Allies must seek deal with N. Korea
Yonsei University professor Moon Chung-in, who is also President Moon Jae-in’s special adviser for unification and national security affairs, speaks during a recent interview with The Korea Times in his office at the East Asia Foundation in Seoul. / Korea Times photo by Choi Won-suk
China unlikely to undertake bigger role in nuke issue
By Kim Rahn
It appears that time is not on the side of South Korea and the United States when it comes to resolving the North Korea nuclear crisis.
Despite increased sanctions, the North is quickening its development of missile technology so that it can hit “anywhere in the world.” China and the U.S. are showing a rift at the U.N. Security Council over how to deal with this problem.
There should be a big deal with North Korea, obviously, at least to stop it from continuing the development, if not to make it give it up completely.
According to professor Moon Chung-in, the special security adviser to President Moon Jae-in, a deal is to give something in exchange for something else.
“North Korea will not freeze its nuclear program unless South Korea and the U.S. suspend or scale down their joint military exercises,” Moon Chung-in said in an interview.
He called for simultaneous parallel moves by both parties ― North Korea freezes nuclear weapons development and the two allies scale down their regular exercises and the frequency of the dispatch of strategic assets to the Korean Peninsula ― adding this may be the only way to break through the current standstill.
Moon, a Yonsei University distinguished professor emeritus, suggested the option in a seminar in Washington, D.C., in mid-June before President Moon’s summit with U.S. President Donald Trump.
As this suggestion caused an enormous stir in Seoul and Washington, the President said it was an idea put forward by Moon Chung-in as a scholar, not as a presidential adviser. He also said it is Seoul and Washington’s stance that a nuclear freeze cannot be linked to the scaling down of the joint military exercises, saying exchanging legal activity ― the exercises ― for illegal activity ― the nuclear program ― was improper.
But Moon Chung-in, stressing it was his personal view as an academic, has kept the opinion.
“In reality, Pyongyang keeps conducting nuclear and missile tests not to show any sign of weakness in the face of the show-of-force by the U.S. deployment of strategic assets in the joint military drills,” he said in a recent interview with The Korea Times. “The chance for the North to freeze its nuclear and missile activities will grow if the joint exercises are scaled down or suspended.”
If an “exchange” of a nuclear freeze and the scaling down of joint military drills is as impossible as the President says, each party is required to do its part voluntarily, the professor said. “North Korea freezes its nuclear program voluntarily and the two allies postpone deployment of U.S. strategic assets to the peninsula voluntarily ― if such simultaneous parallel measures are taken, the current nuclear confrontation will find an exit.”
US-China Power game
The international community has asked China to play a more active role in resolving the nuclear issue as the country is practically North Korea’s only ally. But Chinese President Xi Jinping told President Moon, during their summit last week on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Germany, that the community downplays Beijing’s efforts to resolve the issue.
About China’s stance, Moon Chung-in said Beijing may feel that the pressure from the international community, especially the U.S. is unfair.
“China made two proposals: suspension for suspension, meaning the North freezes its nuclear program and South Korea and the U.S. suspend joint military exercises; and a simultaneous approach for peace treaty talks and denuclearization negotiations,” he said. But the U.S. has refused China’s suggestion to halt the drills, according to the professor. “So for Beijing, it is unfair that the U.S. does not do its own part, such as the suspension of the exercises, but only demands that China put pressure on Pyongyang.”
While some U.N. members are talking about an oil embargo in a new round of sanctions on North Korea following its test-firing of an alleged intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), professor Moon said the oil supply cut, if made, would heighten tension on the peninsula and significantly lower the chance for dialogue.
“Pyongyang will show an extremely sensitive reaction because it sees an oil embargo as one of the last choices (the international community would impose),” he said. “We do not know what kind of actions North Korea will take.”
But China, from which the North imports over 90 percent of its oil, is likely to oppose the fuel embargo because it can cause profound hardship on North Korean people’s lives and further could destabilize the Kim Jong-un regime, the professor said.
“As far as I know, Beijing issued an ultimatum to Pyongyang that it would stop exporting oil if the North conducts another nuclear test. But in response to missile tests, the chances of China cutting the oil supply seem small.”
He stressed the need for trilateral talks among South Korea, the U.S. and China in resolving the conflict over the deployment of a U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery here.
The deployment was approved by the former Park Geun-hye administration, and the Moon government has halted the installation process for a full-scale environment assessment which was skipped under Park.
China is opposed to the deployment, claiming the X-band radar of the battery will be used to spy on its military activities rather than deter North Korea’s missile threats. It has taken economic retaliatory measures against South Korean businesses, and President Moon and Xi only confirmed their different views on the issue during their recent summit.
“While conducting the environment survey, Seoul has to make diplomatic efforts to resolve Beijing’s strategic distrust of the THAAD deployment,” the professor said. “If South Korea, China and the U.S. make a technical review of the system and prove the radar does not pose a threat to China, Beijing could change its current rigid stance.”