In a Feb. 28 interview, former North Korean Ambassador Thae Yong-ho was queried regarding how we can secure meaningful cooperation from China in dealing with the North Korean threat. His answer:
“China, America and Korea must execute a grand bargain. What China fears is the possibility that after (the) South-North reunify the US-led forces can come up. In order to address this concern, proposing US troops will leave the peninsula and Korea would proclaim neutrality in the event of reunification is an option we could consider. ... The South Korean government must immediately come forward and help China to think rationally and reasonably.”
He’s right. There are numerous indicators suggesting introducing such a grand bargain -- affirmed to be prudent by many observers -- could work and therefore must be tried.
With the fate of tens of millions hanging precariously in the balance and as antipathy between the nations reach a near-hysterical pitch, Sino-Republic of Korea detente is becoming imperative to avert war, which if happens, would produce mass casualties and settle nothing.
A “new Cold War” with South Korea, the US and Japan facing off against Kim Jong-un, China and Russia is certainly not in the best interest of Koreans -- but it is in Kim’s best interest. The outmoded, risky and inexpedient paradigm merely spells the comprehensive re-fortification of the ruthless despot’s hold on power.
But does Korea truly feel comfortable in a trilateral alliance with the neighboring administration presently led by radical-right deniers of history? One that disturbingly continues to lay claim to Republic of Korea territory and unambiguously wishes someday to retake what they are teaching their young is rightfully theirs?
In the wake of North Korea test-firing four ballistic missiles on March 6, Shinzo Abe was quoted as making unsettling statements in his conversation with Trump.
Abe said, “I appreciate that the United States is showing that all the options are on the table,” with the New York Times pointing out those are “usually code words for raising the possibility of a military response.”
Abe also specified that Japan was “ready to fulfill larger roles and responsibilities” to deter North Korea. Does Korea trust Japan -- whose ambassador has yet to return after leaving in anger in January -- to play a larger and more assertive military role in the region? Japan under Abe’s leadership has been pushing for substantial revisions to its pacifist constitution, which now authorizes for Japanese soldiers to “aid” allied forces when under attack.
Trump, who the Chosun Ilbo declared “knows nothing about Korea,” wouldn’t likely object. Remember, he has suggested Japan acquire nuclear weapons.
Due to an absence of empathy and dearth of understanding concerning Korea’s history and plight, Trump might welcome Japan’s military “volunteers” to help “clean up” the bloody mess a preventive strike -- which must be avoided -- on North Korea would deliver.
On March 3, the Wall Street Journal underscored that Washington is seriously considering a “military strike” on North Korea before Kim Jong-un can test-fire an intercontinental ballistic missile. As many have sought to clarify, what is being proposed is actually a preventive strike -- the legality, not to mention efficacy, of which is in doubt.
The dispatch said such options were discussed during Trump and Abe’s two-day summit in February, saying, “It was clear to the Japanese side that those options encompassed a US military strike on North Korea, possibly if Pyongyang appeared ready to test an ICBM.”
Shinzo Abe has given tacit approval to the preventive strike idea. On March 6, Takashi Kawakami, a professor of international politics and security at Tokyo’s Takushoku University, explained to the New York Times that “the deployment of THAAD could put the United States in a stronger position to consider a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.”
Without question, those who would suffer most horrifically through the direct consequences of such a strike would be Korean civilians. The South Korean government must be firm, forthright and unwavering in opposition to the reckless and unhelpful scheme.
Nor does the fantasy of a military strike on North Korea “on humanitarian grounds” hold water -- as outlined in a Feb. 9 article, “we must work to ‘peacefully’ remove Kim Jong-un.” The Kim dynasty’s policy is to utterly massacre those individuals within the prison camps in the event of an incoming military attack.
No wonder Thae cautioned at a Feb. 9 forum in Seoul, “A pre-emptive strike against North Korea will bring about a huge catastrophe. Before it happens, we should remove Kim Jong-un.” In an interview with KBS, Thae urged for the “elimination of Kim Jong-un peacefully by means of a people’s uprising inside North Korea.”
As Yonhap News Agency reported on March 4, Thae alerts North Korea may conduct a nuclear test or even an intercontinental ballistic missile test on April 15. On March 9, Joongang Ilbo was informed by two military officials that the remaining components of THAAD will appear here by April 8, characterized as a “surprise arrival.”
Could the rushed deployment of THAAD be closely linked to preventive strike plans? If so, solely weighing from the South Korean populace’s perspective, at the extreme minimum THAAD should be delayed until Seoul and other presently vulnerable regions are better protected. As many have noted, THAAD is incapable of defending the national capital, which would be a primary target for any North Korean retaliatory attack.
On March 7, a Defense Ministry official notified Yonhap that neither would THAAD be able to defend against multiple missiles fired at once, as North Korea has just done. The official told the news agency, “THAAD won’t be able to intercept a massive amount of missiles launched by North Korea at one time as the communist state did on Monday.“
George Washington University professor Amitai Etzioni called China’s recent ban on North Korean coal imports a “significant move” -- North Korea lashed out and verbally attacked China in its aftermat -- also underscoring that “so far the Trump administration has not responded” in a March 3 article for The Diplomat.
Etzioni recommends within the piece and elsewhere for a “grand bargain” with China, similar in substance to Thae’s suggestion. Other analysts are urging for this as well.
Despite the pretense of continued harmony, there are many indications Sino-North Korea ties are actually at a maximal low.
Observers within China assert relations with North Korea are “at their lowest point since the founding of the North as a separate country after World War II,” reported The New York Times.
South Korean and US leaders must give the grand bargain with China a genuine effort, and expeditiously. China’s recent outbursts illustrate that Korea has a bargaining chip of high value.
By Robert Park
Robert Park is a founding member of the nonpartisan Worldwide Coalition to Stop Genocie in North Korea, minister, musician and former prisoner of conscience. He can be reached at wcsgnk1@protonmail.com. -- Ed.