Korea summit and US options

By Sandip Kumar Mishra

The momentum to reach out to North Korea and persuade it to engage in complete denuclearization began with the invitation of South Korea to North Korea to participate in the in the Winter Olympics held in PyeongChang, South Korea. It has got a further boost up with the inter-Korean summit held April 27 at the truce village of Panmunjeom.

In the last two months the developments on the Korean Peninsula have been quite encouraging and many incredible things have happened in the last two months, compared to the last few years. The North Korean reclusive regime under Kim Jong-un appears very different and the credit must go to South Korean President Moon Jae-in and his North Korea policy.

In the last two months, North Korea's all important civil and military leaders, including the top leader Kim Jong-un himself, have visited South Korea. Through the summit between North and South Korean leaders, peninsular political dynamics look quite benign and positive.

In these two months, North Korea announced a self-moratorium on nuclear and missile tests and a plan to shut down its nuclear test site at Punggye-ri. It also expressed a willingness to give up is nuclear and missile programs, and established a hot-line with South Korea.

Through the Panmunjeom Declaration, the two Koreas have also agreed to try and replace the armistice agreement with a peace treaty by the end of this year; and have another summit with President Moon visiting Pyongyang this autumn. They also agreed to have military talks to ease tension on the peninsula and establish a liaison office at Gaeseong.

Both sides committed themselves to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula if a credible security assurance is provided to the North. They also agreed to work with each other to reduce the military build-ups along the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone.

These achievements are indeed impressive but critics are still dissatisfied with the progress on the denuclearization of North Korea. They also doubt the strategy and intent of North Korea and believe that an overnight heart change in the North must not be taken at face value. Because of the same reasons, all the achievements so far are played down and mistrust about North Korea still persists.

However, to comprehend the tectonic changes on the Korean Peninsula and evaluate the outcomes of the Kim-Moon summit, it is important to at least delineate the progress so far on the issue of inter-Korean rapprochement and North Korea's denuclearization.

Even though these two issues are related and contingent, they are different. Through the Kim-Moon summit there has been substantial progress on the first leg as well as strong beginning for the second.

The rapprochement between the two Koreas is most likely to continue but the process of denuclearization is dependent more on the U.S. and North Korea. South Korea has been able to bring these two actors to the negotiating table ― the process must be taken forward primarily by the U.S. and North Korea.

For the same reason, all eyes are now on the U.S.-North Korea summit which might happen in late May or early June. Directly and through South Korea, Pyongyang has sent many indications that this time it's serious. Recently, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who is now the U.S. secretary of state, visited North Korea and this appears to have been a positive move.

Actually, North Korea has said that if a security guarantee of its system is provided, it has no intention of keeping the nuclear option. The North appears ready to address Washington's apprehensions as well as preconditions except committing to a roadmap and schedule for denuclearization in the early phase of talks. The U.S. may decide to be satisfied or otherwise from the recent North Korean gestures and concrete responses.

The U.S. still appears unsure about the future course and wants to keep its options open. On the one hand, Donald Trump has appreciated a transformed North Korea and the outcome of the inter-Korean summit, but his choice for new secretary of state and national security adviser indicates contrary.

Actually, even in his appreciation, shreds of doubt are quite obvious and that's why he seems to be holding an ambidextrous policy in which “maximum pressure” still has its place. He would began with mistrusting North Korean olive branches and would like to have a more specific pledge and actions from North Korea about the framework and schedule of denuclearization.

The current approach of the U.S. is quite understandable but at the same it must not be overlooked that the changed North Korea stance is a rare opportunity. Any egotistic or inflexible approach on the part of the U.S. might spoil the momentum and achievements of South Korea's efforts.

Careless statements such as John Bolton's recent statement that North Korea must follow Libya's denuclearization model, might not assist the process. U.S. policy and actions must be more careful and nuanced. This does not mean to suggest that they should compromise its demand for a “complete denuclearization” of North Korea.

Rather it means that it should allow flexibility and accommodation in respect to means, timelines and sequencing for this goal. The world is looking keenly for such statesmanship from Donald Trump and only time will tell whether these exceptions from the U.S. leadership are appropriate.

Overall, South Korea has played its role brilliantly. North Korea also appears to be different and now the ball is in the U.S. court.

Sandip Kumar Mishra (sandipmishra10@gmail.com) is associate professor at the Centre for East Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.