I find this more than a little incredible.  First, I although I find much with which to disagree regarding foreign policy and national security with the administration I am very skeptical that the President and anyone in the administration would have such a lack of understanding of the nature of the Kim Family Regime or its strategy.  A few things we should keep in mind in addition to the fact that north Korea is not Iran and if anyone thinks that we could negotiate with north Korea as we just did with Iran then he or she fails to recall the history of the Agreed Framework.

First, the US has not real standing to negotiate a peace treaty.  Our position should be that a peace treaty to end the Korean War has to be negotiated between north and South Korea.  Although we fought in the Korean War we did so under UN authorities and in fact the Armistice in 1953 was negotiated between the north Koreans, the Chinese Peoples' Volunteers, and the United Nations. The US and the ROK are not signatories to the Armistice (the US commander signed for the UN). The US can of course enter into negotiations and make security guarantees in return for the dismantling of the north's nuclear program but it should not enter into a peace treaty to end the war, especially if not done in complete lock-step with the ROK.

We should also understand why the north wants a peace treaty with the US.  It wants to split the ROK/US alliance and get US forces off the peninsula so that it will be able to reunify the peninsula by force. As far fetched as that might sound to some the north's strategy has been well known and articulated for decades.  And of course negotiating a separate peace with the US also supports another key element of the regime's strategy which is to split the ROK/US alliance.  I have to believe that there are those in the administration who know and understand this which is why I am very skeptical of this supposed offer for negotiations.  No one can possibly think that the Iran model can be applied to north Korea now.  As I have said traditional or conventional international relations theoretical approaches are not applicable to the Kim Family Regime.

However, if this is true and did in fact occur then we should take some solace in knowing that we can confirm the nature of the Kim Family Regime and its strategy.  The engagers and those who believe that if we simply need to give the north what they want and the regime will then denuclearize and live peacefully should no longer be living under the illusion or delusion that the north can act as a responsible member of the international community.  

On the other hand we should also realize that if this did occur it confirms what many have thought.  This is calling the north's bluff.  By committing to peace negotiations and if a peace treaty could by some miracle be concluded, the north's very legitimacy would be undercut.  The north actually does not want nor can it have a peace treaty with the US because it is the US as an enemy that provides the legitimacy and rationale for the regime and its oppression of the Korean people living in the north.  More importantly it is the justification for the large military and if there was no need for a large military the regime could be threatened with collapse.  We should note that it is the coherency and support of the military that is one of the two key elements that prevent regime collapse, the other being the ability of the regime (through the Party) to govern from the center (Pyongyang).  The loss of military support and  coherency would cause regime collapse.  Therefore the regime cannot enter into peace negotiations.

So the bottom line is if this is a true report then someone in the administration either does not really understand the regime ORthe administration has actually undertaken one of the best deception operations to call the north's bluff and to ensure the US has the moral high ground to implement the toughest sanctions regime and ultimately change the US strategy from simply deterrence and defense and trying to eliminate the north's nuclear program to one that focuses on what comes next after the Kim Family Regime.  That of course is unification because as I have said many times, it is my belief that we will never see an end to the nuclear and missile programs and the crimes against humanity being perpetrated against the Korean people living in the north by the mafia-like crime family cult known as the Kim Family Regime except through unification and the establishment of a United Republic of Korea (UROK). This action by the administration may have been to give the north one last chance and now we have complete justification to move beyond our current strategic paralysis and focus on the only way out of this complex situation.  We will have to see the next steps in the US and the ROK/US strategy to determine whether the administration really does understand the Kim Family Regime and if it has taken perhaps one of the more sophisticated foreign policy actions in the last 8 years.  

U.S. Agreed to North Korea Peace Talks Before Latest Nuclear Test

Pyongyang rejected condition that nuclear arms would be on the agenda—and then carried out atomic test

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-agreed-to-north-korea-peace-talks-1456076019

By 

ALASTAIR GALE in Seoul and

 

CAROL E. LEE in Washington

Feb. 21, 2016 12:33 p.m. ET

1 COMMENTS

Days before North Korea’s latest nuclear-bomb test, the Obama administration secretly agreed to talks to try to formally end the Korean War, dropping a longstanding condition that Pyongyang first take steps to curtail its nuclear arsenal.

Instead the U.S. called for North Korea’s atomic-weapons program to be simply part of the talks. Pyongyang declined the counter-proposal, according to U.S. officials familiar with the events. Its nuclear test on Jan. 6 ended the diplomatic gambit.

The episode, in an exchange at the United Nations, was one of several unsuccessful attempts that American officials say they made to discuss denuclearization with North Korea during President Barack Obama’s second term while also negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program.

Mr. Obama has pointed to the Iran deal to signal to North Korea that he is open to a similar track with the regime of Kim Jong Un. But the White House sees North Korea as far more opaque and uncooperative. The latest fruitless exchanges typified diplomacy between the U.S. and Pyongyang in recent years.

Since taking power at the end of 2011, Mr. Kim has stepped up the North’s demands for a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War, 63 years after it ended with an armistice. Many analysts see the move as an attempt to force the removal of the U.S. military in the South. The U.S. insists denuclearization must have priority, and said that has to be part of any peace talks, even while dropping the precondition that North Korea first take steps that show a willingness to give up its nuclear program.

(continued at this link)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-agreed-to-north-korea-peace-talks-1456076019

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)