Tag: nuclear weapons

That is what this article in the Politico suggests that President Trump is planning to do:

Taking Trump at his word during the campaign—when he decried U.S. allies Japan and South Korea as ungrateful free-riders—it would be reasonable to conclude that Trump is willing to forsake U.S. allies in the region by getting Kim to agree to negotiate away his ICBMs but ultimately leave Kim with a regional nuclear strike capability. Nuclear scholars have worried that a North Korean ICBM capability would “decouple” the United States from South Korea—the question of whether America would trade Seattle for Seoul in a nuclear conflict is a rhetorical one. We know the answer. The irony of a nuclear deal between Kim and Trump may actually be that true decoupling will happen when North Korea retains only the ability to strike U.S. allies but not the United States. Kim can simultaneously give a nod in the direction of denuclearization, remove the imminent threat to the U.S. homeland posed by his ICBMs, and expand a wedge between the United States and its allies.  [Politico]

You can read more at the link, but considering that President Trump has stressed denuclearization repeatedly he would have a hard time agreeing to allowing North Korea to keep nuclear weapons that they can use to strike an ally like Japan and US bases in the region.

I hope Kim Jong-un is sincere about this, but I remain extremely skeptical:

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is said to have sent his message to the Trump administration that he would accept a denuclearization verification and intensive inspection by international inspectors including the International Atomic Energy Agency’s visit to its nuclear facilities. Kim, who announced that the regime would shutter a nuclear site in Punggye-ri over the weekend, is reported to have made more detailed reference to the possible inspection and verification for denuclearization. With the upcoming bilateral summit between Washington and Pyongyang, the negotiations on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula will go more smoothly.

CIA director and Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo secretly met with Kim earlier this month to lay the groundwork for direct North Korea-U.S. talks under the condition of the regime’s complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization, South Korea’s intelligence agency said on Monday. Acting as a special envoy for Trump, Pompeo strongly urged North Korea to allow an international verification procedure to check that regime dismantles the nuclear program.

Kim reportedly said he would freeze the nuclear program, report any nuclear activities, and allow international inspectors to visit its facilities only if Washington engages in sincere negotiations, according to observations by South Korea’s intelligence agency. Pompeo is reported to have raised the need for intensive verification procedure in a short period time, citing that North Korea previously expelled IAEA inspectors. He also said inspectors may have to carry out a special inspection into nuclear facilities additionally, if necessary. Kim is said to have not raised any objection to these demands. On the timing and scope of nuclear inspections, Kim will, however, make more cautious decisions after taking into deep consideration what he will gain in return.  [Donga Ilbo]

You can read more at the link.

It looks like people are slowly catching on to what I said when Kim Jong-un’s nuclear test suspension remarks were hailed as some kind of major breakthrough when it isn’t:

North Korea’s announcement Friday that it will stop all nuclear and missile tests was welcomed by the South and the United States, but some critics say the statement didn’t actually indicate any interest in denuclearization from the recalcitrant state.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was quoted in a lengthy report released by the North’s state-run Korean Central News Agency Saturday as saying that no such tests were necessary anymore, “given that the work for mounting nuclear warheads on ballistic rockets was finished as the whole processes of developing nuclear weapons were carried out in a scientific way and in regular sequence.”

Kim said North Korea, starting immediately, will never use nuclear weapons nor transfer nuclear weapons or nuclear technology under any circumstances unless the country faces a nuclear provocation or threat.

The North will also “facilitate close contact and active dialogue” with neighboring countries and international society in order to guarantee the peace and security of the Korean Peninsula and the world by creating an “international environment favorable for socialist economic construction,” Kim said.  [Joong Ang Ilbo]

You can read more at the link, but there has been nothing done so far by the Kim regime different from what they have done before.  Everything they are doing is from their standard playbook and the Korean left and international media is largely playing along with it.  I’ll start getting hopeful when international inspectors are allowed to go in and monitor their nuclear facilities and artillery and troops are withdrawn from the DMZ.  Until concrete actions like this are taken this is just more of the same.

Must-read: Could North Korea Use Nuclear Weapons as a Shield for Aggression? https://t.co/ICxYe8hsf0

— (((Joshua))) Stanton (@freekorea_us) April 16, 2018

It looks like this may be what the upcoming negotiations come down to, what does denuclearization really mean?:

The White House is gearing up for President Trump to discuss denuclearization with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at their much anticipated summit next month. But what does “denuclearization” mean?

It depends on whom you are asking. To some in Washington, “the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” as Trump tweeted late last month, means Kim handing over his nuclear weapons and missile systems and allowing international inspectors to check that the regime is keeping its word.

To Pyongyang, it means something very, very different. It means mutual steps to get rid of nuclear weapons, including requiring the United States to take down the nuclear umbrella it has put up over South Korea and Japan.  (……..)

At the very least, Kim would agree to relinquish his weapons only if the United States agreed to end its military alliance with South Korea, in place since the 1950-53 Korean War, Narang said. He would also likely insist the United States end its commitment to “extended deterrence” in South Korea and Japan — its threat of nuclear retaliation if its allies in Asia come under attack from North Korea.  [Washington Post]

You can read more at the link, but what I think is important to realize here, is that whatever Kim Jong-un says during negotiations is what the Chinese want as well.  The Kim regime has long wanted to separate the ROK from the US.  Withdrawing the US military from the Korean peninsula would meet this goal.  However, the Kim regime making demands to end security guarantees to Japan I think is really Beijing talking.

“The danger is entering into negotiations with unrealistic expectations that Kim is just going to hand over the keys to his nuclear kingdom. He won’t,” says @NarangVipin https://t.co/DbfABm9XD3

— Anna Fifield (@annafifield) April 9, 2018

Good luck trying to get the Kim regime to agree to this:

A complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization (CVID) of the Korean Peninsula is what the U.S. government is pushing for, and that approach is “necessary” and “nonnegotiable” when it deals with the North Korea nuclear issue, the acting U.S. ambassador to South Korea said Monday.

Marc Knapper emphasized that the U.S. is “hopeful but realistic” in its expectations for the upcoming summits with North Korea, citing more than two decades of failure in making the North give up its nuclear weapons.

“Let me be clear. There has been no shift in our policy. We are willing to engage with North Korea but our purpose of any meeting first and foremost will be to emphasize the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It is necessary and nonnegotiable,” Knapper told a forum in Seoul.  [Yonhap]

You can read more at the link.

The Blue House is now letting it be known that North Korea is not serious about denuclearization:

Libya’s process of denuclearization, in which rewards were provided after the regime made an instantaneous decision and completely dismantled its nuclear program, cannot be applied to resolving the North Korea nuclear issue, a Cheong Wa Dae official said Friday.

He hinted at solutions through phrased disarmament and verification, which is somewhat different from hard-line U.S. officials’ preference for a package settlement similar to the Libya disarmament process

Libya gave up its nuclear and other destructive weapons in 2003, in return for normalization of relations with the U.S. and easing of economic sanctions. Attention has grown over the Libyan case as the White House’s newly appointed national security adviser, John Bolton, has backed this model as a means to address North Korea.

“I believe it is impossible to apply the Libyan process to North Korea,” the senior official told reporters on condition of anonymity.  [Korea Times]

This based off of Kim Jong-un’s comments during his trip to China that North Korea would only denuclearize on a step-by-step basis.  In other words nothing has changed from past nuclear negotiations where the Kim regime seeks major concessions for little to nothing in return and then tear up the agreement at a time of their choosing.  Some how I do not see the Trump administration signing up for any deal like that.

Here is what Chinese expert on North Korea, Yang Xiyu thinks about the possibility of Kim Jong-un denuclearizing:

Yang Xiyu, one of China’s leading experts on North Korea, said that Mr. Kim was clearly trying to repair the North’s deeply strained relations with Beijing, its traditional ally and benefactor, while opening new ties with its enemy South Korea.

Even so, Mr. Yang said, that did not signal that Mr. Kim was willing to give up his nuclear arsenal, though he has told South Korean envoys that he was prepared to discuss the possibility.

“He is starting a new game where he could make concessions on denuclearization,” Mr. Yang said. “At most, he will cut the grass, but he will not pull out the roots.”  [New York Times]

If Kim Jong-un meets with President Trump and does not make any serious offer to denuclearize than Kim better be ready for if the Trump administration decides to come back with a bottle of Roundup to kill the roots.

Here is what a Professor John Mearsheimer at the University of Chicago has to say about the possibility of North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons:

There’s no way North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons because they have no reason to believe the United States will implement any denuclearization deal between them, John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago well known for his realist views on international politics, said Tuesday.

“North Korea is not going to give up its nuclear weapons and China will not push North Koreans to do so. The reason is that in international politics, you could never trust anybody because you cannot be certain of what their intentions are,” the professor said in a lecture hosted by the Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies in Seoul.

“There’s no way North Koreans can trust the U.S. — they give up their nuclear weapons because the U.S. might welsh on the deal,” the professor said, referring to the U.S.’ unsuccessful denuclearization deals with former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Iran. “If you were North Koreans, would you trust Donald Trump? Would you trust any American presidents?

“I can’t think of a country that needs nuclear weapons more than North Koreans because you all know that the U.S. is into a regime change. Donald Trump has been talking about a regime change in North Korea,” Mearsheimer said.

“Give up their nuclear weapons? I don’t think so, especially as security competition heats up in East Asia. You wanna hang on to those weapons.”  [Yonhap]

I think an important distinction to draw here is that the nuclear weapons were likely not developed to protect the North Korean government from an American regime change attempt.  North Korea’s conventional weapons have been able to prevent any regime change on the peninsula despite assassination attempts on ROK presidents, shooting down of a US aircraft, kidnappings, terrorist bombings, artillery shellings, etc.  These past incidents would have led to a regime change war in most other areas in the world, but not with North Korea because of the cost of civilian casualties on Seoul.

If Muammar Gaddafi had the ability to kill millions of people in Rome for example with conventional weapons, his overthrow by international forces would have never happened.  Unlike Gaddafi and other dictators that have been overthrown, geography has aided the North Koreans by having a huge metropolitan area within striking distance of their conventional artillery, they don’t need nukes to threaten Seoul, they do need them to threaten the United States.

The Kim regime’s nuclear weapons were likely developed to threaten US cities which then increases their bargaining position during negotiations.  This is what appears to be happening now.   I would say that at best North Korea may sign an agreement that stops development of new nuclear weapons, but lets them keep a few on hand.  What I think the US would have more success on is having them scrap their ICBM program.  Without an ICBM North Korea cannot threaten US cities.

Such an agreement would still leave the Kim regime a few nuclear weapons to protect them not from the US, but from any Chinese regime change attempts.  There has long been a distrust of the Chinese by the Kim regime that stretches back to the Korean War.  Nuclear weapons are the ultimate insurance policy against any Chinese adventurism against North Korea.  The nuclear weapons also gives them an advantage over their South Korean rivals that they can continue to use as leverage during future provocation cycles and negotiations.  So ultimately I agree with Professor Mearsheimer that North Korea is not going to give up their nuclear weapons, just for different reasons.