Peace treaty with North Korea

By Michael Breen

President Moon Jae-in's historic call last week for a peace treaty to replace the 1953 ceasefire and finally end the Korean War seems to be the most sensible way out of the escalating confrontation with North Korea over its nuclear weapons.

But such a course of action is fraught with complications. That is because the rivalry between the two Koreas is by its very nature a war without end. A peace treaty will be a ceasefire by another name.

That does not mean it should not be pursued. But if South Korea and its allies fail to take this underlying reality into account, they may, in pursuing peace, unwittingly increase the chances of a renewed outbreak of war.

That underlying reality appears foggy to we in the free, democratic world of changing governments who have a bad habit of disliking our internal opponents more than the distant foe and, thus prompted, think bad situations are all caused by our own last guy's policies.

Here's an example of fog. North Korea's main demand in peace talks will be that American troops leave the Korean Peninsula. On the South Korean and U.S. side, the main demand will be denuclearization. From our perspective, this would appear to be a very unreasonable exchange ― in our favor. Why would North Korea surrender the ultimate deterrent ― nuclear-armed countries don't get attacked ― for something that is not critical for the U.S.-South Korean alliance (because the U.S. could still send in troops from overseas to help the South)? Let's do it.

If President Moon were to get acceptance from Kim Jong-un in North Korea for this exchange and persuade President Donald Trump to negotiate it (the Korean War combatants are not North Korea versus South Korea, but North Korea versus the U.S.-led United Nations), his aides would start drafting his Nobel Peace Prize lecture.

In Pyongyang, meanwhile, Kim and his generals would have hi-fiving giggling fits.

That is because, from their perspective, the victory would be theirs. They know full well that even the hint of use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of their country. The threat value is more like the proverbial revolver pointed at their own head than at the enemy. One more step and I'll shoot myself and it will be your fault. The big boulder in the road for them is America's big brotherly support for the South ― almost immovable given that U.S. and South Korean forces are integrated in a joint command structure. These pesky Americans have blocked them from taking over South Korea for two generations. Nuclear weapons can be the bargaining chip to get them out the way. Genius.

This is a hard point to get across because many people on our side believe that North Korea has surrendered its desire to take over South Korea, that the dictatorship in Pyongyang is just pretending in order to appear like a tough guy in front of his people, and that the nukes are a survival strategy.

This opinion is not unreasonable. I wake up some mornings myself believing it. But it's rather like a belief that there is no God ― logical, attractive, and yet, you can't really be sure. The universe and me did not just happen, did we?

But, as I say, we freedom warriors are cursed by our own impatience. We've been staring at the fact that North Korea talks aggressively, says it wants to "unify" the South, is led by a nasty dictatorship and has nuclear weapons for so long that we just naturally start to see something else.

That said, pursuing a peace treaty is a good thing. I believe ― at least, I did when I woke up this morning ― that aggressive engagement with realistic expectations should be our strategy. Tie the bastards down in all kinds of things ― peace talks, visits by American congressmen, meetings about joint Olympic teams, discussions about a joint N.K.-S.K. dictionary, archeological digs, conferences on Dangun ― just to re-direct their energies from the DMZ into misbehaving in hotel conference rooms.

This may seem cynical, but there is idealism in this approach if you see that present reality of nothing's-changed in the context of the endgame.

The Korean standoff can end and true peace come in one of two ways. Either one system wins and the other disappears, or the two sides agree not to unify but to pursue separate destinies as countries that share a history but which are now distinct.

In my opinion, either case is fine provided that the end result is a Korean peninsula that is free and democratic in a Northeast Asia that is likewise. This means that North Korea must either collapse or move in stages from ghastly nationalism to Park Chung-hee-style (Chinese-style) dictatorship and then to democracy.

Right now, we're in the ghastly stage and a peace treaty will not make the North's dictatorship collapse or see it transition into something better. It will be a new ceasefire and we should be very careful to see it as no more than that.

Michael Breen is the CEO of Insight Communications Consultants, a public relations company, and author of "The Koreans" and "Kim Jong-il: North Korea's Dear Leader."