At 100 kilotons, North Korea’s latest underground nuclear blast was around 10 times as great as the one last year and more than 100 times as great as its first underground test back in 2006. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has raised the stakes by claiming to have set off its first hydrogen bomb.
The US reaction has predictably been more of the same old. More condemnation. More sanctions. More threats of reprisals of overwhelming force. As if to set the stage for actual reprisal to come, Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, accused the North Koreans of “begging for war”.
For nearly two decades, America’s response to the DPRK has been to resort to ratcheting up the tension against it. In turn, the DPRK’s response to this increased pressure has been to detonate a bigger bomb or fire an intercontinental missile with longer range. Neither side has succeeded in getting the other to back down.
In early 1994, Bill Clinton’s White House began to contemplate making a pre-emptive surgical strike on Yongbyon, a location on the northeast coast of North Korea where weapons development was under way.
According to Dr William Perry, then US secretary of defense, Pyongyang invited former president Jimmy Carter to visit North Korea, whereupon the North Koreans expressed to him that they had an interest in beginning negotiations. Carter promptly conveyed this sentiment to president Clinton.
War was averted and both sides quickly arrived at an “Agreed Framework” by the end of 1994. The basic terms of the Agreed Framework were that the DPRK would halt producing plutonium and not built large reactors that could be used to produce weapons-grade fissionable material. Japan and South Korea would each build a light-water reactor in the DPRK for power generation and the US would supply fuel oil until those reactors were built.
The framework held, albeit tenuously, until the end of Clinton’s second term. Perceptions and expectations of what the framework meant were very different on both sides. The North Koreans were hoping that it would lead to a bilateral treaty that would give them assurances of no US intention for regime change. A ceasefire armistice since the end of the Korean War seemed too flimsy to offer them a sense of security.
The US side considered the framework as an informal agreement that would not require ratification by the US Senate – a way of keeping nuclear non-proliferation on the Korean Peninsula out of domestic politics. In fact, persistent congressional opposition to the DPRK meant reduced funding for the fuel-oil shipments, causing delays and shortfalls in those shipments.
When George W Bush entered the White House, he was not interested in dealing with a member of the “axis of evil”. The bad blood came to a head in 2003 when an American delegation went to Pyongyang and, in a public confrontation without any pretense at diplomacy, accused the North Koreans of violating the Agreed Framework via covert nuclear-weapons development.
On its side, the DPRK had not seen any sign of the completion of the two light-water reactors promised nearly nine years earlier, and only intermittent deliveries of fuel oil. Each side had plenty of reason to accuse the other of dealing in bad faith. Distrust and suspicion have poisoned relations ever since.
In response to worldwide condemnation, the DPRK has cleaved to the line that its nuclear-weapon development is for self-defense and a “gift package” for the US. In point of fact, the North Koreans see no other recourse against the US threat of regime change. The fate of Muammar Gaddafi, of Libya, who publicly gave up nuclear weapons but was removed from power anyway, serves to remind them of the alternative fate awaiting.
The US diplomatic effort would need infinite patience to gradually overcome the years of bad blood and distrust
As the imbroglio deepens, world opinion is shifting toward caution and moderation, not so much in sympathy for the puny underdog taking on the hegemon but out of concern that the confrontation, without a course correction, could lead to catastrophic consequences exceeding any rational imagination.
The people of South Korea are relatively blasé about the actions of their neighbor to the north because they believe they understand the North Koreans. They fear instead US President Donald Trump because of his unpredictability and the seeming opacity hiding his real intentions.
Their newly elected president, Moon Jae-in, has advanced the notion of continuing dialogue with the North. President Trump has accused Moon of appeasement, but surely as the next-door neighbor, South Korea has more at stake than the US, which exists in relative safety thousands of kilometers away.
Moon is not the only one to suggest letting talks begin. Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China, while joining in the near-universal disapproval and condemnation of the DPRK, have also proclaimed that negotiation is the only viable approach.
Even the mainstream media in the US are coming to the same conclusion: namely that talks are necessary to reduce the tension. Key members of the Trump team such as Secretary of Defense James Mattis would not rule out diplomatic solutions. State Secretary Rex Tillerson has allowed that he would be open to talks if certain conditions are met.
With 12 times the population of North Korea, and military and economic power of a much greater magnitude of multiples, it would seem that mighty America can afford the magnanimity of making the first gesture of accommodation. But even then, the US diplomatic effort would need infinite patience to gradually overcome the years of bad blood and distrust.
Perhaps another high-profile emissary to Pyongyang is needed to break the ice. Instead of former president Jimmy Carter, might not Bill Clinton fill the bill? As I have suggested previously, it’s time to think and act differently about North Korea.
An accurate history as I rememver it too!
Dr. Koo is right on. We have never kept our word. So long as America keep threaten other countries with so called " regime change" the only way any country coould surve is to develope WMD. So whose fault is it?
Are you seriously defending North Korea?
Okay the US isn’t perfect but don’t you think that at least some of those regimes did and do need changing?
North Korea is a very very weird place and not in alignment with a modern democracy.
Even the Russians and Chinese understand that much.
Countries who back down and accept America tend to do well. Become wealthy and stable.
Countries with weird leaders and regimes who fight against America tend to end up getting blown up.
Surely these leaders can see that. And surely they can see that western democracy isn’t such a bad option for their people.
It’s not about bowing down and allowing total control to foreign powers, it’s about being less of a threat and could operating somewhat. It’s that simple.
Let the past be the past because arguing about it won’t change much. Better to focus on a good future for the people first and foremost.
Accept and tolerate the US don’t be a threat and prosper all the while keeping a unique cultural identity. That’s the way forward if you ask me.
Why Bill? Does this ring the bell: "We came, we saw, he died!" Who uttered that?
What is the delay in good to north Korea,America was quick to go and fight and killed Saddam and bandaid.
Short of declaring a war, what can the US do? Blockade? That’s declaring war. Trump can make a name for himself by sitting with Kim and sign a peace treaty. right now he is looking like a spoilt child throwing tantrums.
Sending Bill Clinton is not at all a bad idea. it would demonstrate that Trump takes NK somewhat seriously. And Clinton can be very tough on occassion. Sort of, "Well, I am your last chance. After me it’s Mad Dog and a lot of weapons you know nothing about. And I have to tell you, that idiot Trump has been talking tactical nukes for your artillery tubes..bang, bang, BOOM. And he is just crazy enough to do it. Your call."
Might work.
For the first time in history, the West must face a people they have bombed, humiliated, bullied and belittled for 72 years, and those same people nevertheless have come to possess the power to obliterate a few large cities at will. If this doesn’t present an opportunity for sober reflection, well I guess nothing will . . .
gee people, who started the war in the first place? China. Who controls NK, China. The US should just pull its troops out and let NK take over SK and Apple would not have any more compeition from samsung.
Oh, bthw, who controlled the wars in indochina, both of them? China and USSR. Who is supporting the mullahs in Iran? Who is trying to take over the sunnis? Maybe the russians? It is their benefit to start shit with the US by using proxies because it detracts from communism and nuevo socialism that china and NK are forcing on their slave populations.
Stuart Budgen where is the wealth and stability in Lybia? Mind ur business
I like "Even the mainstream media".
As if they would say anything else than "We have to talk"!
They know within themselves how capable NK is.
Bill Clinton will go down in history for lying about Monika Lewinsky. I flinch whenever I think how I defended him for two years before he came clean. Why would you send someone to negotiate with North Korea whose major claim to fame is his record as a liar? It would be an insult. This man was impeached not so much for his sexual activities, as his lying about them. Come on, I think someone from the Committee of 100 might come up with a better proposal, someone with sterling credentials, someone with a good reputation for honest dealings.
Dan Thomas, please read Bruce Cumings, "The Korean War: A History". Then you will no longer make such ignorant comments.
Friends,
One side (A) has more than 4,000 deliverable nuclear warheads, the other side (B) has Zero deliverable warheads. Side B with Zero deliverable warheads keeps threatening A with several thousand nukes. A has been rehearsing, jointly with another strong nation, total non-nuclear anihilation of B with Zero nuclear warheads. B and all his past ruling relatives have all just wanted to stay in power, live a long life, and die naturally.
If A just agrees to allowing B to get his wishes, an expensive and dangerous war endangering the lives of millions of innocent victims would be avoided. This is the moral and humane way to handle this situation.
A is also in denial as A cannot afford another major conflict. A’s military is exhausted from 16 years of continuous and expensive warfare. Even her mighty and super powerful Navy has recently revealed her fatigue when four collisions at sea occurred which would not have occurred if their seamen were alert and not exhausted from extended sea duty.
Discussions of avoiding senseless warfare between A & B should begin with signing a peace treaty that has been avoided for almost 7 decades. Then giving B her wish to be recognized with introducing embassies on both sides will begin normalization of relations and cessation of mutual demonization which justifies mutual slaughter.
Maybe I should tweet this, in a much shorter discourse, of course!
Roger
“In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Good Will.” – Churchill, The Second World War.
The time for magnanimity is after victory, not while under threat.