The morning of April 28, 2017, I woke up to the voice of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson saying that the U.S. is open to direct talks with North Korea to end the latter's nuclear weapons program. Initially, I was surprised by this apparent change in direction and what I misheard as a call for one-on-one negotiations. That is not what Secretary Tillerson offered, he offered direct talks, which could mean one-on-one or could mean multilateral negotiations. The U.S. has had direct talks with North Korea in the past along with other interested parties like China, Japan and South Korea (see the chronology in the previous hyperlink). The North Koreans, for their part, have often called for one-on-one talks with the U.S. While it is good that the Trump Administration wants to negotiate an end to the nuclear dilemma on the Korean peninsula, I heard the Secretary make several other statements that, in my view, offer more hope than his willingness to negotiate.
The first and most significant is his statement that “we do not seek regime change. We do not seek a collapse of the regime. We do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula.” These three declarative sentences begin to address the long-standing North Korean desire for guarantees that the U.S. will not attack their country. I do not recall a similarly clear, unequivocal public statement from any previous administration. So there is some hope for progress on the issue in Secretary Tillerson's words, especially if they are repeated by him or other senior U.S. officials.
He also spoke of the goal of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula: “I would quickly add, you know, we did our part. We took our nuclear weapons out of the Korean Peninsula. It's time for North Korea to take their weapons out as well.” That is only the second time that a senior U.S. official has affirmed that there are no U.S. nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. (The previous instance was an announcement by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 that seemed a response to the end of the Cold War and to the demands of the people of South Korea.) Our long-standing policy which has lasted across generations as well as party affiliations is not to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons in any location.
Finally, the Secretary of State said “A denuclearized Korean Peninsula. It's very clear. That's China's stated policy. It has been our stated policy. It's been the stated policy of our allies in the region.” Again, nothing new perhaps but I do not recall previous U.S. administrations being so clear. That he mentioned China, Japan and South Korea also emphasized, and hinted at, close coordination and agreement among North Korea's neighbors.
At the United Nations Security Council meeting later that same day, China's Ambassador affirmed that the issue of North Korea's nuclear weapons program required negotiations among a group of nations interested in the issue. The press play in the U.S. struck me as contrasting China's call for multi-national involvement against Secretary Tillerson's call for direct talks on the nuclear problem. As I indicated in the first paragraph, there doesn't seem to be any difference between the U.S. and China here.
Which leads to an interesting question: Why is the U.S. press playing the North Korean program as a clear and present danger and highlighting the country's nuclear program and missile tests but seemingly ignoring the Secretary of State's crystal clear signals? I can think of several possibilities but all are pure speculation on my part. Instead, consider this article, written a few days before Secretary Tillerson's NPR interview.
Comments