Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: Kim Jong-un

  • Prospects for Denuclearization

    Prospects for Denuclearization

    [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” overlay_color=”” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” padding_top=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” padding_right=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” center_content=”no” last=”no” min_height=”” hover_type=”none” link=””][fusion_text]

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    After the Singapore Summit between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump, Trump was very upbeat about the denuclearization of North Korea. On June 12, 2018, Trump said in a CNN interview, “He’s denuking the whole place and he’s going to start very quickly. I think he’s going to start now.” Seriously?

    For this to happen, Kim would have to be either a fool or a saint. And, of course, he is neither. Rather, he is a third generation dictator who fears the overthrow of his regime, likely by the US. Kim knows that his best guarantee against that happening is his possession of nuclear weapons.

    Kim certainly knows the history of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi. Both gave up their respective country’s nuclear programs. After doing so, each was overthrown and killed. Hussein was put on trial by the US puppet regime in Iraq and was sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence was carried out on December 30, 2006. When Libyan rebels, with help from the US, France and the UK, attacked the Gadhafi regime, Gadhafi attempted to hide and escape, but he was captured, tortured and killed.

    Given this history, why would Kim make himself vulnerable to overthrow when he doesn’t need to do so? The answer is that he won’t, which also means that he won’t completely denuclearize.  Since this is the logic of Kim’s position, we might ask: why has Trump been so effusive about Kim’s prospects of denuclearizing? Obvious explanations are that Trump is a novice at conducting international negotiations and that he thinks exceptionally highly of himself as an effective negotiator.

    For Trump to believe that Kim would bend to Trump’s will and denuclearize, Trump would have to be either a fool or an extreme narcissist. Unfortunately, he appears to be both and seems intent on proving this over and over again. Another example is his pulling out of and violating the Iran agreement negotiated with Iran by the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany. Fortunately, none of the other parties to the agreement has joined the US in pulling out.

    Denuclearization is a good thing, and I am all for it. The US, as the strongest military power in the world and the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in war, should be leading the way. Nuclear weapons do not protect the Trump regime, as they do the Kim regime. Nor, for that matter, do they protect the US. Which would be safer for the US: a world with nine nuclear-armed states, as we currently have, or a world with zero nuclear-armed states?

    The logic here is that if Trump is serious about a denuclearized North Korea, he had best play a leadership role in convening negotiations among the nine nuclear-armed states to achieve a denuclearized planet. In such negotiations, it will be necessary to deal with the concerns and fears of the leaders of each of the nuclear-armed countries, including those of Kim Jong-un. The world we live in is far from perfect, but we would all be better off if the overriding nuclear threat to humanity was lifted from our collective shoulders.

    It will require a process of good faith negotiations to get to zero nuclear weapons. That, in turn, will require political will, which has been largely lacking, even though it was agreed to by all the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Article VI of this treaty obligates its parties to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and for complete nuclear disarmament. Fifty years after the NPT was opened for signatures in 1968, this obligation remains not only unfulfilled but untried. For the nuclear-armed parties to the NPT to take this obligation seriously would be a major turn-around in their behavior.

    Another treaty, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, was adopted by 122 countries in July 2017 and is now opened for signatures and the deposit of ratifications. The treaty prohibits, among other things, the possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Again, the nuclear-armed countries have been largely hostile to this treaty. None of them have signed it or indicated support for it, and the US, UK and France have said they would never sign, ratify or become parties to it.

    Our common future on the planet rests on generating the support and political will to fulfill the promise of these two treaties. Putting the global nuclear dilemma into perspective, it should be clear that denuclearization of North Korea is only one piece of the puzzle, one that is unlikely to be achieved in isolation. A far greater piece lays in the failure of the US to show any substantial leadership toward attaining a nuclear zero world. Failure to achieve the goal of global denuclearization could mean the end of civilization and most life on our planet. And where is the logic in that?

    David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and has served as its president since 1982.[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container][fusion_global id=”13042″]

  • Singapore Summit: Final Statement

    Singapore Summit: Final Statement

    Joint Statement of President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at the Singapore Summit

    President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

    President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

    Convinced that the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:

    1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

    2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

    3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

    4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

    Having acknowledged that the U.S.-DPRK summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-up negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK summit.

    President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new U.S.-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.

    (Signed)

    DONALD J. TRUMP
    President of the United States of America

    KIM JONG UN
    Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

    June 12, 2018
    Sentosa Island
    Singapore

  • Singapore Summit

    Singapore Summit

    David KriegerWhen we think about what could be accomplished at the Singapore Summit, we’re not thinking big enough.

    At the Kim-Trump Summit in Singapore, the highest expectation is for a Kim pledge to denuclearize his country.  There seems to be no expectation that Trump would agree to denuclearize his country.  The world would benefit from a plan to denuclearize North Korea, but it would benefit even more from a plan to denuclearize the United States.

    Clearly, there would need to be plans set forth and agreed to for any denuclearization, but why limit such a plan only to North Korea?

    Given the potentially omnicidal devastation of nuclear weapons, the world needs a plan to abolish these weapons globally before they abolish all of us.  Why should we be content to have the smallest nuclear power agree to give up its nuclear arsenal, while allowing the most powerful nuclear-armed country to be unchallenged in maintaining its nuclear arsenal?

    In exchange for a denuclearized North Korea, Kim should bargain for an end to the Korean War by means of a Peace Treaty; the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea; a pledge of No First Use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.; economic support from the U.S.; and a pledge by the U.S. to convene a meeting of all nine nuclear-armed countries to develop a plan for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  The last point could be achieved through U.S. and North Korean leadership in signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

  • Press Availability: Interviews and Comments on June 12 Trump-Kim Summit

    Press Availability: Interviews and Comments on June 12 Trump-Kim Summit

    The stakes couldn’t be higher for the historic, June 12 U.S.– North Korea summit with President Trump and Kim Jung-un. There is much uncertainty surrounding the meeting and the issues on the table are complex.

    We at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation are available to you for comment and interviews before, during and after the summit. Our thirty-six years of in-depth expertise on all issues regarding nuclear weapons gives us insight and perspective few other organizations have.

    • We’re part of ICAN, the current Nobel Peace Prize winner.
    • We played an integral role at the United Nations in the negotiations for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
    • We welcome good faith dialogue that lessens nuclear dangers and could lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons.
    • We oppose the absolutist position of hawks like National Security Adviser John Bolton and numerous Senate Democrats, who are demanding absolute surrender and denuclearization by North Korea before the United States makes any compromises.
    • We support a peace treaty to finally end the 7-decades-old Korean War.
    • Nuclear weapons are unacceptable in any hands and under all circumstances. This summit could lead to progress, which we welcome, but the summit is often cast in a way that legitimizes the United States’ ongoing possession and development of nuclear weapons.
    • North and South Korea are sovereign nations with their own strong interests in achieving peace. The United States can be involved in the peace process where appropriate, but should largely stay out of the way for Koreans to make peace in Korea.

    Please call Rick Wayman at +1 805.696.5159 or Sandy Jones at +1 805.965.3443 for comment or interview.

  • Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula

    The Panmunjeom Declaration was issued by North and South Korea on April 27, 2018, following an historic summit between Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in.

    During this momentous period of historical transformation on the Korean Peninsula, reflecting the enduring aspiration of the Korean people for peace, prosperity and unification, President Moon Jae In of the Republic of Korea and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea held an Inter-Korean Summit Meeting at the ‘Peace House’ at Panmunjom on April 27, 2018.

    The two leaders solemnly declared before the 80 million Korean people and the whole world that there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula and thus a new era of peace has begun.

    The two leaders, sharing the firm commitment to bring a swift end to the Cold War relic of long-standing division and confrontation, to boldly approach a new era of national reconciliation, peace and prosperity, and to improve and cultivate inter-Korean relations in a more active manner, declared at this historic site of Panmunjom as follows:

    1. South and North Korea will reconnect the blood relations of the people and bring forward the future of co-prosperity and unification led by Koreans by facilitating comprehensive and groundbreaking advancement in inter-Korean relations.

    Improving and cultivating inter-Korean relations is the prevalent desire of the whole nation and the urgent calling of the times that cannot be held back any further.

    1) South and North Korea affirmed the principle of determining the destiny of the Korean nation on their own accord and agreed to bring forth the watershed moment for the improvement of inter-Korean relations by fully implementing all existing agreements and declarations adopted between the two sides thus far.

    2) South and North Korea agreed to hold dialogue and negotiations in various fields including at high level, and to take active measures for the implementation of the agreements reached at the summit.

    3) South and North Korea agreed to establish a joint liaison office with resident representatives of both sides in the Gaeseong region in order to facilitate close consultation between the authorities as well as smooth exchanges and cooperation between the peoples.

    4) South and North Korea agreed to encourage more active cooperation, exchanges, visits and contacts at all levels in order to rejuvenate the sense of national reconciliation and unity.

    Between South and North, the two sides will encourage the atmosphere of amity and cooperation by actively staging various joint events on the dates that hold special meaning for both South and North Korea, such as June 15, in which participants from all levels, including central and local governments, parliaments, political parties, and civil organisations, will be involved.

    On the international front, the two sides agreed to demonstrate their collective wisdom, talents, and solidarity by jointly participating in international sports events such as the 2018 Asian Games.

    5) South and North Korea agreed to endeavour to swiftly resolve the humanitarian issues that resulted from the division of the nation, and to convene the Inter-Korean Red Cross Meeting to discuss and solve various issues, including the reunion of separated families.

    In this vein, South and North Korea agreed to proceed with reunion programmes for the separated families on the occasion of the National Liberation Day of Aug 15 this year.

    6) South and North Korea agreed to actively implement the projects previously agreed in the 2007 October 4 Declaration, in order to promote balanced economic growth and co-prosperity of the nation.

    As a first step, the two sides agreed to adopt practical steps towards the connection and modernisation of the railways and roads on the eastern transportation corridor as well as between Seoul and Sinuiju for their utilisation.

    2. South and North Korea will make joint efforts to alleviate the acute military tension and practically eliminate the danger of war on the Korean Peninsula.

    1) South and North Korea agreed to completely cease all hostile acts against each other in every domain, including land, air and sea, that are the source of military tension and conflict.

    In this vein, the two sides agreed to transform the demilitarised zone into a peace zone in a genuine sense by ceasing as of May 2 this year all hostile acts and eliminating their means, including broadcasting through loudspeakers and distribution of leaflets, in the areas along the Military Demarcation Line.

    2) South and North Korea agreed to devise a practical scheme to turn the areas around the Northern Limit Line in the West Sea into a maritime peace zone in order to prevent accidental military clashes and guarantee safe fishing activities.

    3) South and North Korea agreed to take various military measures to ensure active mutual cooperation, exchanges, visits and contacts. The two sides agreed to hold frequent meetings between military authorities, including the defence ministers meeting, in order to immediately discuss and solve military issues that arise between them.

    In this regard, the two sides agreed to first convene military talks at the rank of general in May.

    3. South and North Korea will actively cooperate to establish a permanent and solid peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. Bringing an end to the current unnatural state of armistice and establishing a robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula is a historical mission that must not be delayed any further.

    1) South and North Korea reaffirmed the Non-Aggression Agreement that precludes the use of force in any form against each other, and agreed to strictly adhere to this agreement.

    2) South and North Korea agreed to carry out disarmament in a phased manner, as military tension is alleviated and substantial progress is made in military confidence-building.

    3) During this year that marks the 65th anniversary of the Armistice, South and North Korea agreed to actively pursue trilateral meetings involving the two Koreas and the United States, or quadrilateral meetings involving the two Koreas, the United States and China, with a view to declaring an end to the war and establishing a permanent and solid peace regime.

    4) South and North Korea confirmed the common goal of realising, through complete denuclearisation, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.

    South and North Korea shared the view that the measures being initiated by North Korea are very meaningful and crucial for the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula and agreed to carry out their respective roles and responsibilities in this regard.

    South and North Korea agreed to actively seek the support and cooperation of the international community for the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

    The two leaders agreed, through regular meetings and direct telephone conversations, to hold frequent and candid discussions on issues vital to the nation, to strengthen mutual trust and to jointly endeavour to strengthen the positive momentum towards continuous advancement of inter-Korean relations as well as peace, prosperity and unification of the Korean Peninsula.

    In this context, President Moon Jae In agreed to visit Pyongyang this fall.

    April 27, 2018

    Done in Panmunjom

    Moon Jae In
    President
    Republic of Korea

    Kim Jong Un
    Chairman
    State Affairs Commission
    Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

  • Dealing with a Nuclear North Korea

    This article was originally published by Politico.


    Bennett RambergOnce again North Korea befuddles.


    On the cusp of receiving food aid from the United States as the quid pro quo for opening the Yongbong nuclear complex to international inspectors and a halt in missile testing, Pyongyang wasted little time to turn “progress” into a sink hole.


    The rub: a three-stage North Korean rocket set to launch a small satellite into orbit in the next few days. The concern, the data gleaned from the launch will mature Pyonygang’s ambition to build an intercontinental ballistic missile that could threaten the United States with a nuclear warhead.


    Maturation has been long in coming. North Korea first replicated the Soviet Scud rockets it acquired from Egypt decades ago, and has slowly developed a healthy inventory of short- and intermediate-range missiles. But the long-range rocket proved to be another matter. Its 2006 and 2009 launch attempts failed.


    In anticipating each, Washington first pouted, but then returned to efforts to coax Pyongyang back to the six-party talks to can fulfill the North’s 2005 nuclear disarmament pledge. For a time, Kim Jong Il did return, but winked — attempting to pocket any benefits he could, while continuing to modernize his secret nuclear enrichment enterprise.


    This has left Washington uncertain, as the new Kim prepares the missile launch. There are no perfect options. But there are at least four imperfect alternatives to deal with the North’s missile and nuclear programs, First, continue the policy of coaxing. Second, attempt further to isolate the regime. Third, use force to halt the most threatening nuclear elements. Or, fourth, accept what cannot be changed and learn to live with a nuclear armed North Korea.


    Coaxing is business as usual. Trying to get Pyongyang to reliably say “uncle” and give up the bomb does not seem to be in the cards. The international community has tried and tried again since South Korea, Russia, China and Japan joined the United States and North Korea in the six-party talks in 2003. The approaching rocket launch, coupled with reports that Pyongyang may yet test another nuclear weapon, suggests that the new Kim intends to continue the path of the old to stay in power.


    The second option might be called the Bolton approach. Former U.N. Amb. John Bolton has written many articles pressing for strict isolation of Pyongyang, to bring down the regime. He advocates detaching Pyongyang from “international financial markets, ramping up efforts to prevent trade in weapons…and pressuring China to adhere to existing UN sanctions resolutions.”


    The major impediment is that Beijing refuses to go along — making the strategy a chimera.


    Force marks a third option. Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry and Assistant Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, writing in The Washington Post and Time magazine in 2006, called on the Bush administration to initiate a submarine cruise missile strike to destroy Pyongyang’s long-range rockets on the launch pad. They argued, “the risk of inaction will prove far greater” for the United States — even at the risk of igniting a new Korean war.


    Carter is now deputy secretary of defense. But there is no public talk that his proposal has any traction today in the Obama administration.


    This leaves a fourth option — accepting what we can’t change while attempting to reduce nuclear risks. The stark fact remains that without regime change — which was key in the elimination of other nuclear arsenals, including the former Soviet republics and South Africa — North Korea will remain a nuclear armed state. Washington’s challenge is to assure that Pyongyang never uses the arsenal out of malice or fear.


    North Korea’s use of its arsenal without provocation seems farfetched. More than anything, the leadership seeks to stay in power. It must know that any nuclear launch would result in the regime’s demise in the devastating U.S. and allied response that would be sure to follow.


    Nonetheless, there remains the specter that North Korea could launch due to fear of preemption or as part of an escalating incident. Reducing these risks ought to be the priority.


    This requires better communication between Washington and Pyongyang. At the very least, there should be a negotiated hot-line, replicating the Cold War link between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Better yet, full diplomatic relations could reduce the likelihood of major misunderstanding.


    Neither a hot line nor diplomatic relations should be seen as reward to the North, but rather the realization that a nuclear Pyongyang is likely to be part of the northeast Asian landscape for the foreseeable future.


    Assuming otherwise — without taking the necessary measures to reduce risk — could create is a far greater problem for the United States than either proceeding with the failed policies of the past or the impractical options advanced by some.