Two Koreas Lay Base For Peace And Ease For The United States

7 mins read
Two Koreas Lay Base For Peace And Ease For The United States
Source: SCMP Editorial

Sumera B Reshi

President Moon Jae-In of South Korea is on another audacious journey that will mark a historic turnaround in the history of the Korean Peninsula. South and North Korea had long-strained relations and the relations soured to its highest when he first took office. The tension apparently was due to Pyongyang’s continuous nuclear tests and missile launches.

Kim Eui-kyeom, a spokesperson for the Blue House, the presidential office of South Korea, said that just like South Korea, the delegation from Pyongyang believed that the US-North Korean relations should improve.

The announcement followed talks between South Korean President Moon Jae-In and members of North Korea’s delegation to the 2018 Winter Olympics closing ceremony. Both South, as well as North Korea, have also made plans to re-establish a hotline, and a landmark meeting between President Moon and Kim in April — the first meeting between leaders of the two countries in 11 years.

Unpredictably, North Korea’s announcement, via Moon, comes just two days after CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s secret meeting with Kim over Easter weekend became public. It is likely that the policy change will surely affect Kim and Moon’s April 27 summit in which both sides will  discuss a formal peace treaty — which would normally expect to end the Korean War.

Despite a positive nod from Pyongyang, there is a bit of doubt regarding North Korea’s intentions of talks with the US. Could Kim be really willing to talk to the US about giving up nuclear weapons? How and when did Trump’s ‘rocket man’ change his mind is a mystery. Kim is a hard nut though he is facing a very different set of problems today. He heads a weak country which heavily relies on China for power and trade and this is how the regime survives despite economic sanctions.

Moreover, it is difficult to get Kim’s motivations for these gestures toward the US  talks, because North Korea is after all the Hermit Kingdom, with no free media and an opaque regime. But there are two leading theories. The first is that Kim is motivated by fear, the second that he is motivated by confidence.

According to Micheal Auslin, a scholar on contemporary Asia at the Hoover Institution, “One theory is that Kim is rattled and scared by the unknown quantity of Trump, and he doesn’t know how far he will go.” This theory seems valid because after the implementation of the US-led ‘maximum pressure’ campaign that has targeted North Korea’s hard currency reserves and as per Auslin, Kim is pursuing a summit with Trump to take the pressure off.

The second theory according to Auslin regarding Kim’s motivation is that Trump wants Kim to surrender his nuclear plan. “Now that Kim has shown he has a ballistic missile and a nuclear capability, he feels he can negotiate from a position of strength”. In 90’s, N Korea’s nuclear program was conjectural and hadn’t tested any nuclear device then. In 2000, N. Korea tested a device but didn’t have a reliable intercontinental ballistic missile to reach to the US. As of now, N. Korea has both and it just needs to work on scaling down a warhead to fit on those missiles as per Auslin’s analysis.

“It’s possible that Kim believes he can turn a summit that is ostensibly meant to negotiate the terms of his disarmament into a pledge from the US to recognize North Korea as a nuclear-weapons-capable state,” said Auslin.

For the time being, it’s important to understand what the potential summit is and is not. But there is no chance this summitry will unleash a great power the way Nixon’s fateful trip to China did in 1972. China remains authoritarian and a danger to its neighbors. But the opening and normalization that began nearly 50 years ago has modernized its economy and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of subsistence poverty. Today China, without any doubt, plays an important role in world affairs.

In addition, North Korea has won the distinction of being a country that knows how to play a weak diplomatic hand well. Also, Kim Jong Un is different from his father and grandfather so is president Trump different from his predecessors who have dealt with North Korea in the past. So the US has to play safely while dealing with Kim regime and derive lessons from the past.

The US is cognizant of North Korean ideology. The regime has time and again placed the country at the centre of global attention and as the most important item on the US agenda. At moments when it becomes the biggest global crisis, North Korea draws top-level attention, as President Trump has shown. But when the crisis abates, American presidents have a tendency to move on to other crises, even though North Korea continues to demand attention.

During Clinton’s tenure, the N. Korean issue received top-level attention until the US and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework in Geneva in 1994. Nevertheless, the Clinton administration did not hold North Korea’s feet to the fire to implement the deal.

Although President Moon has been successful in brokering talks between North Korea and the US, no such direct statement came from North Korea on denuclearization, however, the word is in play and not rejected by Kim regime either.

Scott Snyder, senior fellow for Korean studies & director of the program on the US – Korea policy at the Council on Foreign Affairs said, “This is separate from denuclearization and does not show an intent to denuclearize. But it does show a willingness to reopen the way for talks about denuclearization. Compared to six months ago, the North Koreans are signalling a willingness to talk rather than a posture of running away from talks.”

Frank Jannuzi, president of the Mansfield Foundation, a group that funds work on the US – Asian policy said, “You can freeze fissile production at the Yongbyon nuclear reactor, invite international inspectors in, or shut down some centrifuges,” Jannuzi said. “You can do anything you want, but it has to be something that shows us you are serious about pulling back on your nuclear program.”

These were the parts of the 2005 Six-Party Agreement, a deal which was signed by North Korea, the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, laid out a path to denuclearization.

Rex Tillerson, a former secretary in Trump’s regime,  also called for North Korea to “take concrete steps to reduce the threat that its illegal weapons programs pose to the United States and our allies before we can consider talks,” on April 28, 2017, speech at the U.N. Security Council.

Joseph de Thomas, professor of international affairs at Penn State University said: “there is no public evidence that Kim is prepared to do this.”

Further, the offer of talks didn’t come directly from N. Korea but via South Korean delegation.  Then would it be plausible to believe Pyongyang’s offer or intentions for talk is no less than an enigma?

The leader of that delegation, Chung Eui-yong, South Korea’s national security director said that the North was open to “candid” talks about denuclearization and that it would suspend missile and nuclear tests while dialogue was underway. According to Chung, Kim said his country would be willing to abandon its nuclear weapons program if its national security and leadership could be ensured.

Nonetheless, political pundits signalled that denuclearization has different meanings. For the United States and its allies, it “is synonymous with ‘Complete Verifiable Irreversible Dismantlement’ of North Korea’s nuclear program, which is a term used by the last three US administrations.”

On the other hand, for North Korea, it means the ‘denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,’ as per political experts. The North Koreans, at a minimum, are thinking about a reciprocal process of negotiated changes in the two sides security postures, a la the US-Soviet arms control.

Since nuclear N. Korea is a threat to South Korea, the US and Japan, thus Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe seemed cautious regarding the North Korean announcement of talk and denuclearization. Abe showed his reluctance regarding N. Korea’s complete abandonment of missile and nuclear development in a ‘verifiable and irreversible manner’.

Itsunori Onodera, Japanese Defense Secretary said that Japan “cant’ be satisfied” because Pyongyang did not mention giving up short-and medium-range ballistic missiles. He said Japan would continue its policy of placing pressure on Pyongyang to give up its “weapons of mass destruction, nuclear arms and missiles.”

Furthermore, analysts welcomed  the North’s move but with caution because in the past the Pyongyang broke the promise on previous nuclear deals. The doubts are looming large because the announcement by Pyongyang about the talks with the US  did not mention shorter-range ballistic missiles capable of striking Japan and South Korea.

A retired US career diplomat who was the part of the US delegation to six-party talks, Christopher Hill said: “I think it is important to react with little caution. I think it seems positive, but we should be a little cautious.” Definitely, there is an ambience of suspicious vis-à-vis N. Korea’s commitment regarding denuclearization and seriousness in mending its relations with the US.

North Korea has secured its nuclear development and missile tests, in complete disobedience of the U.N. Security Council mandates because  it considers the presence of  28,500 US troops stationed in South Korea as a threat to its sovereignty. But it hasn’t launched a missile test since late November or conducted a nuclear test since last September. Trump struck an optimistic note earlier about the possibility of a denuclearized North Korea.

In January this year when Washington imposed fresh sanctions on Pyongyang, Pyongyang condemned the move by describing it as an ‘act of war’. The fresh sanctions were  aimed at pressuring Pyongyang to roll back its nuclear and weapons programs, target more than  50 N. Korean – linked shipping companies, vessels and trade business.

Analysts also believe that the North’s advances to the South are intended to loosen sanctions imposed over its banned nuclear and missile programs, and an attempt to weaken the alliance between Seoul and Washington.

Moon, who is at the centre-stage of the much-hyped softening of stance by Pyongyang rose to power as a “clean” politician and for him talking with North Korea might cost him significant political capital.The equation won’t harm Moon’s political acumen now, but there’s no guarantee that Moon’s popularity will withstand rival South Korean politicians’ accusations that he’s being taken advantage of by Kim.

Latterly, the bone of contention remains that Kim sees a deliverable nuclear weapon as his only guarantee against regime change, and a nuclear North Korea remains an existential threat to both South Korea and the US. The meeting is to be followed in May or June between Kim and Trump. Trump has promised to meet Kim and he is prepared to walk away if the talks result in a fiasco. May – June will predict Kim’s real motivations whether he is buying time to take off the pressure or he wishes to the ailing North Korean economy.

 

Read more:

Latest from Archives