By Stephen Costello
There is no reason why the two Koreas should have to push ahead with an end to the Korean War and the beginnings of a peace regime on the peninsula all by themselves. North Korea's phased abandonment of nuclear capabilities would have to proceed in parallel with those projects, and such a scenario seems within reach.
Advantages to the region and beyond would be both multidimensional and quickly valuable. Beyond the Koreas, China, Japan and Russia, those advantages would pay handsomely to the U.S., in view of its past investments, current needs, and future interests.
This would all seem to be obvious. But it is not clear to many members of the government, expert and journalist communities in key capitols ― many of them are deeply conflicted about the prospects ahead.
It's important to take such reactions seriously, because they affect not only administration and public debates, but also the ability of leaders to act. As another period of intensive meetings and opportunities approaches this month, three leaders in particular are important to watch.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Gutierrez
The September U.N. General Assembly meetings could be the turning point for momentum on Korea. Since the U.N. must wait for members to request action, the UNSG has an excuse for avoiding his clear responsibilities here.
But the institution was created for just this kind of situation. It has been bullied by the U.S. on many occasions in recent decades. A string of one-sided resolutions pretend that North Korea has no logical reason for a nuclear deterrent, while failing to require the stronger party to enter into credible negotiations.
This shameful record can be eclipsed if the coalition-in-waiting at the world body provides credibility, legitimacy and durability to the deal that the North and South Koreans are creating. If it can, the U.N.'s weaknesses and imperfections should be a cause for, rather than against, bold action now.
The recent death of Kofi Annan should focus minds at the U.N. headquarters. His specific environment differed from that of Gutierrez today, but his political shrewdness and his ability to stand up to bullies and be bold when necessary are reminders of how the U.N. role can be used.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in
It's now past time to retire the stale and demeaning concept of the Korea-U.S. alliance that has been so useful to anti-reconciliation and anti-democracy groups in both countries for decades.
Among those who it demeans are soldiers and patriots from many nations who fought for Korean independence and democracy during the Korean War and since then. Current U.S. Ambassador Harry Harris and USFK Commander Vincent Brooks would likely reject this simplistic but widely-held view of U.S.-South Korea relations.
We don't know why this myth seems to hold such power over the Blue House today. The expectation that Seoul should be subservient to the whims of a broken and vulnerable allied leadership is integral to it. But the idea of a fragile friendship, in which clever manipulators, empty ideologies, or appeasing do-gooders could damage or sink it, is intellectually and historically embarrassing.
In the most important ways, it is rock-solid. For President Moon to confuse Trump's interests or White House policy chaos with American interests at this moment would be unforgivable. U.S. interests rest squarely with phased denuclearization, a formal end to the Korean War, inter-Korean peace-building, sanctions relief, and economic development. Most experienced Americans know this.
U.S. President Donald Trump
Among the many ironies of this presidency is that Trump's impact on Korea could be one of the only bright spots in his foreign policy. The Bush/Obama approach to Korea was failing badly, and Trump upended the playing table.
But it is clear now that his contribution began and ended with that act. The U.S. will be on the sidelines for years. Secretary of State Pompeo's words and actions, those of other government officials, and the appointment last week of a "coordinator" for Korea all confirm this. Someone else must take the lead.
That doesn't mean that there is any need for Seoul-Washington conflict or the exclusion of the U.S. from progressive developments. It only means that the U.S. must be led to an unfolding reality surrounding Korea. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Trump may take a very long time to drink, if he ever does, and this region does not have the time to wait. It has already waited 17 years since the U.S. administration destroyed the previous tenuous North Korea denuclearization-for-development deals. Moon has almost three years left in his single term. U.N. chief Gutierrez could embrace the new relevance of his institution, at a time of drastically reduced capability in the U.S. administration.
Moon could lead, but he and Kim Jong-un should not have to do this alone. While other powers would support them, only the U.N. can provide the things that the U.S. lacks today. If handled carefully, the month of September could be transformative.
Stephen Costello (scost55@gmail.com) is a producer of AsiaEast, a web and broadcast-based policy roundtable focused on security, development and politics in Northeast Asia.
.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
Advantages to the region and beyond would be both multidimensional and quickly valuable. Beyond the Koreas, China, Japan and Russia, those advantages would pay handsomely to the U.S., in view of its past investments, current needs, and future interests.
This would all seem to be obvious. But it is not clear to many members of the government, expert and journalist communities in key capitols ― many of them are deeply conflicted about the prospects ahead.
It's important to take such reactions seriously, because they affect not only administration and public debates, but also the ability of leaders to act. As another period of intensive meetings and opportunities approaches this month, three leaders in particular are important to watch.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Gutierrez
The September U.N. General Assembly meetings could be the turning point for momentum on Korea. Since the U.N. must wait for members to request action, the UNSG has an excuse for avoiding his clear responsibilities here.
But the institution was created for just this kind of situation. It has been bullied by the U.S. on many occasions in recent decades. A string of one-sided resolutions pretend that North Korea has no logical reason for a nuclear deterrent, while failing to require the stronger party to enter into credible negotiations.
This shameful record can be eclipsed if the coalition-in-waiting at the world body provides credibility, legitimacy and durability to the deal that the North and South Koreans are creating. If it can, the U.N.'s weaknesses and imperfections should be a cause for, rather than against, bold action now.
The recent death of Kofi Annan should focus minds at the U.N. headquarters. His specific environment differed from that of Gutierrez today, but his political shrewdness and his ability to stand up to bullies and be bold when necessary are reminders of how the U.N. role can be used.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in
It's now past time to retire the stale and demeaning concept of the Korea-U.S. alliance that has been so useful to anti-reconciliation and anti-democracy groups in both countries for decades.
Among those who it demeans are soldiers and patriots from many nations who fought for Korean independence and democracy during the Korean War and since then. Current U.S. Ambassador Harry Harris and USFK Commander Vincent Brooks would likely reject this simplistic but widely-held view of U.S.-South Korea relations.
We don't know why this myth seems to hold such power over the Blue House today. The expectation that Seoul should be subservient to the whims of a broken and vulnerable allied leadership is integral to it. But the idea of a fragile friendship, in which clever manipulators, empty ideologies, or appeasing do-gooders could damage or sink it, is intellectually and historically embarrassing.
In the most important ways, it is rock-solid. For President Moon to confuse Trump's interests or White House policy chaos with American interests at this moment would be unforgivable. U.S. interests rest squarely with phased denuclearization, a formal end to the Korean War, inter-Korean peace-building, sanctions relief, and economic development. Most experienced Americans know this.
U.S. President Donald Trump
Among the many ironies of this presidency is that Trump's impact on Korea could be one of the only bright spots in his foreign policy. The Bush/Obama approach to Korea was failing badly, and Trump upended the playing table.
But it is clear now that his contribution began and ended with that act. The U.S. will be on the sidelines for years. Secretary of State Pompeo's words and actions, those of other government officials, and the appointment last week of a "coordinator" for Korea all confirm this. Someone else must take the lead.
That doesn't mean that there is any need for Seoul-Washington conflict or the exclusion of the U.S. from progressive developments. It only means that the U.S. must be led to an unfolding reality surrounding Korea. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Trump may take a very long time to drink, if he ever does, and this region does not have the time to wait. It has already waited 17 years since the U.S. administration destroyed the previous tenuous North Korea denuclearization-for-development deals. Moon has almost three years left in his single term. U.N. chief Gutierrez could embrace the new relevance of his institution, at a time of drastically reduced capability in the U.S. administration.
Moon could lead, but he and Kim Jong-un should not have to do this alone. While other powers would support them, only the U.N. can provide the things that the U.S. lacks today. If handled carefully, the month of September could be transformative.
Stephen Costello (scost55@gmail.com) is a producer of AsiaEast, a web and broadcast-based policy roundtable focused on security, development and politics in Northeast Asia.
