无意改变自己自相矛盾的政策，而韩国和日本的恐惧日升。
为了和平解决朝核问题，中国需更加努力推动美国和朝鲜彼此认真对待对方的关切。要真正解决朝核问题，美朝都必须做出让步。而倘若任由事态继续漂移下去，前方又会是什么？ ■
The US needs to focus on real things
North Korea’s sixth nuclear test, conductedon September 3 in defiance of the international consensus on non-proliferation,drew unanimous condemnation. Efforts to contain its nuclear ambitions have again come to no clear result. Equally frustrating, from a Chinese perspective,is that western media have pointed fingers at China.
The international community, China included,certainly has a part to play in upholding non-proliferation. But how the US responds to North Korean provocation matters more than anything else for the regime of Kim Jong Un. Yet the US shown no willingness to make serious efforts to tackle the real issue (which is to ensure de-nuclearisation by responding to North Korea’s security concerns).
Some historical context is useful here. The “agreed framework” signed by the US and North Korea in 1993 required the North Koreans to replace their graphite-moderated nuclear reactors with light water ones. However, differences between the parties on the implementation of the agreementled to North Korea announcing in 1999 that it would resume its nuclear programme.
At the end of 2002, China initiated the six-party talks with the US, North Korea, South Korea, Japan and Russia. It was no easy job for China to manoeuvre between North Korea and the US, trying to talk the former into giving up its nuclear programme and the latter into addressing North Korea’s security concerns. But so successful were these talks that that work began on closing and sealing up the nuclear facilities in Yongbyon.
Unfortunately, every time progress was madeit was promptly derailed. For example, the US decided to impose financial sanctions on North Korea for money laundering just as the six parties wereprepared to implement the joint statement agreed in September 2005. North Korea responded with its first nuclear test.
Throughout the Obama administration, the US followed a policy of “strategic patience”, which was in fact a cover forinaction. Peace talks came to a halt and sanctions became the only tool for the US, whose real aim was widely believed to be regime change in NorthKorea.
We have since seen a vicious cycle in which North Korea has conducted a further four nuclear tests and countless missiletests. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China administer edsanctions under the UN resolutions, but its calls for peace talks went unanswered. All the while, joint military exercises by South Korea and the US grew larger and more sophisticated. As a result, tension continues to rise.
The Trump administration has called on Chinato do more. China has responded by offering stronger support for tougher UN sanctions. It has banned imports of North Korean coal, iron, iron ore and seafood and suspended new joint ventures with North Korea. It has also called for a “double freeze”, in which North Korea would stop its nuclear programme in exchange for the US halting joint military exercises with South Korea.
However, the US is single-mindedly pursuingan intensification of the sanctions regime. Yet it is already clear that sanctions alone couldn’t curb North Korea’s nuclear programme.
Despite ever tougher sanctions and deepening isolation, North Korea’s gross domestic product in 2016 grew better than any time in 17years and the agricultural output was also improved. In the meantime,unconstrained by any peace talks, North Korea is moving further down thenuclear path, while its relations with China have deteriorated.
Yet the US still expects China to influence North Korean policy and behaviour, while ignoring advice and proposals tabled by China and other parties. The US has made things even more difficult for China by installing the Thaad anti-missile defence system in South Korea. This has an “x-band radar” capable of monitoring vast swathes of Chinese territory.Rather than providing protection for the South Korean people, the system threatens strategic stability in northeast Asia.
The US has so far shown no intention of changing course. Meanwhile, fears about what happens next are growing in South Korea and Japan.
In the interests of a peaceful resolution,China must try even harder to get the US and North Korea to take each other’sconcerns seriously. Yet if we are really to solve the problem, then both parties need to make concessions. If we allow things to slide, who knows what awaits us? ■
The author is chairperson of the ForeignAffairs Committee of China’s National People’s Congress
来源：盘古智库