Check for web archive captures
Could US Live with a Nuclear North Korea?
By maudeaster on 2019-07-26 09:00:51
Could the US live with a nuclear armed North Korea, the way the US has lived with nuclear weapons in Pakistan,
India, and Israel? Could negotiating with North Korea for an expanded nuclear freeze in return for sanctions relief and a
peace treaty be a valuable stage in reducing military tensions on the Korean peninsula? These are the questions being
debated in foreign policy circles these days, after 3 Kim-Trump meetings have failed to produce a concrete agreement.
there is a changed consensus developing in Washington on how to deal with North Korea. Michael Morrell, former acting
CIA director was quoted saying the US “would have to live with a nuclear North Korea”. Morrell said, “A negotiated
solution is the only solution to this problem.” Jean H. Lee of the Wilson Center was reported to have said “I can’t see Kim
giving up his nuclear weapons entirely. They are ‘his treasured sword “and all that he has to give him leverage. But he is
willing to barter some dismantling of his nuclear program in exchange for concessions.” Wong writes that “...senior State
Department officials are now contemplating intermediate steps — including reaching a freeze of nuclear
activity — rather than going for a grand deal of total North Korean disarmament without changes in US behavior, as Mr.
Trump tried to secure in Hanoi.” The State Department has subsequently talked of a nuclear freeze as a first step, not the end
game. But if a first step lowers military tensions and avoids escalating nuclear arms production, I think it should be viewed
as real progress. Of course any country’s nuclear weaponry is part of the larger picture, the world’s need for all nuclear
countries to get rid of their weapons — which will require the US to follow its own weapons-reduction responsibilities under
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a path opposite from Trump’s plan for a US nuclear expansion.
The US unfortunately does not have good standing to be calling for anyone else’s total nuclear disarmament. Why the
second Trump-Kim summit failed: Christine Ahn of Women Cross DMZ described in_a July 18 Newsweek article why the
Hanoi meeting ended in failure, with Trump turning down North Korea’s offer to dismantle its key nuclear facility at
Yongbyon and to formally end its nuclear and missile testing (already frozen since 2017), in return for partial sanctions
relief. Trump insisted that North Korea had good reason [caption id="attachment_ 12833" align="alignleft" width="300"]
Trump and Kim at failed Hanoi summit. Demands that N.Korea transfer its
nuclear weapons and bomb material to the US and commit to immediate, complete and unilateral nuclear disarmament — a
deal for one side, with nothing for the other. Not the way diplomacy works.[/caption] to think a mutually beneficial bargain
could be reached in Hanoi. On the eve of the summit, US Special Representative on North Korea Steven Biegun spoke
about his negotiations with Pyongyang at Stanford University. Biegun stressed that the US is prepared to pursue
“simultaneously and in parallel” all of the commitments outlined at the earlier Trump-Kim Singapore
Summit. He said the US is not demanding that complete denuclearization be the starting point. He dismissed the idea of
“you do everything first and then we’ll begin to think about whether or not we’re going to do anything in response, and that
is not our policy and has not been our policy.” But Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton, known for wanting the
US to force regime change in North Korea (supported by Trump’s also hawkish Secretary of State Mike Pompeo),
succeeded in convincing Trump to blow away Beigun’s negotiating progress. _ According to Jonathan
Swan in Axios, sources close to Trump say the president believes “having Bolton on his negotiating team improves his
bargaining position and gives him a psychological advantage over foes like Iran and North Korea’. But, in fact, Trump’s
foreign policy inexperience and Bolton’s belligerence make a very dangerous combination. In the future, North Korea will
have good reason not to trust Trump’s potentially reversible overtures if Bolton is not removed from the process. Since
Hanoi, Trump re-opened the door to possible negotiations by his tweet-initiated meeting with Kim at the DMZ. (Happily,
during that meeting Bolton was dispatched to Mongolia.) Beigun has since been in Europe consulting with allies, but if his
diplomacy is to succeed, the US needs to end recent provocations which are keeping North Korea away from the negotiating
table:
e The Pentagon announced last week that it is planning a fall program of training exercises with South Korea
which immediately drew a strong response from Pyongyang. North Korea said Trump had promised to halt these
exercises during two of his meetings with Kim Jong Un. A North Korean foreig
spokesman called the exercises “a rehearsal of war”. The Pentagon’s announcement was particularly surprising
because Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan had said on June 2 that for now it was not necessary to
resume major joint military exercises with South Korea that were suspended in the last year to support diplomatic
efforts with North Korea.
e Also provocative has been US continued delivery to South Korea of F-35 fighter jets, with 2 more arriving in
mid-July, part of South Korea’s biggest-ever weapons purchase of 40 of the Lockheed Martin high tech planes. A
North Korean statement protested the jets’ arrival as an extremely dangerous action that will increase military
tensions.
If the US wants Pyongyang’s freeze to continue and key facilities to be dismantled, Washington must dial back these
provocations and be willing to give North Korea something in return. US must be willing to take two steps: First,
reduce punishing economic sanctions. Recent UN reports show that sanctions relief is a critical humanitarian issue as
North faces the double whammy of climate change and reduced access to fuel needed for agricultural production. The New
York Times reports UN agencies describing how “prolonged dry spells, abnormally high temperatures and floods — coupled
with limited supplies of fuel, fertilizer and spare parts — seriously hurt North Korea’s harvest last fall.... An estimated 10.1
million people, or 40% of the population are food insecure and in urgent need of assistance.”
=
Second, commit the US to a path of non-aggression toward North Korea.
What North Korea wants is security from the hostile relationship with the US which it has faced for decades. This means
the US agreeing finally to sign a peace treaty formally ending the hostilities of the Korean War. Washington also needs to
agree to long overdue establishment of normal diplomatic recognition. A US embassy in Pyongyang and a North Korea
embassy in Washington will make ongoing diplomacy so much easier! It appears Trump is able, sometimes, to see the
opportunity in following in the steps of Republican President Nixon’s door-opening policy with China. If Trump closed his
ears to Bolton, he might be able to make similar history reversing US policy toward North Korea. It’s time!
