An Agreement at the Turning Point : A Nuclear Freeze for Peace Treaty June 2017 Cheong Wook-sik / Director, Peace Network
Nearly thirty years have passed since North Korea captured attention worldwide for its nuclear program. In those thirty years, we have had crises that could very well have led to an all-out war, and also, agreements made as a result of diplomatic efforts. We have intensified sanctions and pressure on North Korea, especially since 2009 when the six-party talks were stalled. Despite such measures, however, North Korea is now estimated to have about 20 nuclear weapons and a number of ballistic missiles that could carry them. Many analysts predict that it is only a matter of time before North Korea develops ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) that could reach continental U.S. At the time of writing, North Korea is yet at conduct its much-anticipated sixth nuclear test. On the other hand, North Korea has conducted ballistic missile tests nine times already this year, which is a great cause for concern to everybody. And, while there are all kinds of theories explaining this trend, the foremost motive on the part of North Korea is to ‘deter American threat’ based on its analysis of the U.S. military capabilities in the region, which is to say North Korea has been showing determination to have within its reach U.S. military ‘hub’ in Asia-Pacific including not only the U.S. forces based in South Korea and Japan, but also the Guam and Hawaii where Pacific Command (PACOM) is based. It is in line with Kim Jong-un’s ‘Byung-jin Line,’ which is to focus on economic development by reducing cost on “conventional forces” with nuclear and missile capability enhancement. This speaks to the harsh reality of peace and security situation on Korean Peninsula that the denuclearization of North Korea is extremely difficult, for Kim Jong-un regime views ‘nuclear deterrence’ to be such an essential element in its national security. The problem is, while North Korea’s determination to become a nuclear state is becoming stronger and stronger, the international community’s strategy to deal with such determination is not at all effective or ingenious. Declaring the “end of strategic patience,” Trump administration has put forward a new North Korea policy titled “maximum pressure and engagement.” Its strategy, however, is pretty much on par with the previous administration’s in that it still relies heavily on stronger pressure and sanctions, an attempt at isolation, show of force through 1