Only way out is talks with N. Korea
Tong Kim
Leon Sigal
By Tong Kim
Washington ― The only possible way out of the current deadlock with North Korea is to negotiate and see if the North is prepared to suspend arming in return for satisfying some of its security concerns, a well-known American expert said.
Leon Sigal, director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council in New York said pressure will not work and it will not knuckle under and accept allied preconditions to take unilateral steps to denuclearize.
He said that if President Park Geun-hye opposes efforts to open the way to a peace process in parallel with negotiations on further denuclearization and political and economic normalization, South Korea’s security will be in much greater jeopardy.
A full text of the interview follows:
Question: Given the continuing confrontation between the North Korea and the U.S. and its allies, what exit strategy would you advice for those policymakers concerned to consider, if they want to avert an apparent security crisis in Korea?
Answer: Pressure on Pyongyang has never worked in the past and there is no reason to think it will work now. It will only lead Pyongyang to conduct more nuclear tests and missile test-launches and to continue generating fissile material. Stopping those efforts is urgent, before North Korea develops a nuclear device that it can deliver by missile and makes many more of them. The only possible way out is to negotiate - the sooner the better - and see if the North is prepared to suspend arming in return for satisfying some of its security concerns. Such steps could then open the way to a peace process in parallel with negotiations on further denuclearization and political and economic normalization, as envisioned in the September 2005 six-party joint statement. If President Park opposes such efforts, South Korea’s security will be in much greater jeopardy.
Q: Would the sanctions succeed to bring the North Koreans to negotiation?
A: North Korea is ready to negotiate now and possibly accept reciprocal steps to address both sides’ security concerns. What they will not do is knuckle under and accept allied preconditions to take unilateral steps to denuclearize. So sanctions will only delay the start of talks.
Q: Do you believe that Washington is genuinely interested in seeking a negotiated settlement of the North Korean nuclear issue? (The Obama administration is under no pressure from domestic politics or from its allies to engage the North Koreans.) China is the only country that advocates for a stable Korean peninsula and has proposed a two-track discussion of denuclearization and a peace agreement in a flexible format of talks even outside the six-party talks. Can this be a starting point? Why is Washington not responding to this idea?
A: After meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Secretary of State John Kerry clearly stated that the Obama administration did not expect sanctions to succeed without negotiation. If Washington does not follow through on that commitment, it might put in doubt China’s implementation of U.N. sanctions. The Chinese proposal is a useful way forward, but only after North Korea suspends arming and the allies take some reciprocal steps to address its security concerns, like the size and scope of joint US-ROK exercises.
Q: What’s your view on the collapse theory that North Korea will collapse eventually? Could you discuss the impact of sanctions on the collapsibility? Would a North Korean collapse lead to “peaceful unification through absorption” by the South?
A: Collapse is utterly unrealistic. There no sign that the Kim regime is in peril. The economy has been growing for over a decade and internal security remains tight. Sanctions, along with slower growth in China, may retard growth in the North somewhat, but not enough to cause collapse. As former defense secretary William Perry put it, “We must deal with North Korea as it is, not as we wish it to be.”
Q: If the U.S. supports Korean unification, as it says it does, why does it not take any measures or any action in support of such goal? In your view, would China and/or the U.S. accept a neutralized unification formula of the Korean peninsula, with no foreign troops there?
A: Korean unification, as President Park now defines it, is synonymous with the collapse of a nuclear-armed North Korean regime, which poses very grave risks for allied security. Washington has long favored peaceful unification, which would have to require a gradual process of engagement and reconciliation. The United States would unquestionably accept a neutral Korea without foreign troops if that is what the people of South Korea want.
Q: Time is ticking off on the remainder of Obama’s term in office; many observers doubt that he would take a radical departure on North Korea and resolve the nuclear issue. What would it take to make him think out of the box and set forth a fundamental direction toward the resolution of the North Korean issues, as he did with the Iranian nuclear program and with opening to Cuba and Myanmar?
A: Obama is the only president the US has for the next ten months - plenty of time for negotiation to make headway. That would leave his successor in a less difficult position, given all the other security and economic problems he or she would face. As he has shown in negotiating with Iran, Cuba, and Myanmar, he has the wisdom and courage to stand up to the conventional wisdom around Washington and do what is best for U.S. and allied security.