 |
| U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un face each other during an extended meeting of their first summit in Singapore, June. The two are scheduled to meet for the second time in Vietnam later this month. Yonhap |
By Oh Young-jin
By most measures being floated now, the second summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un is doomed to fail.
One common feature among those measures is the need for the North to take concrete steps to achieve complete (permanent), verifiable and irreversible destruction of its nuclear program ― C(P)VID ― or FFVD, fully verifiable denuclearization, in the latest version by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
But unless Kim is stupid (obviously he isn't), he won't give up the sword that has taken him so far and will certainly help him further on his survival path.
Even if he is given U.S. security guarantees and bundles of cash from South Korea, the likelihood is that he will hold on to the ultimate weapons as long as possible to squeeze all he can from the situation.
So those who tell Trump what he has to accomplish at the Feb. 27-28 summit in a Vietnamese city are wasting their breath.
In dealing with the North, we ― Korea, the U.S. and the rest of the world ― have accomplished a lot. This time last year, there was a real possibility of a U.S. pre-emptive strike against the North that could have turned into, however lopsided, an exchange of nuclear weapons in an area where the interests of China, Russia and Japan compete with each other.
With the Kim-Trump summit in Singapore last June, the first of its kind, the tension cooled significantly and the negotiating phase has since firmly taken over.
When Trump announced his second summit with Kim during his delayed State of the Union speech, he pointed to a heavy workload before the North's denuclearization but poignantly reminded us of a war averted. But few give Trump the credit for steering clear of a war that might have killed millions.
In Vietnam, the chance is that the two sides will confirm their differences or the U.S. settles for the North Korean step-by-step, tit-for-tat, piecemeal approach that may take forever.
Perhaps Trump may agree to the declaration of end of the Korean War that was put on hold by a truce in 1953 after a three-year bloodbath. Or he may let the South revive two cash-cow projects for the North ― the industrial park in the North's city of Gaeseong and Mount Geumgang tourism.
In return, the U.S. president may get some vaguely worded promises from his younger North Korean counterpart. Certainly, he will take whatever is achieved out of proportion.
I, for one, would beg to differ from others and wouldn't denounce Trump for underachieving or being hoodwinked. Rather, if he only manages to keep talks with the North going, I would call it a success.
The hard-line policy on the North has not worked. If a hardliner was asked to resolve the North Korean challenge, he or she would be at a loss for what to do or bring the situation to the brink of catastrophe.
Even if we don't want to admit it, the North is nothing short of a nuclear weapon state. Undoing it at this stage, especially for a nation that has been virtually at war with the outside world since its beginning, is next to impossible.
So a new right solution for the North Korean problem starts with seeing it as it is. Then, it is important to change our strategy accordingly. The thrust of that strategy lies in forsaking our erstwhile short-game plan ― looking for a quick fix in the hope that somehow the problem will resolve itself. Repeated failures prove that this won't happen.
The knife that will kill the beast in the North is to force it to bear the burden of its own problems ― controlled economy, repressed population and brutal ruling dynasty.
The North has managed, by and large, to survive so far thanks to its policy of antagonizing its population against outside forces, namely the U.S. and South Korea, and isolating itself. For instance, the rationale of its nuclear armament is to defend itself against the U.S. and to prevent others' intimidation.
Then, isn't it logical to encourage the North to undo its survival strategy for its own downfall? If it passes the test and perseveres, the North will turn into a global citizen, maybe still irresponsible but certainly not rogue.
Oh Young-jin (foolsdie@gmail.com, foolsdie5@koreatimes.co.kr) is the digital managing editor of The Korea Times.
