Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Getting to “Yes” with North Korea

For the first time in quite a few years, direct US-North Korea dialogue seems within reach thanks to North-South Korea talks involving Kim Jong-un and top officials of the Moon Jae-in administration. Whether or not North Korea’s complete and verifiable denuclearization, which has long been the chief US demand, will actually be on the table much less be agreed upon remains to be seen, of course. Kim Jong-un surprised the South Korean delegation by apparently indicating a willingness to discuss denuclearization. But most media reports neglected to mention that Kim wants concessions in return—concessions that his father and grandfather have long sought in return for surrendering a deterrent to feared American attack.

From what I can piece together, here is the North Korean position as reported in US and South Korean publications.

North Korea wants:

· Recognition as a “serious partner for dialogue”

· Summit meeting with ROK and resumption of exchanges

· Security assurances, namely, “eliminating the US military threat to North Korea and a guarantee of its security.”

· Normalization of relations with the US

In return, North Korea

· Is willing to discuss denuclearization.

· Will refrain from threats to South Korea: North Korea “will not attempt any strategic provocations, such as nuclear and ballistic missile tests.”

· Will not demand as a precondition for talking that US-ROK joint exercises scheduled for April be cancelled.

· Will not test missiles or a nuclear weapon during talks with the US.

Note, however, the following qualifications. First, North Korea is willing to discuss denuclearization, but wants compensation for it, notably security guarantees and “eliminating the US military threat to North Korea.” Second, what exactly “denuclearization,” “security guarantees,” and “US military threat” mean aren’t spelled out and clearly will require long-term negotiation. Third, symbolism counts: North Korea wants acknowledgment of its legitimacy in the form of acceptance as an equal negotiating partner. Fourth, North Korea wants normalized relations with the US, an aim previously discussed in 2005 when the six parties reached a step-by-step nuclear agreement.

In a nutshell, the news out of Korea is welcome for defusing tensions and laying out a path to a new negotiated agreement among North and South Korea and the US. But the path is likely to be strewn with obstacles, first, because Seoul is probably far more willing than Washington to work with North Korea’s position and possibly accept less than complete and verifiable North Korean denuclearization; and second, because of the negative US attitude, already on display among “experts” and Trump officials, using expressions such as “we’ve seen this movie before” and “a fig leaf for ulterior purposes.” Such deep pessimism that North Korea will abide by any agreement reached—a pessimism surely shared by some of Kim Jong-un’s inner circle—may well destroy any serious effort to engage Pyongyang.

For what it’s worth, Donald Trump’s initial reaction is the usual “we’ll see.” He’ll have to say and do a lot more than that. In testing Kim Jong-un’s seriousness, Trump should not only refrain from tweeting threats and be willing to settle for less than the North’s total denuclearization, such as a verifiable nuclear freeze. He should also make the kinds of symbolic gestures that are meaningful to the North Koreans, such as sending of high-profile political figure to Pyongyang and indicating respect for North Korea as a negotiating partner.

More articles by:

Mel Gurtov is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University, Editor-in-Chief of Asian Perspective, an international affairs quarterly and blogs at In the Human Interest.

October 23, 2018
Dean Baker
Looking for the Next Crisis: the Not Very Scary World of CLOs
Binoy Kampmark
Leaking for Change: ASIO, Jakarta, and Australia’s Jerusalem Problem
Chris Wright
The Necessity of “Lesser-Evil” Voting
Muhammad Othman
Daunting Challenge for Activists: The Cook Customer “Connection”
Don Fitz
A Debate for Auditor: What the Papers Wouldn’t Say
October 22, 2018
Henry Giroux
Neoliberalism in the Age of Pedagogical Terrorism
Melvin Goodman
Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF
David Mattson
Basket of Deplorables Revisited: Grizzly Bears at the Mercy of Wyoming
Michelle Renee Matisons
Hurricane War Zone Further Immiserates Florida Panhandle, Panama City
Tom Gill
A Storm is Brewing in Europe: Italy and Its Public Finances Are at the Center of It
Suyapa Portillo Villeda
An Illegitimate, US-Backed Regime is Fueling the Honduran Refugee Crisis
Christopher Brauchli
The Liars’ Bench
Gary Leupp
Will Trump Split the World by Endorsing a Bold-Faced Lie?
Michael Howard
The New York Times’ Animal Cruelty Fetish
Alice Slater
Time Out for Nukes!
Geoff Dutton
Yes, Virginia, There are Conspiracies—I Think
Daniel Warner
Davos in the Desert: To Attend or Not, That is Not the Question
Priti Gulati Cox – Stan Cox
Mothers of Exiles: For Many, the Child-Separation Ordeal May Never End
Manuel E. Yepe
Pence v. China: Cold War 2.0 May Have Just Begun
Raouf Halaby
Of Pith Helmets and Sartorial Colonialism
Dan Carey
Aspirational Goals  
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
Sam Husseini
The Most Strategic Midterm Race: Elder Challenges Hoyer
Maria Foscarinis – John Tharp
The Criminalization of Homelessness
Robert Fisk
The Story of the Armenian Legion: a Dark Tale of Anger and Revenge
Jacques R. Pauwels
Dinner With Marx in the House of the Swan
Dave Lindorff
US ‘Outrage’ over Slaying of US Residents Depends on the Nation Responsible
Ricardo Vaz
How Many Yemenis is a DC Pundit Worth?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail