Guest Column: Gen. John Wickham: US must engage North Korea in talks with an eye toward a peace treaty

With all due respect to GEN Wickham the north is not going to be swayed by the Burma model because it has not yet played out and they are convinced that when it does play out the Burmese junta will end up like Qaddafi and Saddam.  That said I am all for hard nosed diplomacy and engagement (based on the foundation of a strong ROK/US military alliance) but we absolutely have to be realistic about how north Korea has cheated and broken every previous agreement (and will likely do so again and again).  I fear that a peace agreement will be only one sided and as soon as it removes US forces from the Peninsula and South Korea takes the "peace dividend" from military readiness we will see a very bad outcome.  If we could reach a realistic peace agreement it would have to include maintenance of the ROK/US military Alliance or we would see an eventual attack on the ROK (and in a seeming paradox, it would be more likely to occur then than it is ever likely to occur without a peace agreement).

V/R
Dave

Guest Column: Gen. John Wickham: US must engage North Korea in talks with an eye toward a peace treaty

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/guest-column-gen-john-wickham-us-must-engage-north-korea/article_37e2315c-dd42-5982-a5e3-15829a03ed8d.html

Recent threats by North Korean leaders to attack America with nuclear weapons raise alarm. North Korea, despite impoverishment, can inflict great harm, and persists with hostile actions as well as unnerving rhetoric. Youthful leader Kim Jong Un appears in full control, but evidence suggests the military calls the shots.

We believe North Korea has six nuclear weapons, the makings of several more, plus reproduction potential. Moreover, they have exploded weapons to assure yield and tested missiles that with further engineering could be fitted with nuclear weapons to reach America.

Would they be crazy enough to attack? No, I do not believe they would given risk of major retaliation, but their threats must be taken seriously because they have dangerous weapons and behaved recklessly in the past.

Moreover, North Korean actions have raised prospects for nuclear proliferation. South Korea abandoned development of nuclear weapons when Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger persuaded former President Park Chung-hee in 1974 to accept protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. During my tour as commander of all forces in South Korea from 1979 to 1982, I verified that nuclear programs had stopped even though the North Koreans were avidly pursuing them.

A recent poll in South Korea reveals that two-thirds of citizens believe they should acquire nuclear weapons due to ominous behavior of North Korea, and because of political statements by President Obama and officials such as Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and Sam Nunn that call for the United States to pursue a global goal of zero nuclear weapons. Such a policy would take away the U.S. nuclear umbrella. A few legislators in the Japanese parliament have spoken about acquiring nuclear weapons. So unless change occurs in the situation with North Korea, nuclear proliferation could emerge with dangerous implications.

For years we have tried to persuade the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear weapons program. We have urged the Chinese, who retain an alliance with North Korea, to join this persuasive effort. During several trips to China, including one as U.S. Army chief of staff, I was told by political and military leaders that they valued their relationship with North Korea but, frankly, the relationship was difficult and North Koreans did not take kindly to advice.

Obviously, our policy of trying to persuade the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear program has failed. Given recent statements by North Korean officials, no basis exists for any optimism about persuading them to give up nuclear weapons because they are convinced the weapons guarantee security and national independence.

Our policy for decades has been to impose severe sanctions and to isolate the country in hope that suffering will force leaders to abandon hostility and abide fully with the United Nations Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty they signed years ago. We persist with this tough policy and conservative voices argue we must not reward bad behavior by easing sanctions or negotiating bi-laterally.

However, I believe our policy now must be revised.

(Continued at the link below)

UN Security Council Passes New Resolution 2094 on North Korea

Excerpt:

Q4: What is North Korea’s likely response?A4: Expect a North Korean provocation in the coming weeks. First, the country has already threatened suspension of the 1953 Korean War armistice, including severing its military hotline with the United States and suspending the activities of its representative office at Panmunjom. Second, its rhetoric is at a fever pitch with threats of preemptive nuclear attacks against the United States. Third, North Korea has blasted ongoing annual U.S.-South Korea military exercises, including the start of Key Resolve beginning Monday, March 11. Fourth, it has declared no-sail, no-fly zones in the East Sea and Yellow Sea, which are telltale signs of more missile tests. Finally, our research at CSIS shows that the North does a military provocation of some form within weeks of every South Korean presidential inauguration dating back to 1992 (South Korean president Park Guen-hye was inaugurated into office on February 25). Not a good prospect at all.

V/R

Dave

UN Security Council Passes New Resolution 2094 on North Korea

https://csis.org/publication/un-security-council-passes-new-resolution-2094-north-korea

By Victor Cha, Ellen Kim

MAR 7, 2013

In response to North Korea's third nuclear test conducted on February 12, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a new resolution on March 7 to impose additional sanctions on the country. Resolution 2094 is the fifth UNSCR against North Korea since 2006 for the country’s nuclear and ballistic missile activities in violation of previous Security Council resolutions 1695, 1718, 1874, and 2087. Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stated that Resolution 2094 is designed to “significantly impede North Korea's ability to develop further its illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs, as well as its proliferation activities.”
The new measure’s passage proceeded smoothly and quickly even in the face of North Korea’s aggressive and more provocative statements. Earlier this week, North Korea declared the 1953 armistice accord that ended the Korean War null and void. Hours before the announcement of the sanctions, North Korea increased its hostility with threats of war and by warning of a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States and South Korea.

Q1: What’s in the new resolution? What is the significance of these new sanctions compared to the previous ones?

A1: One major aspect of the new resolution is that it has tightened financial sanctions by making some of the existing measures mandatory. Under the new resolution, 193 member states are now required to “freeze or block” any financial transactions or monetary transfers if such activities are deemed to help North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Financial support for trade with North Korea that could assist its illicit programs is also prohibited. The new financial measures are aimed at cracking down on bulk cash transfers and also restricting the financial network of North Korean banks involved in the country’s illicit activities. In addition, interdiction and inspection of all suspicious ships and cargos also became mandatory, a notable development since China and Russia had opposed to making such measures mandatory in the past. For the first time, the Security Council expanded the scope of its target to include North Korean diplomats in order to monitor their involvement in illegal activities. The Security Council also blacklisted two additional entities and three more individuals for travel bans and asset freezes.

Q2: Was this the harshest resolution that could be imposed on North Korea?

A2: No. Resolution 2094 and other previous resolutions (1718, 1874, and 2087) were passed under Chapter 7, Article 41 of the UN Charter under which measures are limited to those without use of armed forces. Such measures include economic and financial sanctions, restriction and prohibition of travel and other communication methods, and the severance of diplomatic relations. A more serious and harsher resolution would have been for the UNSC to invoke Chapter 7, Article 42 under which UN member countries are allowed to use air, sea, or land forces to enforce sanctions.
(Continued at the link below)
https://csis.org/publication/un-security-council-passes-new-resolution-2094-north-korea

A look at what NKorea vow to scrap armistice means

A useful summary below but as the article notes threatening the Armistice is not new.    At the link below is the last report from the Congressional Research Service on the history of north Korean provocations from 1950 to 2007.  (I have recommended that they update this but there have been other priorities of course.)  But this report is useful and I would urge the time from 1997-2007 be scanned to see what the north did during the Sunshine Policy period when the South tried to engage the north and change its behavior with kindness and aid.

Link to CRS report:  http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30004.pdf

V/R

Dave

Mar. 6, 2013 7:43 PM ET

A look at what NKorea vow to scrap armistice means

By FOSTER KLUG, HYUNG-JIN KIM and SAM KIM, Associated Press  

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae69a7523db45408eeb2b3a98c0c9c5/Article_2013-03-06-AS-NKorea-Armistice-Why-It-Matters/id-c97e8f364f0041bbaccb62ea6d3ce0e7

        

South Korean army soldiers patrol along a barbed-wire fence at the Imjingak Pavilion near the border village of Panmunjom, which has separated the two Koreas since the Korean War, in Paju, north of Seoul, South Korea, Wednesday, March 6, 2013. North Korea's military is vowing to cancel the 1953 cease-fire that ended the Korean War, straining already frayed ties between Washington and Pyongyang as the United Nations moves to impose punishing sanctions over the North's recent nuclear test. (AP Photo/Lee Jin-man)

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — The armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953 is, at best, a fragile thing: The countries overseeing it have formally accused each other of more than 1.2 million violations.

But North Korea's threat to scrap the cease-fire next Monday still matters because the armistice is the key document blocking hostilities on the Korean Peninsula, which technically has remained in a state of war for six decades.

If North Korea follows through on its threat to nullify the document that set up the heavily armed buffer zone between the Koreas, it could drive badly frayed relations even lower. The threat comes as diplomats at the U.N. negotiate sanctions aimed at punishing Pyongyang for its recent nuclear test and as allies Washington and Seoul plan massive war games set to start Monday.

Here's a look at what the North's threat could mean for the Korean Peninsula's fragile peace:

ON THE GROUND:

The armistice signed on July 27, 1953, set up an apparatus meant to govern a cease-fire ending the war. It can be seen most clearly at the Demilitarized Zone between North and South.

(Continued at the link below)

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae69a7523db45408eeb2b3a98c0c9c5/Article_2013-03-06-AS-NKorea-Armistice-Why-It-Matters/id-c97e8f364f0041bbaccb62ea6d3ce0e7