News
 International
 National
 Embassy News
 Arts & Living
 Business
 Travel & Hotel
 Medical Tourism New
 Taekwondo
 Media
 Letters to Editor
 Photo Gallery
 News Media Link
 TV Schedule Link
 News English
 Life
 Hospitals & Clinics
 Flea Market
 Moving & Packaging
 Religious Service
 Korean Classes
 Korean Weather
 Housing
 Real Estate
 Home Stay
 Room Mate
 Job
 English Teaching
 Translation/Writing
 Job Offered/Wanted
 Business
 Hotel Lounge
 Foreign Exchanges
 Korean Stock
 Business Center
 PR & Ads
 Entertainment
 Arts & Performances
 Restaurants & Bars
 Tour & Travel
 Shopping Guide
 Community
 Foreign Missions
 Community Groups
 PenPal/Friendship
 Volunteers
 Foreign Workers
 Useful Services
 ST Banner Exchange
  Letters to the Editor
Op-Ed Special
North Korea Nuclear Freeze? Finally, a Realistic Proposal
Special Contribution
By Thomas L. Knapp
Trump Crosses DMZ to Meet with Kim Jong-Un: North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un (left), and U.S. President Donald Trump shake hands over the military demarcation line at the truce village of Panmunjom in Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) on June 30, 2019. It was the first time in history that US president crossed DMZ to meet with North Korean leader. Photo Courtesy of KCNA (Korean Central News Agency)

As US President Donald Trump met with North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un for the third time at the end of June — becoming the first sitting US president to visit North Korea — the New York Times ran a piece suggesting the appearance of a new option on the proverbial table: A negotiated "nuclear freeze" rather than just another cycle of fruitless US demands for "de-nuclearization."

The response from National Security Advisor John Bolton came swiftly via Twitter: "Neither the NSC staff nor I have discussed or heard of any desire to 'settle for a nuclear freeze by NK.' This was a reprehensible attempt by someone to box in the President."

If Bolton and the National Security Council HAVEN'T discussed the possibility, they haven't been doing their jobs. And if anyone's being "boxed in" by having the idea called to public attention, it's not Trump, it's Bolton, who prefers saber-rattling theatrics for his hawkish friends on Capitol Hill to actually safeguarding the US.

There are really only two viable paths forward for improved US-North Korea relations.

One is for the US to start minding its own business: Withdraw US troops from and end all defense guarantees to South Korea, unilaterally lift sanctions on the North, and let the region work out its own problems without further American interference. Highly unlikely, at least for the moment.

The other is a "nuclear freeze" under which Kim keeps his existing nuclear arsenal but refrains from building more weapons, in return for sanctions relief and the US getting, and staying, out of the way of improving relations and closer ties between Pyongyang and Seoul.

That second option is eminently doable. It would cost the US nothing of real value. In fact, rightly handled, it would immediately reduce US "defense" outlays — a peace dividend, if we can keep the Military-Industrial Complex's grubby hands off it.

Any US policy toward North Korea must account for two facts:

First, nuclear powers don't give up their nukes. Only one, South Africa, has ever done so, and that regime didn't face external foes on any large scale. North Korea has effectively been at war since the late 19th century, first against Japanese occupation, then against the South and the US from 1950 until now.

Expecting Kim Jong-un to give up the ultimate deterrent to future invasions — by the US, by the South, by Japan, or even by current allies like China and Russia — is simply unrealistic. It's not negotiable. The US knows it's not negotiable. The only reason to even make the demand is to intentionally keep relations hostile.

Secondly, in the case of the United States, Kim has historical evidence as to what giving up his nukes might portend. He saw Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi deposed and killed after they gave up their (never successful) nuclear weapons efforts. Kim would presumably prefer to remain alive and in charge.

A nuclear freeze agreement would not, in and of itself, produce peace. But it would be a giant step in that direction.



Related Articles
    Powell Lied, People Died: Justice Delayed Was ...
    "No First Use": An Empty Gesture That Would ...
    Facebook Gives the Most Dangerous Extremists a ...
    Wuhan Lab Leak: It's Not a "Theory"
    About That "Rules-Based International Order"
    A Biden-Putin Summit: Jaw-Jaw is Better than ...
    Joe Biden Reaffirms Washington's Message to ...
    "Vaccine Passports" and the Holocaust: An ...
    Same as the Old Boss, Julian Assange Edition
    Biden's Iran Dilemma: Serve Obama's Third Term ...
    COVID-19: The Way the Music Died?
    How Joe Biden Can Score a Major Foreign Policy ...
    Trump Regime vs. the ICC: The Wrong Side of ...
    Stop Blaming Russia, China for US Disarmament ...
    NATO is a Brain Dead, Obsolete, Rabid Dog! ...
    US War on Iran: Evil, Stupid, Self-Damaging
    US Should Stop Meddling in Spratly Dispute
    John Bolton Vs. International Criminal Court: ...
    Syria: Is Trump Finally Putting America First?
    Some Questions from the Edge of Immortality
    More Korean War Is "Worth It?" To Whom?
    A Korean Spring after the Winter Olympics Is ...
    Microsoft Corp. vs. United States: Jeff ...


The above writer, Thomas L. Knapp, (Twitter: @thomaslknapp), is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

 

back

 

 

 

The Seoul Times Shinheungro 25-gil 2-6 Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Korea 04337 (ZC)
Office: 82-10-6606-6188 Email:seoultimes@gmail.com
Copyrights 2000 The Seoul Times Company  ST Banner Exchange