Beware the Korean peace trap
On the surface it looks like the doubters were wrong.
North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, traveled into South Korea on Friday to meet his counterpart. They agreed in principle at least to formally end the war that has divided the peninsula they share. Kim even agreed to a joint statement calling for the denuclearisation of the peninsula. What’s not to like?
Plenty. To understand why, examine the “Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula” issued by Kim and President Moon Jaein Friday after their meeting.
Let’s start with the issue most important to America and North Korea’s neighbors, the nuclear file. The joint communique says, “South and North Korea confirmed the common goal of realizing, through complete denuclearization, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.” It also says the two states “shared the view that the measures being initiated by North Korea are very meaningful and crucial for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and agreed to carry out their respective roles and responsibilities in this regard.” Finally it pledged that both would seek help and cooperation from the international community to achieve the goal of denuclearisation.
That sounds pretty good, but it isn’t. North Koreans have historically used the phrase “denuclearization” to mean the U.S. should no longer extend its nuclear umbrella to protect South Korea. As former senior State Department official Evans Revere explained in a recent policy brief for the Brookings Institution, North Korean interlocutors have explained the concept in talks to U.S. officials and experts as “the elimination of the ‘threat’ posed by the USSouth Korea alliance, by US troops on the Korean Peninsula, and by the US nuclear umbrella that defends South Korea and Japan.”
Revere goes on to say that in return for those steps that would undermine the U.S.South Korean alliance, North Koreans have offered to “‘consider denuclearisation in 1020 years’ time if Pyongyang feels ‘secure’.” Maybe they mean something different this time around. But it’s a red flag that Kim is agreeing to the same phrase that in past discussions has meant something very different than verifiable disarmament.