Tag: negotiations

I expect the engagement crowd will say that the Kim regime doesn’t really mean what they say:

North Korea on Tuesday rejected U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s latest proposal for dialogue without preconditions, saying that it has no interest in Washington’s scheme to make it give up its nuclear program.

Tillerson said last week that the U.S. is ready to begin talks with North Korea “without preconditions” in a possible shift of U.S. policy. But days later, he said that the North should halt its “threatening behavior” before talks can begin, backpedaling on his previous remarks.

The Rodong Sinmun, the mouthpiece of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK), said that nothing has changed in its stance of pursuing nuclear weapons, regardless of whether Washington has offered talks without strings attached.

“The U.S. is trying to shift responsibility for tensions on the Korean Peninsula to us with its dialogue offensive,” the newspaper said in a commentary. “The move is seen as being intended to set the tone for manipulating new U.N. Security Council resolutions that may include a maritime blockade if we do not accept dialogue aimed at discussing the abandonment of our nuclear weapons.”

North Korea made it clear that it will not put its nuclear weapons and missiles on the negotiation table if the U.S. does not ditch its hostile policy toward Pyongyang.  [Yonhap]

You can read more at the link, but I believe in believing what the Kim regime says.  It is pretty clear they only want to talk if the US ditches its hostile policies.  What that means is that the Kim regime wants the sanctions to go away and a peace treaty to be offered as part of negotiations.  This basically rewards the regime for bad behavior before the talks have even begun.  From their perspective this strategy has worked in the past and I guess they figure at some point the Trump administration will reward them as well.

Here is what a former nuclear negotiator with North Korea had to say recently about the Trump administration:

Robert Gallucci, the chief negotiator during the 1994 North Korean nuclear crisis, called for dialogue with the North to make a breakthrough in the crisis on the Korean Peninsula, during his speech at Seoul’s National Assembly, Monday.

Gallucci, chairman of the U.S.-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C., reiterated the U.S. should negotiate with Pyongyang, if there’s room for improved circumstances through the negotiation.

“What we should not ask is a perfect deal. We should not ask how much does it cost,” Gallucci said in an event co-hosted by Reps. Kim Kyung-hyup and Lee Tae-kyu, members of the Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee.

“We should rather ask are we better off with the deal,” the former special envoy noted, referring to his past experience of talking with his North Korean counterpart Kang Sok-ju in Geneva, Switzerland.

“In 1994, our intelligence community estimated North Korea was capable to produce 200 kilograms of plutonium a year. However, when President George Bush came into office in 2001, North Korea had zero nuclear weapons,” he said. “Did the North cheat us? The answer is yes. However, the deal was still a good one.”  [Korea Times]

That last paragraph is all everyone needs to see to understand the problem with past negotiations with North Korea.  Gallucci is apparently more than happy to allow the North Koreans to cheat on a deal as long as there is a deal.

Here is what else he had to say:

Touching on the heightened tension sparked by the North’s Nov. 29 launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), Gallucci pointed out that it is a crisis between the North and the entire international community.

“It is a crisis because if military activity were to begin in days, indeed just days, no one in this room could be surprised, or should be surprised. That I think is a fair definition of crisis,” he said.  [Yonhap]

Who is assessing military action to happen within days except for people that don’t closely follow North Korea?  The ICBM launch was a research and development activity like their other prior test launches.  The US military has not launched any retaliatory strikes in response to these R&D activities and has instead focused on deterrence responses.  If the Kim regime fires a missile that lands in or near US territory than we will definitely have a military crisis on our hands.

The Kim regime has clearly been firing missiles in areas that are no where near US territory in order to not provoke a crisis.  Additionally the Kim regime has not shelled any islands, attacked ROK naval vessels, or murdered ROK servicemembers in quite sometime.  It is clear the Kim regime does not want a military crisis and instead is focusing on R&D of their ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities.

Why they are developing their ICBMs and nuclear capability Gallucci believes is for deterrence:

“This North Korean capability raises a question about whether the U.S. will fulfill its alliance responsibilities to its allies,” he said. “It raises a question about whether the U.S. will put Washington D.C. and New York City at risk in order to prevent North Korea from blackmailing South Korea and to deter any attack on Seoul specifically.”

But he noted the military dominance of the South Korea-U.S. alliance, saying Pyongyang cannot hold Seoul “hostage” with its artillery or nuclear weapons unless it is “suicidal.” He also voiced skepticism about the existence of a “good” military option without any cost or risk.

“Its nuclear weapons are good for one thing only to deter an effort at changing their regime. That is plausible,” he said.

“But the North cannot plausibly blackmail, it cannot deter a military response to its adventurism, it cannot compel the ROK (Republic of Korea) or the U.S. to do anything, it cannot break our alliance,” he added.   [Yonhap]

I think his remarks that North Korea is not developing nuclear weapons to blackmail the South is in direct response to ROK Drop favorite Joshua Stanton.  Stanton of One Free Korea fame has long argued that the North’s nuclear program is less about deterrence and more about driving concessions out of the South to create a confederation of the two countries on Kim’s terms.

I support Stanton’s position because reunification is a driving force within the Cult of Kim.  The Kim regime has long had deterrence through its conventional weapons that could destroy Seoul.  Most other countries in the world would have faced regime change retaliation for the provocations the North Koreans have executed over the years.  However, the Kim regime has faced little military retaliation because of the threat to Seoul.

Developing nuclear weapons allows the regime to threaten the US homeland for the first time.  It is arguable the regime wants to create a negotiating environment where it hopes to separate the ROK from the US.  This would explain why the North Koreans continuously bring up wanting to negotiate a peace treaty to end the Korean War.  If a peace treaty is signed then why would US troops be needed in South Korea any more?  The next goal for the Kim regime would be to co-opt the ROK into a confederation on North Korean terms.

Only time will tell who is right or who is wrong.

Another ICBM test has quickly changed the calculations at the State Department in regards to talks with North Korea:

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Tuesday that Washington is willing to begin talks with North Korea without preconditions.

Tillerson’s remark came as tensions have increased over North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs with its latest test of an intercontinental ballistic missile on Nov. 29.

“We’re ready to talk whenever North Korea is ready to talk and we’re willing to have a first meeting without preconditions,” he told a forum here. “We can talk about the weather if you want.”

It was a markedly different tone from Washington’s earlier insistence that Pyongyang first halt its missile and nuclear testing and demonstrate its sincerity about denuclearization.

“I don’t think it’s realistic if you say we’re only going to talk if you give up your programs,” Tillerson continued. “It really depends on how you bring it up. He’s clearly not like his father or his grandfather, and we don’t know what it will be like to engage with him.  [Yonhap]

You can read more at the link.

Here is what another so called North Korea expert says should be done to resolve the ongoing nuclear crisis which is basically more of the same that has led to the slow motion acquisition of North Korean nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles:

Diplomacy is the only way to achieve a peaceful resolution of the North Korea nuclear crisis, according to Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association.

She said that in order to bring North Korea back to negotiations, U.S.President Donald Trump and his administration should send a sincere, consistent message that the offer of engagement is real.

“Diplomacy is the only path forward to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis,” Davenport said in a recent interview.

“The Trump administration purports to advance a strategy of maximum pressure and engagement but U.S. actions and rhetoric expose a serious diplomacy deficit,” she added.

She pointed out that mixed messages from Trump and top administration officials about U.S.intentions to engage in talks further complicate the environment.

“The Trump administration can and must signal to North Korea that it is willing to engage in talks without preconditions,” she said.

“Direct talks would give the U.S. an opportunity to discuss a path forward with North Korea to reduce tension.”

Davenport stressed that the U.S. Congress should also refrain from activities that heighten tension and muddy the waters regarding the prospects of diplomacy.

“That may require putting denuclearization on the back burner, voicing support for shorter-term, more manageable goals, and giving existing sanctions time to work before pushing new measures,” she said.  [Korea Times]

You can read more at the link, but all I read was more of the same strategy used for the past 25 years that has led to where we are at today.

Ms. Davenport’s strategy is to once again reward the North Koreans for their bad behavior by limiting US-ROK military drills.  She says it would not impact military readiness, how would she know that?  In my opinion cancelling a UFG or Key Resolve exercise would impact readiness considering the constant change over of personnel in Korea and the amount of off-Pen augmentees that participate in the training.

Ms. Davenport believes offering up a military exercise will lead to the “freeze deal” that many in the academic world are calling for.  I think if any freeze deal is pursued it should include robust inspections and the risk of a retaliatory bombing strike if it is not complied with.  However, I am doubtful the Kim regime will ever sign up for vigorous inspections when they know the so called experts are more interested in making a deal than actually denuclearizing North Korea.

I don’t get what the supposed smart people in the diplomatic community are getting excited about after these comments from a North Korean official.  Basically the official said that if the US backs off and gives the Kim regime everything they want then there may be an exit from the current nuclear crisis.  Does anyone think President Trump is willing to settle this current crisis by signing some agreement that leaves Pyongyang with nuclear tipped ICBMs pointed at the United States?:

Choe Son-hui, the North Korean Foreign Ministry’s North American affairs bureau chief, recently said there “may be an exit” from the North Korean nuclear crisis if the US “makes the right choice to abandon its hostile policies and co-exist with North Korea as a nuclear state,” it was reported on Oct. 24.

The message is being interpreted as suggesting Pyongyang is leaving the possibility of dialogue open.  Choe’s remarks were made during a closed-door session on “Detente on the Korean Peninsula” at the Moscow Nonproliferation Conference on Oct. 21, a South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs official reported.

When asked what was specifically meant by the US “abandoning its hostile policies,” Choe reportedly replied, “For a diplomatic and peaceful resolution to happen, the right atmosphere must be formed, but North Korea cannot sit down at the negotiating table when there are threatening tweets from President [Donald] Trump every day.”“North Korea will not move an inch if the US’s policies of pressure with military and nuclear threats and economic sanctions continue,” she was also quoted as saying.“We will not be bound by the Sept. 19 Joint Statement [of 2005] stipulating denuclearization, nor will we return to the Six-Party [Talks] framework.”

Choe’s remarks differ little from Pyongyang’s other recent statements of principle on the international stage. But her use of the terms “exit” and “right atmosphere” are drawing notice, as they could be seen as a signal that Pyongyang may pursue negotiations.“Choe’s remarks could be taken a signal that [North Korea] is starting to negotiate,” said University of North Korean Studies (UNKS) professor Koo Kap-woo.  [Hankyoreh]

You can read more at the link.

The architect behind the failed 1994 Agreed Framework, Robert Gallucci has joined the chorus to restart talks with North Korea though they have repeatedly said they don’t want to:

Former U.S. nuclear negotiator Robert Gallucci said Monday that North Korea might not be interested in talks on its nuclear and missile programs until it secures an intercontinental ballistic missile capability that levels the playing field with the U.S.

“Maybe it’s true that the North has no interest at this moment in having the negotiations that involve its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles,” Gallucci said in a lecture at Seoul’s Yonsei University.

“Some suspect in the U.S that they don’t want to enter through negotiations with the U.S… until they have demonstrated an ICMB capability that makes the U.S. vulnerable to them… so that they have leveled the playing field,” he added. “That’s possible.”  [Yonhap]

You can read the rest at the link, but Gallucci in the article tries to blame the Trump administration for not restarting talks though he even states in the article the North Koreans are likely waiting to perfect their ICBM before wanting to pursue talks.

This is not surprising to me, the only thing surprising is that the US Secretary of State is admitting to the talks:

The United States is communicating with North Korea as it seeks to encourage the regime to abandon its build up of nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said.

Mr Tillerson made his comments in Beijing after holding talks with Chinese leaders on Saturday amid rising concerns over Pyongyang’s military programme.

Washington is known to have back channels which it uses to help negotiate the release of US citizens who have been held captive in the North.

But Mr Tillerson’s disclosure suggests US officials are also using secret talks to convince Pyongyang to hold official negotiations aimed at easing tensions.  [The Telegraph]

You can read more at the link.

The freeze fantasy: Don’t tell us to talk to North Korea if you aren’t listening to North Korea https://t.co/qOo13bcrUi via @@freekorea_us

— NorthKoreaRealTime (@BuckTurgidson79) August 3, 2017

I guess the Kim regime is too busy building ICBMs and nuclear weapons and don’t have time to talk to the Moon administration:

North Korea ignored South Korea’s proposal to hold military talks Friday, complicating President Moon Jae-in’s plan to improve relations starting with some kind of dialogue.

On Monday the South Korean military proposed talks on Friday to ease tensions along the demilitarized zone (DMZ), one of the most heavily fortified zones in the world. Seoul also proposed a meeting to discuss holding reunions for families separated by the 1950-53 Korean War on Aug. 1. Pyongyang has said nothing about either proposal.

“The North has yet to state its position [on our proposal for today]. As such, it has become effectively impossible to hold talks today,” said Moon Sang-gyun, the Defense Ministry spokesman, during a regular press briefing on Friday. The defense ministry continued that “restoring a communication channel in the military field” and “easing military tensions” on both sides of the border were tasks that required “a sense of urgency.”   [Joong Ang Ilbo]

You can read more at the link.

It looks like the US government will not be participating in any talks with North Korea any time soon:

The White House expressed veiled opposition to South Korea’s proposal for rare inter-Korean talks Monday, saying current conditions are “far away” from those needed to reopen dialogue with the recalcitrant state.

Seoul proposed military talks for this coming Friday and Red Cross talks on Aug. 1 to discuss ways to ease tensions along their shared border and resume reunions of families separated since the 1950-53 Korean War.

The offer came amid renewed tensions over the North’s first launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile on July 4.

“Well, obviously those comments came out of the Republic of Korea and I would refer you back to them,” Press Secretary Sean Spicer said during a briefing, when asked if there are certain conditions U.S. President Donald Trump would like to see met before the talks take place. “That being said, I think the president has made clear in the past with respect that any type of conditions that would have to be met are clearly far away from where we are now.”  [Yonhap]

You can read more at the link.