ROK Drop

Avatar of GI KoreaBy on December 19th, 2012 at 9:23 am

Can A Deal Be Reached To End North Korea’s Nuclear & ICBM Programs?

» by in: North Korea

Richard Weitz has an article published in The Diplomat that provides a good rundown of the issues surrounding the recent North Korean rocket test. Here is how he wraps up his article:

The Obama administration remains committed to the “action for action” approach that combines the use of positive and negative incentives with a willingness to engage the DPRK within the multilateral context of the Six-Party Talks. Under its policy of “strategic patience,” the Obama administration has demanded that the DPRK give some concrete indication, before resuming the Six-Party Talks, that the DPRK would make progress toward ending its nuclear weapons program. The Obama administration’s “strategic patience” policy does complement South Korea’s by joining with Seoul in refusing to resume direct negotiations with the DPRK until it clearly changes its policies.

But this policy of patiently waiting for verifiable changes in DPRK policies possesses several risks. First, it provides North Koreans with additional time to refine their nuclear and missile programs. Second, the current stalemate is inherently unstable. The DPRK could at any time resume testing its nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles, likely to confirm and support its quest for a reliable nuclear deterrent but also possibly out of simple frustration about being ignored. The strategy also risks allowing a minor incident to escalate through the ROK’s “proactive deterrence” policy, which calls for responding immediately and disproportionately to any DPRK military provocations to deter further aggression.

The worst scenario would see the DPRK leadership, thinking that their nuclear and missile arsenals would protect them by deterring potential counterattacks, launching another provocation only to trigger the massive and prompt response posited in the new ROK strategy. The DPRK might respond by detonating a nuclear device in order to shock the ROK and its foreign allies into de-escalating the crisis. Or it might simply bombard Seoul and its environs with the enormous number of artillery systems that the DPRK has amassed in the border region. [The Diplomat]

The problem with most analysis of North Korea is that people assume there is a deal that the North Koreans would agree to in order to end their nuclear or ICBM programs. I have been saying for years that the North Koreans will never denuclearize or give up their ICBM programs. These programs make them relevant around the world and gives them internal regime security especially after what the Kim regime seen happened in Libya after Gadhaffi gave up his nuclear program.  These programs are not something that a country like North Korea, who would be nothing but a third world backwater internationally otherwise, is going to give up.  

Fortunately there are better options out there that are available in regards to dealing with North Korea.

Tags: , ,
  • mike munk
    3:34 pm on December 19th, 2012 1

    Bruce Cumings has a better idea: direct negotiation

  • Flyingsword
    3:44 pm on December 19th, 2012 2

    I am sure an agreement can be reached.

    An “agreement” has been reached at least three times before for the nK to give up their nukes and missiles.

    So sure, an agreement can be reached…

  • Kagura
    9:06 pm on December 20th, 2012 3


    Yeah, Bruce Cummings has a lot of “ideas”. I read one of his books without knowing who he was, and it was full of biased statements based on little or purposefully misinterpreted/misrepresented evidence.

  • Kingkitty
    12:59 pm on December 21st, 2012 4

    Yes a deal can be made but it requires the North Korean Government to depart Korea

  • Glans
    1:49 pm on December 21st, 2012 5

    Kingkitty, that’s step two of the Glans Plan for Korea.

  • kushibo
    4:15 pm on December 21st, 2012 6

    Glans, you’re outing yourself as being as embedded in fantasy as Bruce Cumings is.

  • Glans
    4:35 pm on December 21st, 2012 7

    No, kushibo, I’m trying to help Kingkitty see his proposal in a broader context.

  • kushibo
    5:23 pm on December 21st, 2012 8

    Glans, if an academic charlatan like Bruce Cumings is in your corner, you need to rethink your position.

  • Glans
    5:54 pm on December 21st, 2012 9

    kushibo, you’re confused. Kingkitty said, “Yes a deal can be made but it requires the North Korean Government to depart Korea.” I told Kingkitty, “that’s step two of the Glans Plan for Korea.”

    When did Bruce Cumings support the Glans Plan, including step two: ROK annexes DPRK?

  • kushibo
    5:57 pm on December 21st, 2012 10

    Bruce Cumings thinks that the leadership of Beijing and Pyongyang are far more reasonable and less scheming and duplicitous than they actually are. Not unlike you, apparently. No offense.

  • Glans
    6:11 pm on December 21st, 2012 11

    Grrr. Obviously they’re scheming and duplicitous. That’s why they haven’t implemented the Glans Plan! There are three kinds of people:

    i. Honest, decent people who support the Glans Plan.
    ii. Scheming, duplicitous people who oppose it.
    iii. kushibo.

  • kushibo
    6:19 pm on December 21st, 2012 12

    Kushibo: A little from column A, a little from column B.


RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Bad Behavior has blocked 31789 access attempts in the last 7 days.