• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

ONE WEEK TO DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!

We are inching along, but not as quickly as we (or you) would like. If you have already donated, thank you so much. If you haven’t had a chance, consider skipping the coffee this week and drop CounterPunch $5 or more. We provide our content for free, but it costs us a lot to do so. Every dollar counts.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

A Victory for Diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula

On September 18 leaders of North and South Korea signed a September Declaration to advance inter-Korean cooperation and the possibility of the North’s denuclearization. Critics immediately dismissed the agreement for having accomplished nothing on the latter objective while largely ignoring what was accomplished on the former. From my perspective, the critics have it wrong: They have bought into the Trump administration’s narrative about denuclearization and failed to pay attention to the importance of North-South Korean cooperation as a tool for reducing tensions on the peninsula and, potentially, for neutralizing if not eliminating North Korea’s nuclear weapons.

Few people outside Washington are likely to read the text of the September Declarationor the accompanying military agreements signed by the two countries’ defense ministers. These documents, far from being mere window dressing, contain substantive tension-reducing steps. And the symbolism is important too: These are agreements by and for Koreans. As the declaration states: “The two leaders reaffirmed the principle of independence and self-determination of the Korean nation, and agreed to consistently and continuously develop inter-Korean relations for national reconciliation and cooperation. . . . ”

What are the principal agreements reached? They are:

• “expand the cessation of military hostility in regions of confrontation such as the DMZ,” meaning no-fly zones and military exercises;
• “prevent accidental military clashes by promptly activating the Inter-Korean Joint Military Committee,” referring to setting an 80-kilometer maritime buffer area in the East and West Sea where shooting incidents have occurred;
• open “east-coast and west-coast rail and road connections”;
• restore (“normalize”) the previously closed Mt. Gumgang tourist area and the Kaesong Industrial Zone, once signature joint projects;
• “open a permanent facility for family reunion meetings”;
• bid to jointly host the 2032 Olympic Games;
• “permanently dismantle the Dongchang-ri missile engine test site and launch platform” under international inspection;
• prepare for Kim Jong-un to visit Seoul, the first time a North Korean leader would do so.

As for denuclearization, North Korea expressed “willingness to continue to take additional measures, such as the permanent dismantlement of the nuclear facilities in Yeongbyeon, as the United States takes corresponding measures in accordance with the spirit of the June 12 US-DPRK Joint Statement.” But although Kim joined with Moon in pledging to pursue “complete denuclearization,” the September Declaration does not speak to any reduction in the North’s nuclear weapons arsenal or production. Meantime, its suspension of nuclear and missile testing continues.

Most responses I have seen to these agreements have followed along the lines of the New York Times, which opined that North Korea’s commitments “fall far short of what American officials have demanded.” Well, of course they do. The US has demanded immediate North Korean steps on dismantlement prior to addressing Pyongyang’s priorities, while the North Koreans have called for a phased pathway to denuclearization—the “corresponding measures” mentioned in the declaration—that would begin with a peace treaty and security assurances. The Trump administration, like previous administrations, is simply not going to get something for nothing—and from the North Korean perspective, they have given a whole lot and gotten little in return from Washington beyond a temporary suspension of military exercises.

Moreover, to say the agreements fall short ignores their significance from a Korean perspective. The terms provide plenty of reason for optimism about Korea’s future security.

Granted, like the April 27 Panmunjom Declaration that Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in issued following their first summit meeting at the border, the declaration constitutes mostly pledges, which means reliance on goodwill rather than any enforcement mechanism. But such pledges surely encompass more potential than sanctions for reducing the prospect of violence or the North’s reliance on nuclear weapons. Sanctions in fact have consistently failedto move North Korea away from expansion of its nuclear and missile programs, not only because of the North Koreans’ rejection of pressure tactics but also because Russian, Chinese, and other businesses have fairly easily cheated, especially on oil transfers at sea. Yet, as an analyst with a major South Korean think tank said, the inter-Korean declaration will not please “inflexible” hard-liners in Washington, who consider sanctions “the best and only tool for denuclearization.” (Cheong Seong-chang, a senior analyst at the Sejong Institute).

Donald Trump professed to be “very excited” by the September Declaration, and a spokesman for the UN secretary-general welcomed it and urged all members to support it. We should recognize how far the North Koreans have come, in company with the South Koreans, toward reducing the threat of war, building trust, and moving discussion of Korean security onto the plane of diplomacy. We should also recognize, as I have argued, that Trump is now more determined than ever to squeeze Iran rather than bother with North Korea. Look at his and John Bolton’s latest warnings to Tehran—“there will be hell to pay . . . and we will come after you” said Bolton—as against Trump’s continuing praiseof Kim and newfound flexibility about the time frame for North Korean denuclearization: “If it takes two years, three years, five months, doesn’t matter.” It “doesn’t matter” because Trump would rather let the South Koreans handle Kim and focus his attention on the people who, politically and economically, matter most to him: the Israelis and the Saudis.

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.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
October 23, 2019
Kenneth Surin
Western China and the New Silk Road
W. T. Whitney
Stirrings of Basic Change Accompany Protests in Haiti
Louisa Willcox
Inviting the Chief of the Grizzlies to Our Feast
Jonathan Cook
The Democrats Helped Cultivate the Barbarism of ISIS
Dave Lindorff
Military Spending’s Out of Control While Slashing It Could Easily Fund Medicare for All
John Kendall Hawkins
With 2020 Hindsight, the Buffoonery Ahead
Jesse Hagopian
The Chicago Teachers Strike: “Until We Get What Our Students Deserve”
Saad Hafiz
America’s Mission to Remake Afghanistan Has Failed
Victor Grossman
Thoughts on the Impeachment of Donald Trump
Binoy Kampmark
Celebrity Protesters and Extinction Rebellion
John Horning
Spotted Owls and the National Christmas Tree
October 22, 2019
Gary Leupp
The Kurds as U.S. Sacrificial Lambs
Robert Fisk
Trump and the Retreat of the American Empire
John Feffer
Trump’s Endless Wars
Marshall Auerback
Will the GOP Become the Party of Blue-Collar Conservatism?
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
Trump’s Fake Withdrawal From Endless War
Dean Baker
Trump Declares Victory in China Trade War
Patrick Bond
Bretton Woods Institutions’ Neoliberal Over-Reach Leaves Global Governance in the Gutter
Robert Hunziker
XR Co-Founder Discusses Climate Emergency
John W. Whitehead
Terrorized, Traumatized and Killed: The Police State’s Deadly Toll on America’s Children
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A World Partnership for Ecopolitical Health and Security
Binoy Kampmark
The Decent Protester: a Down Under Creation
Frances Madeson
Pro-Democracy Movement in Haiti Swells Despite Police Violence
Mike Garrity
Alliance for the Wild Rockies Challenges Logging and Burning Project in Methow Valley
Chelli Stanley
Change the Nation You Live In
Elliot Sperber
Humane War 
October 21, 2019
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Wolf at the Door: Adventures in Fundraising With Cockburn
Rev. William Alberts
Myopic Morality: The Rehabilitation of George W. Bush
Sheldon Richman
Let’s Make Sure the Nazis Killed in Vain
Horace G. Campbell
Chinese Revolution at 70: Twists and Turns, to What?
Jim Kavanagh
The Empire Steps Back
Ralph Nader
Where are the Influentials Who Find Trump Despicable?
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Poll Projection: Left-Leaning Jagmeet Singh to Share Power with Trudeau in Canada
Thomas Knapp
Excuses, Excuses: Now Hillary Clinton’s Attacking Her Own Party’s Candidates
Brian Terrell
The United States Air Force at Incirlik, Our National “Black Eye”
Paul Bentley
A Plea for More Cynicism, Not Less: Election Day in Canada
Walter Clemens
No Limits to Evil?
Robert Koehler
The Collusion of Church and State
Kathy Kelly
Taking Next Steps Toward Nuclear Abolition
Charlie Simmons
How the Tax System Rewards Polluters
Chuck Collins
Who is Buying Seattle? The Perils of the Luxury Real Estate Boom
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Trump as the “Anti-War” President: on Misinformation in American Political Discourse
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Where’s the Beef With Billionaires?
Rob Urie
Capitalism and the Violence of Environmental Decline
Paul Street
Bernie in the Deep Shit: Dismal Dem Debate Reflections
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail