North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un says the United States will pay a “thousand-fold for all the heinous crimes” it has committed against his country. US President Donald Trump warns that North Korea will experience “fire and fury like the world has never seen”. Kim threatens to fire four missiles at the US territory of Guam. Trump promises that Kim “will truly regret it” and “regret it fast” if he follows through on that threat, or issues another.
As the unprecedented exchange of white-hot rhetoric and overt military threats between the leaders of two nuclear-armed countries continues to escalate, reasonable people around the world are asking whether there is a peaceful way out of this unfolding crisis. The answer, according to some, is to pursue a “double freeze”, in which North Korea freezes its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the US and South Korea freezing their joint military exercises.
At first glance, this option – which was originally proposed by China, and has since been endorsed by Russia – appears to be a sensible compromise.
Without the ability to test nuclear and missile technologies, North Korea would be stuck with what it already has. Rather than a potent arsenal with credible long-range capabilities, it would have an unreliable arsenal with potentially no miniaturized nuclear warheads. For the US, suspending joint military exercises with South Korea seems like a small price to pay for such an outcome, as it would do little to undercut America’s overwhelming military superiority.
But the US has flatly rejected China’s proposal, ostensibly because it seems to morally conflate North Korea’s quest for weapons of mass destruction (which it appears fully prepared to use) with America’s right to defend itself and its allies. In accepting a double freeze, the US would in essence be rewarding North Korea for ceasing activities that are already in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
In addition to the dangerous precedent that it would set, the double-freeze solution has two fundamental weaknesses. First, the costs of non-compliance for such a deal would not be symmetrical. The Kim regime would incur only modest costs by restarting its nuclear program, but it may be able to impose severe and irreversible costs on the US and South Korea, should that decision lead to a full-fledged nuclear arsenal.
This is partly because of a second key weakness: the difficulties of verification. It is easy to tell whether the US is conducting military exercises with South Korea; it is much harder to ensure that North Korea is not engaging in underground research and development activities.
Indeed, most of North Korea’s research and development, not least its enrichment of fissile materials, occurs in secret facilities inaccessible to outside inspectors. Under a double-freeze arrangement, North Korea might halt only its observable activities, such as its missile and nuclear tests. Worse still, this could even work in Kim’s favor, by buying time for his scientists to master technologies – particularly nuclear-warhead miniaturization – that could then be quickly deployed once the deal is publicly broken.
Such an approach would be nothing new from North Korea. In 1994, when Washington and Pyongyang last agreed to a freeze on North Korea’s plutonium production, Kim’s father, Kim Jong-il, quickly broke the deal, embarking on a secret uranium program. The Americans have no reason to buy the same horse twice.
Of course, the weaknesses of the double-freeze approach are probably not lost on China, either. Indeed, offering this solution was, in all likelihood, largely a tactical decision. As the Pyongyang regime’s principal patron, China is viewed as the key to containing Kim’s nuclear ambitions. But China is reluctant to squeeze North Korea, because it fears that doing so could lead to the collapse of the Kim regime, and the loss of its strategic buffer against the US.
Against this backdrop, the double-freeze proposal was not intended actually to resolve the crisis; after all, China probably expected the US to reject it. Rather, China wanted to shift the international community’s attention away from its own potential leverage over the Kim regime, and toward the Trump administration’s erratic and worrying policy approach. By raising the double-freeze solution, China put the ball in America’s court, and placed the onus for resolving the crisis squarely on Trump’s shoulders.
If China truly does want a peaceful resolution to the escalating nuclear crisis, it should address the two key weaknesses of the double-freeze solution, proposing a detailed, intrusive, and stringent verification regime and committing itself to serve as the principal enforcer of the agreement. China should make it clear that, were North Korea to violate the deal, it would immediately lose all of the protection and support it receives. Now that would be a deterrent.
Minxin Pei is professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and the author of China’s Crony Capitalism.
Copyright Project Syndicate, 2017
This is written by an author who makes a career out of China bashing. The main problem is tha the US can never be trusted with any agreement. The US is the only country which has ever used nuclear weapons and has a first strike policy. It’s current leader is erratic and rapidly losing power at home. He had already said that the US should be allowed to use nukes. US writers like the above only need to look to themsves for the real problems.
This proposal is nothing but hogwash. NK is a vassel state of China and, like Pakistan, she is used by China to paint herself whiter than white while making NK make all kinds of irresponsible noises which do not stick to China. However, this gameplan is getting exposed now.
As in any confrontation, each protagonist will not give up an inch to his opponent even if he has the upper hand to the point of using it as a bargaining chip. Same goes with the U.S.-Nokor stand-off. But it is essential and beneficial to all, if each side works out a solution under a sphere of mutual trust and respect with the greater good in mind.
In this Double Freeza Proposed by China, it wants to take advantage of disputed Japan’s Island occupied by China and the Dhoklam Area of India. If the compromise was signed, then China will escape War threat by the US Allays to vacate the Japan Island and to back from the Dhoklam Region. China wants to take the advantage of the situation to it’s benefit. Very Cunning Country.
China and NK is working on strategy to push US out of Asia-Pacefic.
The article writer is out of touch with reality. North Korea till date not invade any country. So we can assume with off with sanction, they will do good for the world specially for its people. But the US is in non-stimulating war with other small nation-state one after another. This means that US can be predicted that it will have its war, one way or another. For peace US need to back off with all its lies and hypocrisy.
More MSM type propaganda that makeup stories about China’s invisible leverage over n Korea that does not exists. But what else to expect from someone who depends on such propaganda for livelihood. This writer would be one of those homeless amongst the millions you see in the land of plenty if not on such payroll
China uses North Korea to "PLAY" with the Americans. China wants the US out of South Korea and out of Japan. The Chinese will play the long game——using the North Koreans to "PLAY" with the Americans when they see fit. As for the island of Taiwan———the Chinese welcome all the weapons that the Americans sell to the leaders of Taiwan——–after the weapons are delivered they just borrow them for a week and then send them back to Taiwan. From the jump (40 years ago) the American Government and American elite thought that the Chinese were a bunch of stupid, poor Chinks that America could manipulate at a moments notice——–the Chinese watched as the greedy Americans gave away there manufacturing base first to Japan (in a small way) and then gave the whole "Gonsi Megilla" to China——–all because Walmart and others wanted profit over common sense. How many times have I heard on Bloomberg and CNBC—oh the Chinese don’t know how to innovate——–you need a open society with lot of diversity to create a Facebook are a Google. Maybe the dumb American leaders (Political and Elite) should have paid attention and read the writings of the great Chinese General Sun Tzu 544 BC-496 BC who has been quoted extensively throughout time. I will leave the author of this article on of my favorite Sun Tzu quotes "All men can see these tactics where by I conquer, BUT what no one can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved"
Xi is exposed as a proven conman.
Wasn’t the condemnations and sanctions on both India and Pakistan when they went nuclear turned out to be a con also?
Even Bannon admits that there is no military solution, unless NK really starts a war with real attack. Why?
To me the reason is very obvious since I believe the US definitely has the very basic decency to not push SK (and even Japan) into the inferno of war, to say the least. The US bashers are painting themselves into a corner, or into intellectual poverty due to illogical fervor against the US.
Military drills for SK and the USA has little real practical significance; they serve only to intimidate NK, but to no avail. Somehow I think Kim also has the proper regard for American decency and the real hostage status of SK (and Japan).
The NK situation actual illustrates East Asia’s future and how China is steadily achieving most of its objectives.
In 2017, SK is obviously the hostage, unless NK really starts a war.
In 2040 ot later, Taiwan will be the hostage, unless the Chinese mainland really starts a war. Greater and greater threats without execution for the decades to come will continue to be highly effective for China.
In 2017, SK has the venue and avenue to declare that no country is to start a war with NK without SK’s approval.
Comes 2040 or later, Taiwan would very much declare that no country is to start a war with the Chinese mainland. Just that Taiwan will not have the venue and avenue to desperately do so, only through the media.
The Chinese mainland will have a few very potent ways to compel Taiwan to choose between starting a war and negotiation. The US will be paralysed militarily, not just to preserve Taiwan, but also Hong Kong, Korea, Japan …..
Taiwan is very vulnerable to the Chinese mainland’s non-lethal interfenence of its energy and breaching of its immigration defense. Comes 2045, would Taiwan still start a war to break free? I think not.
Comes 2045 or later, ultimately, the US has no real military ally in Asia. Japan and SK will be very unwilling hostages yearning for peace. As long as war has not started, all will dread war. By 2045, East Asia would have lived in peace for nearly a century; all Asians will dread war even more so than today.
China will also know the real hostage status of Japan and SK, eventually be it in 2045 or later. The top Chinese leadership seems to understand the US well–the American sociological crux.
The author, Pei, seems not to understand the US much.
Not really Minxin. The proposal is sensible, workable and should be adopted by USA immediately. South Korea’s economy is 100 times the size of North Korea/ Its population is twice that of North Korea. It is heavily armed by USA. And there is also Japan and numerous US bases nearby
There is definitely no need to the annual military exercises right on the borders nor the presence of US troops and THAAD systems. Economic engagement will be more successful in defusing tension. US need to pull out and let the Koreans resolve their differences themselves.