Potential breakthrough but long way to go
Analysts question whether NK buying time to complete ICBM
By Kim Jae-kyoung
The latest agreement between the two Koreas for an inter-Korean summit is paving the way to find a potential breakthrough in the North Korea nuclear crisis, experts said Thursday.
They, however, called on Seoul and Washington to remain prudent because the North's peace overture could be a calibrated strategy aimed at buying time to complete its nuclear-tipped long-range missile.
They expect that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will demand a withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea in return for giving up its nuclear weapons.
"This is a positive development. What Kim Jong-un is requesting is what was provided in the Sept. 19, 2005, Joint Statement," Joseph DeTrani, a former U.S. special envoy to the six-party talks with North Korea, told The Korea Times.
From his perspective, the North's willingness to halt nuclear tests and missile launches should be sufficient to get the U.S. to the table to discuss denuclearization and the requested security assurances Kim wants.
However, DeTrani, currently a professor at Missouri State University's Graduate Department of Defense and Strategic Studies in Fairfax, Virginia (a suburb of Washington, D.C.), said the key is moving forward, knowing Kim wants a halt to joint military exercises and the lifting of sanctions.
"These are all negotiable for complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," he said.
The view came after Cheong Wa Dae announced Tuesday that the two Koreas agreed to hold an inter-Korean summit at the truce village of Panmunjeom at the end of April.
Pyongyang also expressed its willingness to hold talks with Washington on denuclearization, saying it could give up its nuclear weapons if the safety of its regime was guaranteed.
William Brown, adjunct professor at Georgetown School of Foreign Service, said that these are very welcome developments on several fronts.
"The summit is to be on neutral ground, in Panmunjom, not Pyongyang. North Korea is apparently willing to discuss denuclearization, and the upcoming exercises are said not to interfere with the process," he said.
"Pyongyang may have a somewhat different spin but there is potential here for a real breakthrough."
Sean King, senior vice president of Park Strategies, echoed the view, saying that it's worth noting that next month's inter-Korean summit will be on the south side of Panmunjom.
"As such, this means the summit won't be the usual tributary pilgrimage north as in 2000 and 2007," he said.
"This is a symbolic climb down for Kim Jong-un and should at least give Moon Jae-in some perceived leverage."
Regarding the possibility of Pyongyang giving up nuclear weapons, the analysts said that it is going to be a long and difficult negotiating process.
Brown, who previously worked for the CIA and the National Intelligence Council, believes that guaranteeing safety, in North Korea's mind, might mean the withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Korea.
"I don't think the U.S. can guarantee the safety of the regime, say from internal disruption," he said.
"But we can, and should, guarantee that we would not initiate an attack on a North Korea that does not have nuclear weapons, and that we would never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state."
Will NK give up nukes?
King, a New York-based East Asia specialist, stressed that South Korea and the U.S. should not forget the North traditionally defines the safety of its regime as the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula and an end to the U.S.-South Korean mutual defense treaty.
This, he believes, will expose the South to northern coercion and/or a second North Korean invasion.
"That means we'd be right back to where we were before the Korean War, again leaving the South vulnerable," he said.
He pointed out that the North's nukes would have in effect already served their purpose without ever having been used and the South could be there for the taking.
Tara O, adjunct fellow at the Pacific Forum CSIS, doubts that North Korea is serious about giving up its nuclear weapons.
She noted that the North talked about a nuclear freeze in the past and that there were agreements to do so but it did not follow through.
"North Korea continued to develop nuclear weapons even while the talks were going on," she said.
"With the U.S. having all options on the table, North Korea is afraid of potential strikes. North Korea wants to buy time until it completes a nuclear-tipped ICBM, which can strike the U.S."
The analysts expect that U.S. President Donald Trump will eventually respond positively to a peace overture from the recalcitrant North Korean leader.
"Trump's always indicated a willingness to engage the North directly and the latest news gives him the diplomatic and political cover to do so," King said.
"I just hope we don't give away anything meaningful when talking. For example, sanctions must stay."
By Kim Jae-kyoung
The latest agreement between the two Koreas for an inter-Korean summit is paving the way to find a potential breakthrough in the North Korea nuclear crisis, experts said Thursday.
They, however, called on Seoul and Washington to remain prudent because the North's peace overture could be a calibrated strategy aimed at buying time to complete its nuclear-tipped long-range missile.
They expect that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will demand a withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea in return for giving up its nuclear weapons.
"This is a positive development. What Kim Jong-un is requesting is what was provided in the Sept. 19, 2005, Joint Statement," Joseph DeTrani, a former U.S. special envoy to the six-party talks with North Korea, told The Korea Times.
From his perspective, the North's willingness to halt nuclear tests and missile launches should be sufficient to get the U.S. to the table to discuss denuclearization and the requested security assurances Kim wants.
However, DeTrani, currently a professor at Missouri State University's Graduate Department of Defense and Strategic Studies in Fairfax, Virginia (a suburb of Washington, D.C.), said the key is moving forward, knowing Kim wants a halt to joint military exercises and the lifting of sanctions.
"These are all negotiable for complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," he said.
The view came after Cheong Wa Dae announced Tuesday that the two Koreas agreed to hold an inter-Korean summit at the truce village of Panmunjeom at the end of April.
Pyongyang also expressed its willingness to hold talks with Washington on denuclearization, saying it could give up its nuclear weapons if the safety of its regime was guaranteed.
William Brown, adjunct professor at Georgetown School of Foreign Service, said that these are very welcome developments on several fronts.
"The summit is to be on neutral ground, in Panmunjom, not Pyongyang. North Korea is apparently willing to discuss denuclearization, and the upcoming exercises are said not to interfere with the process," he said.
"Pyongyang may have a somewhat different spin but there is potential here for a real breakthrough."
Sean King, senior vice president of Park Strategies, echoed the view, saying that it's worth noting that next month's inter-Korean summit will be on the south side of Panmunjom.
"As such, this means the summit won't be the usual tributary pilgrimage north as in 2000 and 2007," he said.
"This is a symbolic climb down for Kim Jong-un and should at least give Moon Jae-in some perceived leverage."
Regarding the possibility of Pyongyang giving up nuclear weapons, the analysts said that it is going to be a long and difficult negotiating process.
Brown, who previously worked for the CIA and the National Intelligence Council, believes that guaranteeing safety, in North Korea's mind, might mean the withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Korea.
"I don't think the U.S. can guarantee the safety of the regime, say from internal disruption," he said.
"But we can, and should, guarantee that we would not initiate an attack on a North Korea that does not have nuclear weapons, and that we would never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state."
Will NK give up nukes?
King, a New York-based East Asia specialist, stressed that South Korea and the U.S. should not forget the North traditionally defines the safety of its regime as the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula and an end to the U.S.-South Korean mutual defense treaty.
This, he believes, will expose the South to northern coercion and/or a second North Korean invasion.
"That means we'd be right back to where we were before the Korean War, again leaving the South vulnerable," he said.
He pointed out that the North's nukes would have in effect already served their purpose without ever having been used and the South could be there for the taking.
Tara O, adjunct fellow at the Pacific Forum CSIS, doubts that North Korea is serious about giving up its nuclear weapons.
She noted that the North talked about a nuclear freeze in the past and that there were agreements to do so but it did not follow through.
"North Korea continued to develop nuclear weapons even while the talks were going on," she said.
"With the U.S. having all options on the table, North Korea is afraid of potential strikes. North Korea wants to buy time until it completes a nuclear-tipped ICBM, which can strike the U.S."
The analysts expect that U.S. President Donald Trump will eventually respond positively to a peace overture from the recalcitrant North Korean leader.
"Trump's always indicated a willingness to engage the North directly and the latest news gives him the diplomatic and political cover to do so," King said.
"I just hope we don't give away anything meaningful when talking. For example, sanctions must stay."
本文地址：http://1.zzzogryeb.bond/html/61f999849.html
版权声明
本文仅代表作者观点，不代表本站立场。
本文系作者授权发表，未经许可，不得转载。