North Korea willing to suspend nuclear tests and begin talks with U.S.

The New York Times, Reuter's News Service, and other media outlets report that the North Korea is willing to hold talks with the United States on denuclearization and that it will suspend its nuclear tests while those talks are under way.   This is the message the South Koreans brought back from direct meetings in the North with its leader Kim Jong Un.

Further, the two Koreas are building on their rapprochement during the recent Olympic Games and have scheduled a summit meeting between the two in a border village next month.

According to the head of the South Korean delegation:   "North Korea made clear its willingness to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and the fact that there is no reason for it to have a nuclear program if military threats against the North are resolved and its regime is secure."   He added:  "There are no other specific demands from North Korea in returning to dialogue.   They only said they wanted to be treated like a serious dialogue partner."

In the past, Kim has reacted as though the routinely scheduled U.S.-South Korean military exercises were preparation for an invasion of his country.   But this time his tone was different.   Having been told that it is not feasible at this late date to cancel the drills planned for April, Kim indicated that he understood and implied that, if the exercises are of a similar scale seen in previous years, he would accept it for this year.

If Kim follows through with these concessions, this is a major break through.   The Pentagon says that they are "cautiously optimistic."   President Trump tweeted, "We'll see what happens."  In a statement released later, he called it "possible progress" and elaborated:   "For the first time in many years, a serious effort is being made by all parties concerned.   The World is watching and waiting!   May be false hope, but the U.S. is ready to go hard in either direction."

Kim Jong Un has been telling us for years that his nuclear program is defensive, and that he has developed it because he feels threatened with invasion from the South, backed by the United States.   Both sides have contributed to escalation of tensions from time to time, and this was particularly problematic during Trump's first year in office.

To refresh our memories:   U.S. troops fought alongside South Koreans troops against the North from 1950 to 1953 -- a civil war on the Korean peninsula that ended in a truce, not a peace treaty.   And we still have 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, with a demilitarized zone dividing the two nations.

I think "cautious optimism" is the correct stance to take.   We should move forward toward talks with all reasonable counter-concessions;  but the "cautious" part comes from history of promises from the North not kept.

However, we also must look to our own provocative behavior toward the North and be sensitive to their existential fears.   We must not overlook other threats from North Korea to world peace, such as the assertions by us and our allies that they have been suppliers of nuclear material, military arms, as well as chemical and possibly biological weapons, to other terrorist nations.   I am not up to date on the proofs of these charges, but they should not be naively ignored by our negotiators.

As the New York Times writers emphasized:  "[This] sets in motion a challenging phase that will call on the United State to exercise diplomatic muscles aftere a long stretch in which the White House relied on economic pressure, backed by threats of military force, to deal with the North."

One major problem we will have is that we have no depth of diplomatic representation with expertise on Korea in our diminished State Department in the Trump administration.    Joe Yun, our chief professional negotiator on North Korea has just announced his resignation, and the position of ambassador to South Korea remains unfilled.   Much will depend on South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who seems to be the motivating force and bridge between the U.S. and N.K.

But let's also be optimistic, along with cautious.   If we could take Kim at his word, and he really does seek to be recognized on the world stage as a peer -- without being a threat to peace -- then this would indeed be a landmark achievement.

Ralph