Talking to Kim

The South Korean Defence Minister told a parliamentary session yesterday that he's "willing to consider" asking the U.S. to redeploy nuclear weapons in South Korea. Jonathan Steele in the Guardian is outraged:

As the war of words over North Korea escalates, it is easy to forget there was a spark of good news as recently as last month. Rex Tillerson, the US secretary of state, assured North Korea’s ruler that “we do not seek regime change, we do not seek a collapse of the regime, we do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula, we do not seek an excuse to send our military north of the 38th parallel. We are not your enemy.”

Given that the main – if not the overriding – reason that the men in Pyongyang wants nuclear weapons is to protect itself from invasion or attack, Tillerson’s pledge was a crucial step forward. The pity is that it was promptly undermined by more Twitter bluster from the White House, as well as being buried by most of the media, which seem to relish creating further tension. Yesterday Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, said that the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, “is begging for war”....

But what is so misguided about the minister’s statement is that it runs contrary to what should be one of the key components of peace in the Korean peninsula: de-nuclearisation. At a time when North Korea is extending its nuclear potential, the worst thing would be for the South to join a nuclear arms race. China has been pressing for de-nuclearisation, so the South Korean defence minister’s remarks are a slap at Beijing too.

It is true that Trump has once or twice mentioned the idea of diplomacy as a way out of the current crisis. Perhaps there are back-channels in operation. But Washington has proposed no serious and unconditional format for dialogue. Instead we have coercion, in the form of new and tougher sanctions, combined with military sabre-rattling and unrealistic demands that North Korea pledges to abandon its nuclear programme before negotiations begin.

The time has surely come to resume the six-party talks that were broken off under Kim Jong-un’s father in 2009. Everything was on the table then, starting with security guarantees for all sides. This was echoed in Tillerson’s promise of no regime change last month. The agenda also covered restoring diplomatic relations, lifting trade sanctions, and recognising North Korea’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

De-nuclearisation of the Korean peninsula may be a nice idea, but it's not happening, and it isn't going to happen as long as the Kim regime maintains power in Pyongyang. God knows they've said it often enough: they'll never give up their nukes. And no, they're not concerned solely with survival. As Joshua Stanton argues, their goal is South Korea, and reunification on their terms. The fond fantasy that a resumption of the six-party talks could in any way be a useful step forward is taking wishful thinking to absurd new levels. There's nothing to talk about. These people are not rational actors willing to compromise and strike deals: they're dangerous zealots. Trump may be a blustering fool, but it's not his handling of the situation that's got us to where we are now. 

The defence minister’s remarks are "a slap at Beijing too"? Well yes, that's very much the point. If there's any way out of this mess, it's through China. A few slaps at Beijing are very much what's needed. It's better than any of the alternatives. Without Chinese support, there would be no North Korea.

Comments

[Tim Newman]

As I've said here:

http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=5419

If South Korea goes nuclear, and we’re fast approaching the point that they have every right to, Japan will quickly follow – and possibly Taiwan. This would cause the Chinese to go apoplectic, but it would be too late and their own fault. If I were the US, I’d be putting this scenario in front of the PRC and telling them it is both very much of their own making yet still within their powers to prevent it.

[Stephen K]

"This would cause the Chinese to go apoplectic, but it would be too late and their own fault. If I were the US, I’d be putting this scenario in front of the PRC and telling them it is both very much of their own making yet still within their powers to prevent it."
At which point it matters a great deal whether China believes this is for real, or bluffing. Washington has to be prepared to go through with the threat to bless Japan acquiring nuclear weapons - a thing they resist because of the proliferation implications. But I've noticed on some US blogs comments about the latest Japanese budget request for anti-missile systems etc, which implies they are willing to follow through. Hopefully Beijing will believe it.