By Tong Kim
Everybody knows that Kim Jong-un will not negotiate away his nuclear-tipped missiles and is determined to complete the development of an operational nuclear force that can strike the United States. Donald Trump does not believe dialogue is the answer, especially not at this time. He is more inclined to a military solution. Nobody knows what will be a good solution or an exit strategy.
On or around Oct. 10, the anniversary of the Korean Workers Party's foundation, Pyongyang may hold another new ballistic missile test or launch a second ballistic missile from a submarine. Another nuclear test is unlikely this time. The North does not need more tests of any kind.
The possibility of war is real ― Kim Jong-un and Trump are on a hair trigger. Both are practicing the "madman theory" to scare their opponents, with neither man backing down. Neither is crazy or "moron." It is relatively easier to read Kim's mind than Trump's. Kim is neither irrational nor suicidal. He wants to protect his regime and his country.
Nobody in Washington seems to know what Trump has in mind when it comes to the North Korean crisis. Maybe he does not know himself what he wants to do. There is no problem with his "America first" foreign policy if it helps American interests ― not just security and economic interests but also the broader interest of American leadership and American values.
On North Korea, Trump has issued many confusing and contradictory statements at given times, flip-flopping his position, without spelling out his plan. He argues in favor of unpredictability on his part. Unpredictability and lack of transparency may cause a dangerous miscalculation by friends and foes alike. Both Kim and Trump employ the tactic of bluster, but Kim is more predictable.
Just last week, Trump undercut his secretary of state Rex Tillerson, saying on twitter that Tillerson was "wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man." "Save your energy, Rex. We will do what has to be done."
Tillerson's humiliation came within a day after he said in Beijing that the U.S. had direct channels of communication with Pyongyang, expressing his hope for a new dialogue with the North. Again, it is not clear what Trump meant by "what has to be done." Its nuance inferred a military strike.
There is a clear divergence between the U.S. President and his security advisers in policy substance and in management style. This gap does not help to find a solution to the North Korean issue. Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on Oct. 5 that the secretaries of state and defense and the White House chief of staff "are those people who help separate the country from chaos."
There have been many suggestions apart from military options and sanctions. But many of them are non-starters for one reason or another. They include: "a freeze for a freeze" between the North's nuclear and missile tests and joint U.S.-ROK military drills; accepting a nuclear North Korea in the Cold War mode; reinventing the Non-proliferation Treaty to include Pyongyang to cap its program; sending a U.S. envoy to Pyongyang for talks; negotiating a peace agreement as part of denuclearization; redeploying tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea or letting the South and Japan develop their own nuclear arms; and more. In the end, it boils down to three choices: negotiation, war, or leave it alone and live with it.
If Kim Jong-un orders his generals to wage a nuclear attack, they will carry it out even if they know it will kill millions of people and devastate their own country as well. Recent studies show a nuclear attack on Seoul and Tokyo alone would kill at least one million people in each city.
If the impulsive Trump orders a nuclear attack on North Korea, would it be carried out without opposition? Questions are being raised regarding whether the defense secretary or the President's chief of staff should try to advise against such an order. If Senator Croker is correct, it will be Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff Kelly who will save the country from a nuclear war.
There is a precedent in history. In 1969, when North Korea shot down a Navy reconnaissance plane EC-121 killing all 31 crew members, Nixon wanted to retaliate militarily. But his defense secretary Melvin Laird, according to a Washington Post opinion piece on Oct. 3, aborted Nixon's order after deliberately delaying its execution.
A nuclear war should be avoided by all means. What's your take?
Tong Kim is a Washington correspondent and columnist for The Korea Times. He is also a fellow at the Institute of Korean-American Studies. He can be contacted at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.
.jpg/dims/resize/150/optimize) |
On or around Oct. 10, the anniversary of the Korean Workers Party's foundation, Pyongyang may hold another new ballistic missile test or launch a second ballistic missile from a submarine. Another nuclear test is unlikely this time. The North does not need more tests of any kind.
The possibility of war is real ― Kim Jong-un and Trump are on a hair trigger. Both are practicing the "madman theory" to scare their opponents, with neither man backing down. Neither is crazy or "moron." It is relatively easier to read Kim's mind than Trump's. Kim is neither irrational nor suicidal. He wants to protect his regime and his country.
Nobody in Washington seems to know what Trump has in mind when it comes to the North Korean crisis. Maybe he does not know himself what he wants to do. There is no problem with his "America first" foreign policy if it helps American interests ― not just security and economic interests but also the broader interest of American leadership and American values.
On North Korea, Trump has issued many confusing and contradictory statements at given times, flip-flopping his position, without spelling out his plan. He argues in favor of unpredictability on his part. Unpredictability and lack of transparency may cause a dangerous miscalculation by friends and foes alike. Both Kim and Trump employ the tactic of bluster, but Kim is more predictable.
Just last week, Trump undercut his secretary of state Rex Tillerson, saying on twitter that Tillerson was "wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man." "Save your energy, Rex. We will do what has to be done."
Tillerson's humiliation came within a day after he said in Beijing that the U.S. had direct channels of communication with Pyongyang, expressing his hope for a new dialogue with the North. Again, it is not clear what Trump meant by "what has to be done." Its nuance inferred a military strike.
There is a clear divergence between the U.S. President and his security advisers in policy substance and in management style. This gap does not help to find a solution to the North Korean issue. Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on Oct. 5 that the secretaries of state and defense and the White House chief of staff "are those people who help separate the country from chaos."
There have been many suggestions apart from military options and sanctions. But many of them are non-starters for one reason or another. They include: "a freeze for a freeze" between the North's nuclear and missile tests and joint U.S.-ROK military drills; accepting a nuclear North Korea in the Cold War mode; reinventing the Non-proliferation Treaty to include Pyongyang to cap its program; sending a U.S. envoy to Pyongyang for talks; negotiating a peace agreement as part of denuclearization; redeploying tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea or letting the South and Japan develop their own nuclear arms; and more. In the end, it boils down to three choices: negotiation, war, or leave it alone and live with it.
If Kim Jong-un orders his generals to wage a nuclear attack, they will carry it out even if they know it will kill millions of people and devastate their own country as well. Recent studies show a nuclear attack on Seoul and Tokyo alone would kill at least one million people in each city.
If the impulsive Trump orders a nuclear attack on North Korea, would it be carried out without opposition? Questions are being raised regarding whether the defense secretary or the President's chief of staff should try to advise against such an order. If Senator Croker is correct, it will be Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff Kelly who will save the country from a nuclear war.
There is a precedent in history. In 1969, when North Korea shot down a Navy reconnaissance plane EC-121 killing all 31 crew members, Nixon wanted to retaliate militarily. But his defense secretary Melvin Laird, according to a Washington Post opinion piece on Oct. 3, aborted Nixon's order after deliberately delaying its execution.
A nuclear war should be avoided by all means. What's your take?
Tong Kim is a Washington correspondent and columnist for The Korea Times. He is also a fellow at the Institute of Korean-American Studies. He can be contacted at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.
.jpg/dims/resize/262/optimize)
.jpg/dims/resize/262/optimize)
.JPG/dims/resize/268/optimize)
