North Korea’s Denuclearization Rebuke Linked to Wanting US Troop Cuts in South Korea
|The North Koreans have now said more about why they are unhappy about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit to Pyongyang, they want US troops removed from the peninsula before they do anything:
The next line of the more than 1,200-word statement may have captured the central complaint: “The U.S. side never mentioned the issue of establishing a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, which is essential for defusing tension and preventing a war,” an unidentified foreign ministry spokesman said.
The statement shows that Kim is willing to test Trump’s patience and not bargain away his arsenal without sufficient security guarantees. The regime’s belief that the weapons are needed to deter a U.S. attack dates back nearly 70 years to the still-unresolved Korean War, and will take more than a handshake to dispel. (…….)
That’s why the vague 1-1/2 page agreement Kim signed with Trump on June 12 called for establishing a new relationship and a “lasting and stable peace regime.” The pledge to “work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” was listed third.
Practically, assuaging Kim’s security fears could require risky choices for the U.S. and its North Asian allies, such as rolling back America’s nuclear umbrella or pulling back its troops in South Korea. The desire for a broader security realignment explains why Kim agreed to “denuclearization” and not disarmament.
Trump has already faced criticism for being too quick to make security concessions to Kim, including his unilateral suspension of military exercises with South Korea. The North Korean statement indicated such gestures hadn’t gone far enough, saying the U.S. moves were “highly reversible” and left its military force intact “without scraping even a rifle.” [Bloomberg]
You can read more at the link, but I am sure the Kim regime cares little about the irony of them complaining about “highly reversible” actions taken by the Trump administration when they have done the same thing. There is not one thing the Kim regime has done as part of the ongoing nuclear negotiations that cannot be easily reversed if so desired.
With that said remember the North’s nuclear weapons has nothing to do with security guarantees as discussed in the article; the North’s conventional weapons have kept the US and South Korea in check for decades because of the threat to Seoul. That is why you will not see the North Koreans push their artillery away from the DMZ despite ROK requests to do so.
The North’s nuclear weapons are linked to threatening the United States to get the US president to sign a peace treaty, withdraw troops, and remove the nuclear umbrella over South Korea. Once this is done, then the next phase of establishing the peace regime can occur which is essentially a confederation of North and South Korea on North Korean terms.
Back firmly to square one with the Fatty Regime.
Not quite. The deal offered expires at a time the Norks already know… Don’t be so eager to give up… 🙂
I don’t mind square one Set. I’d like to see what happens to expired Commie kimchi.
I think we’ll see them wishing they had taken Pompeo’s offer instead of Xi’s… 🙁
My fear is Moon hands the keys to the peninsula over to Kim and then we are stuck, dealing with picking up the pieces trying to restore the republic. Moon needs to be aware that if he wants to be buddies with Kim Fatty the Third, he may move from the Blue House to the Blue Gulag while the USFK is dodging bomb craters to fly out of the country…
DOC
If Moon hands over the keys, why would we want to restore the republic?
Them them eat rice gruel and kimchi.
If South Korea hasn’t figured out how to defend itself in 60+ years, they are a lost cause.
South Korea knows how to defend itself. It’s a question of leadership. 🙁
I wonder who puts up more resistance: South Vietnam or South Korea?
North and South Korea are in asymmetrical positions. It’s not only a measure of military hardware and troops.
South Korea has vastly more valuable commercial and populated targets to be destroyed than North Korea. After a generation living in the relative comforts of democracy, peace and economic prosperity the South would express much greater collective tragedy to the deaths of even commoners than those in the North who are brainwashed their whole lives to sacrifice all for the dear leaders.
Who do you think is in a better position to tolerate the pains of war?