South Korean officials declared that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is prepared to negotiate with the US over denuclearizing the peninsula and normalizing relations. US President Donald Trump declared his policy has worked and he has accepted an invitation to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
This is good news, if true. However, even if true, it is merely the first step in achieving a stable peace in Northeast Asia and any talks are likely to be conducted on North Korea’s rather than the US’ terms.
The North’s professed willingness to denuclearize might not result in denuclearization.
The South Koreans who met with Kim suggest that peace is in the air: The DPRK wants dialogue and is prepared to denuclearize.
However, so far Kim has not spoken. After Seoul’s announcement, the North Korean Communist Party’s newspaper justified Pyongyang’s possession of nuclear weapons. That might just indicate that Pyongyang intends to strike a hard bargain, but the North’s position will not be truly known until Kim responds.
Moreover, there is nothing particularly new in Pyongyang’s presumed offer to talk. In the past, North Korea has engaged the US in dialogue over denuclearization, but that did not mean that the North was willing to abandon its weapons.
There have been no recent official talks because the Trump administration insisted that the North agree beforehand to the main issue: denuclearization.
However, indicating a theoretical willingness to disarm is not the same.
The DPRK says it wants sufficient security guarantees. In the past, the North demanded that the US end its alliance with South Korea and withdraw US troops from the region.
Asking for more than Washington will give would not be simple duplicity, though North Korea obviously is capable of such. However, even if a Trump-Kim summit occurs, what rational dictator on Washington’s naughty list would trust the Trump administration and its successors?
Every former US president from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama ousted at least one regime not to the US’ liking. Obama even targeted former Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi after the latter negotiated away his nuclear weapons and missiles.
Trump repudiated the agreement reached between his predecessor and Iran and threatened to unleash “fire and fury” on North Korea.
Kim is unlikely to accept expressions of goodwill and paper guarantees as sufficient.
Pyongyang has long desired talks with the US and there was even talk of a summit between former US president Bill Clinton and former North Korean leader Kim jong-il. It appears that Pyongyang has simply repackaged a long-standing objective.
An anonymous Trump administration official insisted that Washington’s policy “will not change until we see credible moves toward denuclearization” and dismissed entering into talks encumbered by “non-starter conditions,” as in the past.
However, the North would not abandon its leverage without receiving something in return. It can simply backstep its conditions, from agreeing to negotiate to agreeing to disarm.
Despite such caveats, negotiations offer a way out of today’s crisis, with the Trump administration threatening to start the Second Korean War. After having helped keep the peace for 65 years, it would be foolish for the administration to risk triggering another massive conflict on the peninsula, especially one that could lead to a nuclear exchange.
The DPRK has long been the land of second-best options, but in advance of a presumed summit, Washington should work with South Korea and Japan to develop a common denuclearization offer for the DPRK and then seek Chinese backing.
Denuclearization should remain Washington’s long-term objective, but if the North proves less receptive than South Korea suggests, the US should pursue other advantageous, if short-term, goals in the meantime, such as freezing North Korean missile and nuclear development. Policymakers should also consider creative options if these efforts reach a dead end, as in the past.
Kim Jong-un’s apparent offer to meet with Trump is a gambit in a larger strategy for dealing with the US. As such, it might prove to be more opportunity than breakthrough.
Still, Trump should pursue the chance to sit down with Kim Jong-un and search for a peaceful exit from the dangerous policy cul-de-sac into which the administration has driven.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to US president Ronald Reagan.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with