1
   

New Approach on North Korea

 
 
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2017 07:43 am
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/29/opinion/we-need-a-radical-new-approach-on-north-korea.html

With its latest provocation — a ballistic missile launch in the direction of Japan — North Korea is reminding Washington that its boast of having weapons capable of reaching the “heart of the United States” may not remain propaganda for much longer. The threat from Pyongyang should be one of President Trump’s most urgent priorities.

Yet so far, despite the White House’s sharp rhetoric about how North Korea will not be allowed to continue its nuclear program and how China must bring North Korea in line, Mr. Trump’s policy appears to be as ineffectual as those of his predecessors. The proof? With every missile launch, the North moves incrementally closer to having a delivery system for its nuclear arsenal that can reach Seattle and San Francisco.

What is needed is a drastic change in our approach to the Korean Peninsula. Specifically, we should abandon our “One Korea” policy, long embraced by Republicans and Democrats. It’s no longer realistic or viable.

Photo

North Korean soldiers, rear, looking south at a photo op among officials commemorating the signing of the Korean War Armistice agreement. Credit Pool photo by Jung Yeon-Je
Ever since the cease-fire that halted the Korean War in 1953 and maintained the border between what became North and South Korea along the 38th parallel, the official stance of the United States has been to support a unification of the peninsula under the leadership of its close ally, South Korea. This, of course, is anathema to China, which more than anything else wants to reduce the influence of the United States in Asia.

Under no circumstances will China tolerate what it sees as a client state of the United States (and a vibrant free-market democracy) on its most porous border. The reality on the ground, as difficult as it may be for the Trump administration to stomach, is that despite America’s great military and economic might, it has very limited influence over North Korea. China, on the other hand, has substantial influence over the North: More than two-thirds of North Korea’s trade is with China. The reality is that the path to resolving the North Korea crisis goes through China.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE


After North Korea Test, South Korea Pushes to Build Up Its Own Missiles JULY 29, 2017

North Korea Tests a Ballistic Missile That Experts Say Could Hit California JULY 28, 2017
ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

The challenge for Mr. Trump is to find a way to persuade the Chinese that a regime change in North Korea — or, at the very least, serious containment of its nuclear ambitions — is actually in China’s best interest. Short of such a strategy, the president is left with two options, neither of which is practical: He can use force to decapitate the Kim regime on his own, or he can escalate America’s presence in the region by increasing the number of American troops and moving short-range missiles into South Korea and Japan to have an effective response to a first strike from Pyongyang.

Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.


Enter your email address
Sign Up

You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
The former option would destabilize the region and cause millions of North Koreans to seek refuge in South Korea and China. The latter option faces serious political obstacles. First, China’s foreign ministry spokesman made clear in June that any uptick in United States military presence in the region would “severely damage China’s security interests and undermine the regional strategic balance.” Second, Moon Jae-in, the newly elected president of South Korea, is vocal in his opposition to the installation of the THAAD (terminal high altitude area defense) antimissile defense system that the Pentagon has sought to deploy in South Korea.

So what can Mr. Trump do? The worst possible outcome would be for him to sit back, as some of his predecessors have done, proclaiming ever more red lines as North Korea methodically tests missile after missile. Eventually — and perhaps imminently — the Kim regime will develop a successful ballistic delivery system for its growing nuclear arsenal. And that will present a grave threat to Americans, not just those living in Alaska.

The right option, though painful, is to negotiate with China. Diplomacy is all about carrots and sticks. And the time is right to offer China a real carrot by making clear that our aim is no longer a unified peninsula. A major benefit of abandoning our “One Korea” policy is that if China does not reign in the Kim regime even after the United States assuages China’s concerns about American influence, the United States will then be on much stronger footing in resorting to sticks, such as unilaterally increasing its military presence in the region and deploying a missile defense system, much like Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s when he announced he would put missiles in Britain, Italy and Germany to send a message to the Soviet Union. Moreover, despite paying lip service to unification of the peninsula for reasons of nationalism, it isn’t clear that most South Koreans really want to absorb more than 20 million North Koreans into their nation. So a reversal of American policy could well lead to greater regional stability.

We should hope that the time doesn’t come when the United States has no alternative other than to challenge North Korea militarily. It’s not that Washington lacks the power to do so effectively. It’s that military action, as we have seen over the last two decades, brings with it unforeseen and often problematic collateral consequences. But diplomacy is ineffective when it is untethered from a realistic assessment of the needs and interests of all the relevant parties. And that is what has plagued recent administrations. If the United States finally wants to start making progress in its effort to combat more than a decade of nuclear expansion by North Korea, it has to start by dropping a cornerstone of its Korea policy.

Jay P. Lefkowitz was the United States’ special envoy for human rights in North Korea from 2005 to 2009.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 247 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2017 09:05 am
I posted this piece this morning on blatham's Trump thread — excerpts from a book review:
Quote:
North Korea is years beyond the nuclear “breakout” the US so fears in Iran. Pyongyang’s first nuclear test was more than a decade ago. Four more have followed with yields up to twice the size of the Hiroshima bomb. The country is believed to have around twenty fission bombs and to be progressing along the path to a much larger hydrogen bomb. Moreover, the regime is consistently making faster progress on missile technology than US intelligence has expected, including the stunning July 4 test of what appears to be a bona fide intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). North Korea’s shorter-range missiles can now be fired from mobile launchers rather than fixed sites, and fueled with solid rather than liquid fuel. Both of these advances make preparation for a missile launch much quicker and harder to detect. The crucial remaining unknowns are how long it will take Pyongyang to perfect an ICBM capable of reaching the continental US and to miniaturize nuclear weapons so that they can be delivered atop a missile.
(...)
Above all, in neither country is there an attractive military option. North Korea is capable of inflicting millions of casualties on South Korea with conventional heavy artillery before those guns could be silenced. Negotiation is therefore unavoidable. This means that a winner-take-all goal (comparable to the zero-enrichment position vis-à-vis Iran) is unachievable. Time spent pursuing one will be wasted.

Instead, as with Iran, what can be achieved has to be calibrated against present circumstances. In view of Pyongyang’s large nuclear arsenal and advanced missile delivery systems, the long-standing US insistence that North Korea agree to complete denuclearization as a precondition to talks is far out of date and must be dropped.
(...)
Ultimately, then, the only approach that might work is one that has not yet been tried: a joint effort by the US and China. As an eventual outcome, both sides’ interests would be met by a unified, denuclearized, neutral Korea. While this end state is not hard to define, the process of getting there would be tortuous and require a degree of mutual trust between Washington and Beijing that does not now exist. Small, confidence-building steps would be needed over a long period. North and South Korea would have to find an acceptable basis for reunification—overcoming mountains of difficulty in bringing together a dictatorship that is nothing without its weapons and a democracy whose economy is more than one hundred times larger. North–South agreements signed in 1991 and 2000 point to a confederation between the two states as the means of starting the process.

The effort would take years. In the meantime, the US and the world will have to depend on a determined defense and, more importantly, deterrence. Rhetorical bluster and military gestures—like firing off missiles in response to North Korean tests—only confirm the regime’s paranoia and undermine US credibility. Pyongyang will not be frightened into changing direction at this late date. Washington can and should tighten sanctions on Chinese banks and companies trading with North Korea, and continue to pressure Beijing into taking a tougher stance. But it would be a huge mistake to make this issue the sole test of the US–China relationship, as President Trump repeatedly suggests he will do. That would be to trade one strategic threat for two.
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2017 09:28 am
What is Jesus doing about this situation? Razz
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2017 10:01 am
@hightor,
Reunification is the sticking point. China absolutely does not want that, and I think we are going to need to recognize that.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2017 11:19 am
Although NK's nuclear programme has been rumbling on for years it's only since Trump came to power that things have started moving so quickly.

What NK wants is no mystery, it wants bilateral talks with the USA and money.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » New Approach on North Korea
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/20/2017 at 12:55:18