ELECTION 2020: What Trump & Biden Get Wrong About North Korea
October 28, 2020
Christine Ahn says the two leading presidential contenders present a false
dichotomy about U.S. diplomatic options with North Korea.
By Christine Ahn
Common Dreams
At last week's presidential debate, the American people were presented with
two widely divergent points of view on how to address North Korea's growing
nuclear arsenal: Either engage with its leader (and thereby "legitimize" a
"thug") or apply more sanctions and pressure in order to "control" North
Korea.
But this is a false dichotomy. Meeting or not meeting with the North Korean
leader hasn't been the failure of U.S. policy. And more pressure and
sanctions will not convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons
arsenal.
To make any substantial progress, the next administration must take a wholly
new approach to achieve a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
Most urgently, the next administration should officially end the Korean War
with a peace agreement. Contrary to the belief held by most Americans, the
70-year-old war never officially ended and was only halted by a fragile
ceasefire signed in 1953. That means that the risk of an escalation
(intentional or accidental) that triggers a full-scale - potentially nuclear
- war remains, endangering us all.
Both the Trump and Obama administrations depended on a mixture of sanctions,
political isolation, and the threat of military force to try to compel North
Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
But both "maximum pressure" (Trump) and "strategic patience" (Obama) failed
to make progress toward that goal. A positive step was the 2018 Singapore
Agreement in which the United States and North Korea agreed to establish new
relations toward a peace regime and a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. While
North Korea has improved its military capability, it has not tested any
long-range missiles or new nuclear weapons since then.
Stalled Talks
But since last year's Hanoi Summit, talks between North Korea and the United
States have stalled. That's because engagement with North Korea was not
accompanied by a fundamental change in U.S. policy. The United States keeps
expecting that pressure will convince North Korea to unilaterally disarm
without providing any sanctions relief or security guarantees.
Trump leaving second summit with Kim Jong Un, Feb. 28, 2019, at Noi Bai
International Airport in Hanoi. (White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
President Donald Trump leaving second summit with Kim Jong Un, Feb. 28,
2019, at Noi Bai International Airport in Hanoi. (White House, Shealah
Craighead)
The status quo means more nuclear weapons, more human rights violations,
more separated families, more suffering from sanctions, and the ongoing risk
of nuclear war.
What actually put the prospect of denuclearization on the table was the
possibility of peace that began with the 2018 Olympics diplomacy between
North Korea and South Korea. It manifested in the Panmunjom Declaration, in
which President Moon Jae-in and Chairman Kim Jong Un declared "that there
will be no more war and a new era of peace has begun on the Korean
peninsula." The Declaration calls for inter-Korean economic and civic
projects and replacing the Armistice Agreement with a peace agreement. But
the United States has impeded these reconciliation efforts.
Instead of further militarizing the region and applying more sanctions and
pressure, which are harming innocent North Korean civilians, the next
administration should engage in the hard work of sustained diplomacy based
on specific, concrete next steps. Diplomacy isn't a "gift" to North Korea;
it's what needs to happen to get to peace. Talking with North Korea should
not be viewed differently from what Washington does with any authoritarian
power. Ignoring North Korea only kicks the can down the road in addressing
Pyongyang's growing nuclear capabilities and arms proliferation.
Furthermore, a majority of Americans support the United States negotiating
with adversaries like North Korea to avoid a military confrontation.
Specifically, the next administration should replace the "all or nothing"
stance with step-by-step, reciprocal, verifiable actions to advance
denuclearization and peace. That could mean building confidence through
opening liaison offices, easing sanctions, facilitating reunions between
Korean-American families and their loved ones in North Korea, and
formalizing a moratorium on North Korean long-range missile and nuclear
testing and U.S.-South Korea military exercises.
But most crucially, we must end the Korean War. This continued state of war
is not a mere technicality; it's the root cause of militarism and tensions
that must be resolved if there is to be real progress with North Korea.
The good news is that there are growing voices in Congress that recognize
the importance of peace with North Korea as a crucial step towards
denuclearization. There are now 50 members of Congress who have co-sponsored
House Resolution 152, which calls for an end to the Korean War and a peace
agreement. Notably, all of the Democratic contenders for the next chair of
the House Foreign Affairs Committee - Reps. Brad Sherman, Joaquin Castro,
and Gregory Meeks - are co-sponsors of this important resolution.
The status quo means more nuclear weapons, more human rights violations,
more separated families, more suffering from sanctions, and the ongoing risk
of nuclear war. It's in everyone's interest to change course with a
realistic, concrete plan toward peace and denuclearization, but this is
ultimately in the hands of the next U.S. president. Americans must urge him
to choose wisely.
Christine Ahn is a founding board member of the Korea Policy Institute and
the National Campaign to End the Korean War. Ahn is also the Executive
Director of Women Cross DMZ, a movement of women globally walking to end the
Korean War, reunite families, and ensure women's leadership in the
peacebuilding process.
This article is from Common Dreams
