Why dialogue is only viable option for Trump

By Kim Jae-kyoung

“All options are on the table,” U.S. President Donald Trump said, following North Korea’s provocative launch of a long-range ballistic missile Tuesday.

On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "The U.S. has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years. Talking is not the answer.”

Then, what other options are left for Trump?

There are growing calls in America that Trump should consider using the military option but experts say such unilateral action would not be viable because it could hurt the U.S.’s relations with its East Asian allies and damage its status in the region.

They say the U.S. will have to seek ways to push for negotiations with the North while strengthening sanctions.

Balbina Hwang, a visiting professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies, indicated the military option would be the last resort for Trump because it would incur significant diplomatic losses to the U.S.

“The entire security situation on the peninsula and throughout East Asia would have to be dramatically altered for the U.S. to even possibly consider launching a completely unilateral military attack on the North, without even a minimum notification to South Korea, or certainly without some sort of cooperation or agreement with the South,” she told The Korea Times.

“Doing so will completely destroy the U.S.-South Korea alliance, and even perhaps the U.S.-Japan alliance, and even others in the region, such as U.S.-Australia, etc.”

Against this backdrop, she said such a scenario seems impossible to even conceive of as a reality, expecting that Trump won’t opt for military action without coordination with Seoul.

“So, while the strict military right to strike exists, the political reality of U.S.-South Korea relations makes such a theoretical possibility almost impossible, just as President Moon concluded,” she said.

Moon, during his speech to mark Liberation Day on Aug. 15, said without consent (of South Korea), no country can determine whether to take military action.

His speech was followed by controversial remarks by Burwell Bell, the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) commander from 2006 to 2008, who said the U.S. would not need Seoul’s approval to strike the North with its own offshore military assets.

Military action unlikely

Analysts said even if the U.S. has the right to use its military to defend its territory and people, Washington would seek cooperation with Seoul for any attack on the North.

“The U.S. would coordinate with South Korea on any proposed action with or against North Korea,” said Joseph DeTrani, a former U.S. special envoy to the six-party talks.

“Conversely, the South should also coordinate with the U.S. on any overtures or actions toward the North. We're allies and there should not be any space between us on all issues related to North Korea.”

In DeTrani’s view, Moon's approach to North Korea is in sync with the U.S. approach.

“Both want a peaceful resolution, with the objective of complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” he said.

“In the absence of negotiations and with North Korea defying U.N. resolutions and launching missiles and conducting nuclear tests, sanctions and missile defense are necessary.”

Stephan Haggard, director of the Korea-Pacific Program at the UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy, echoed that view. “This is a legal versus political response,” he said.

“If the U.S. or its military assets are under attack, the U.S. has a right to respond. But as a practical matter, the U.S. would coordinate with South Korea and this would certainly be the case for any pre-emptive or preventive action.”