The Evolving US Negotiating Position

April 4

The US demand is complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization, with no discussion of US reciprocity in the process. That's an ultimatum. Right now the North Korean purpose is to get the US to accept a three phased approach, freeze, reduce, eliminate, (nuclear weapons infrastructure and capabilities) with good faith US/ROK reciprocity at each step. This is what the South Koreans had envisioned at the beginning, though it was never mentioned in the western press. Clearly this is the point of contention with the maximum pressure, nothing conceded till you completely capitulate US demand. China has acted to protect its own national security interests in the region against US threats of war. It is weighing in on behalf of the north.

An A Channel Youtube from South Korea, published on April 1, showed the respective positions of the four states, North and South Korea, China and the US. The US position was first eliminate your nuclear infrastructure, later reward. The other three states all envisaged a phased approach to build trust and accomplish complex tasks. The South Koreans see a single agreement for denuclearization, followed by steps for implementation. The North Koreans and Chinese see a phased step by step approach, accompanied by simultaneous reciprocal acts by the US, South Korea, and the international community.

Finally, the Blue House, has issued a public statement saying the "Libyan method" is impossible (불가능 不可能) and that the US must demonstrate flexibility.

April 29

"Il gwol" (one bundle) v. "dan gae" (phased) negotiations. The American position seeks complete verifiable irreversible denuclearization in one bundle. The other parties except Japan seek a phased implementation with reciprocal action for action. S. Korea tries to bridge the differences with a bundled package agreement with a phased implementation. Maintaining "maximum pressure" (sanctions) until total CVID won't work. The US hardline position initially proposed by Trump has the potential to fail catastrophically in one meeting. North Korea isn't going to accept just "sweet words," in exchange for tangible implementation of denuclearization. Pompeo seems aware of this. Will Trump move into a give and take reciprocal step by step implementation, or stick with the so called Libyan method of denuclearization?"

May 14

Brian Hook, State Dept senior advisor at the policy planning office, said it would take until 2020 to irreversibly denuclearize North Korea. In other words, it would take the entire remainder of Trump's term in office...One view has it that the missiles, warheads, nuclear materials like plutonium, and enriched uranium could be removed within months if it were properly planned and executed. It was also suggested that 4 to 5 hundred thousand tons of chemical weapons could be shipped out or destroyed during this same shorter term time frame. On the other hand, the longer term projection of Hook probably concerns the ability to permanently remove and assure that the regeneration of these weapons programs would not be possible. One of the latest concerns is what about the personnel who know how to make such weapons?

The high level diplomatic representative, Thae Yong-ho (Korean: 태영호) who defected from the N.Korean embassy in UK, has said, in the recent past, that the nuclear program was essential to Kim. The removal of the program therefore is going to harm any measure of legitimacy that his administration of North Korea has internally. The defector says the stuff about the parallel economic policy (byung jin 병진) is just a pretense, that it doesn't exist. I don't entirely agree, but I agree that whatever economic advances there were are now virtually destroyed. So if the sanctions will be kept on until CVID/ now PCVID + WMD, then his regime could collapse.

Will China come forward at risk to itself to compensate for the catastrophic failing of the North Korean economy under the sanctions before the ever increasing list of US demands are satisfied? Doesn't this appear to be a shifting of all the risks and costs of "CVID," to North Korea and China?

May 21

Trump blames China

Trump apparently has no idea what the "Libyan method" is and what the reference implies - lack of reciprocal and binding obligations on a step by step basis to build confidence. Trump seems to think that his vague promises, of rewards later, are going to reassure Kim. Senator Graham now calls it "win-win," or war. This isn't how negotiations work. The people who criticize Kim or the North Koreans as people who can't be trusted, who broke the agreement before, who are back to the their old tricks, etc., are simply cheering for the US, and don't understand the problem.

May 31

To his credit, even Pompeo gets that the real stumbling block is coming up with US guarantees of North Korean security, normalization of relations, replacing the armistice with a peace agreement, and how to stage these reciprocal moves, in addition to relaxation of sanctions. Pompeo calls it CVIS, complete, verifiable, irreversible, security for North Korea. Without CVIS you won't get CVID.

The political side of the problem is that any phased structure with reciprocity will arguably appear similar in design to other agreements that both Trump and neocons had earlier criticized.

June 4

After President Trump's meeting with Kim Yong Chol at the White House:

So the real concession here is allowing for the possibility of a step by step process of denuclearization. Trump said he didn't expect to get everything resolved in one meeting, and allowed for the possibility of additional meetings. He didn't really give up any sanctions, and didn't say he would. He said he wouldn't impose more as long as talks were progressing. The statement about declaring an end to hostilities is really in the same category, symbolic. He said he'd discuss it. That's all. What he basically did was signal that he understood what the North Korean objectives were. He didn't concede anything tangible yet.