Many of the purported "experts" on Asian policy reject the most fundamental issue in negotiation with North Korea. So don't expect them to be receptive to the negotiating approach recommended by both Koreas, China and Russia - reciprocal trust building measures on a step by step basis. This process is intended to try to eliminate distrust between the parties to get to the ultimate objective of complete denuclearization in stages, rather than trying, in a one-sided all or nothing approach, to impose capitulation on North Korea through hybrid economic warfare and maximum pressure. When President Trump says he isn't in a hurry he is expecting the North to collapse internally from the economic sanctions. This is a regime change strategy which will have undesirable consequences that can hardly be regarded as "unforeseen." The hard liners (강경파) in the US administration took control at Hanoi. Bolton derailed the agenda with excessive demands, the so called "hek list" (핵 리스드) of nuclear inventory demands, even adding biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, in the so called "one bundle" or Libyan approach. The critics of the Trump initiative with North Korea have gotten their way and a sigh of relief has been heard among critics of the Trump administration's North Korean "diplomacy" effort.
You won't see Joseph Yun, a former U.S. special representative for North Korea policy, on Voice of America, broadcasting the daily dose of propaganda into Northeast Asia. In a recent radio interview by KBS Radio, reported in the Korea Times (English edition) he pointed out that something could have been accomplished at Hanoi but wasn't because of the refusal of the US to follow a step by step approach to negotiations rather than the "all or nothing" approach favored by deal breakers like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Yun correctly identifies the only possible course in negotiations process with North Korea:
"We need to see a step-by-step approach...there is no other possible approach."
Ex-US envoy opposes Trump's North Korea approach, Yi Whan-woo http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2019/03/103_265843.html
The misconceived notion that North Korea would be responsive to an "all or nothing" demand from the US with vague promises of future rewards in the form of sanctions relief and security guarantees is similar to those great American delusions about Asia, author James Bradley so correctly describes in his book, The China Mirage. Here is another such illusion destined to bring disaster in Asia in the not too distant future as a result of US foreign policy. Whether that US misconception among "experts," is due to inability to comprehend Asian patterns in history and diplomacy or whether it is sycophantic venality in the face of the US obsession with regime change is a matter of the individuals involved and one's personal judgment. The problem is bi-partisan and systemic; it is not limited to the small clique represented by the current White House. This blog has described this fundamental difference in perspective blocking both process and progress in relations with North Korea for about a year now:
"Once, the North Koreans committed to meet at Hanoi, the US went back to the old playbook of all or nothing, give up everything in return for vague promises of future benefits and no sanctions relief of any kind in the interim. No one who knows anything about North Korea could have seriously thought this would work. It was a politically cowardly approach for a US administration that cannot stand up to domestic criticism of its North Korean initiatives by the intelligence establishment, the neo-cons, the press, the democratic opposition, and the military industrial complex of think tanks and Congressional defense industry flunkies."
Bait and Switch- US Duplicity at Hanoi https://civilizationdiscontents.blogspot.com/2019/03/hubris-of-us-deception-at-hanoi.html
This blog first posted critical comments on the US approach to negotiations April 4, 2018, with criticism of the so-called "Libyan Method," recommended by Mr. Bolton, near the time the blog was dedicated to coverage of Korean issues in Northeast Asia:
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.
The "Libyan Method," https://civilizationdiscontents.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-libyan-method.html
The blog has returned to this issue repeatedly, which is studiously downplayed in US and western media generally, and rarely remarked upon except as an afterthought or caveat in some expert commentary. The South Korean experts, broadly speaking, understand the virtues of the step by step approach, which the US media and government scrupulously avoid and, otherwise, vilify. The current charge leveled in US media is that President Moon of South Korea, is betraying his country and the alliance with the US by "being a spokesperson for Kim Jong Un." In other words, he's a commie that can't be trusted because he advocates the step by step approach with simultaneous concessions. This suits the needs of the unpopular scandal ridden conservative opposition in South Korea who haven't been able to keep their presidents out of prison.
The US cottage industry of "experts" making a living on anti-North Korea policy advice, make regular appearances in US media, including VOA Korea, and have pecuniary relationships with the think tanks and lobbies, sponsored by conservative interests such as major defense contractors and related financial corporations. A number of these "Asia" pundits are generalists with Ph.D's in diplomatic studies or national defense studies and have no credentials in actual Asian studies. Of those that do, they have direct, indirect or former ties to the Pentagon or intelligence agencies. Some of those appearing in US media or at conservative foundation seminars represent Japanese interests which are antithetical to the Koreas. Japanese interests are not necessarily congruent with those of the United States or it's ally South Korea. It's true that some "experts," have experience related to prior North Korea negotiations. However their experience is that of an advocate or prosecutor, pushing a partisan view that favors its interests, only, at the expense of an effective negotiations process or an accurate assessment of the facts. These people are often in the posture of having to obfuscate the prior US delays, failures or breaches that caused negotiations to break down in the past by focusing only on the obvious flaws, failures, and shortcomings of the communist regime of North Korea. In addition, they make critical or inaccurate comments concerning our ally South Korea, as if it has no right to an independent view of such matters or a viable stake in the outcome. The US hubris is to impose its version of reality overseas rather to understand and adapt to it, as it actually exists.
Addendum 3.27 This presentation by Victor Cha before a Senate committee on March 26 was mentioned in a Channel A News broadcast covering the indications of a potential Bulguksong 2 ICBM launch given electronic reconnaissance findings and perhaps other indications. This is the line that was quoted in reference to Sohae space launch site restoration activities by North Korea:
This does not suggest
that a rocket launch or nuclear test is imminent, but it does suggest that the situation could take a
turn downwards before a resumption of diplomacy
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/032619_Cha_Testimony.pdf
His presentation completely avoids the primary issue in the negotiations mentioned above which is an internationally differing view on how negotiations should proceed. Cha talks about the dilemma of American "reasonableness" and expecting allies to request changes in the US position. The only ally making such requests is South Korea. Currently, relations are at a low point which has been evident in the failure of the Secretary of State to accept a request by the ROK Foreign Minister Kang Kyung Hwa to meet with him and a message from the US State department, to effect that if you are coming to talk about Gumgangsan and Kaesong don't bother. Another remark by Pompeo himself last December toward the Blue House national security advisor calling him "a liar," was also made public as reported by Channel A News yesterday in an escalation of recriminations and ill consideration toward the ally most directly affected by US diplomatic blundering, and lack of a constructive approach.
