Thread by @BonicMichael

@ABlinken
Congrats on being nominated to SoS. You've got big shoes to fill. As a Korea watcher and 2nd Gen American I have some ideas on how to negotiate with North Korea I'd like to share freely with you. How would this A-B-C for D-E-F-G deal fly?

https://twitter.com/BonicMichael/status/1281499779785043969?s=20

2/It's premised on acknowledging North Korea's security concerns and meeting them 1/2 way. Both 100% and 0% denuclearization are ruled out in a Glass Half-Full Deal👇that meets both side's security guarantees 50%. This is "compromising" to achieve balance.

https://twitter.com/BonicMichael/status/1294535754597773314?s=20

3/WAR AND PEACE
Why a Peace Agreement Remains Critical to Resolving the Security Crisis in Korea

https://twitter.com/BonicMichael/status/1330932201630777344?s=20

4/We've been gifted with Kim Yo Jong's - Kim Jong Un's younger sister - July 10, 2020 Press Statement in which she casually and succinctly states DPRK's official position thru her candid perspective. Here's the full text in video form for easy reference:

5/I know not whether analysts & policy makers take time to parse her statements, but they contain gems of diplomatic nuance. Kim Jong Un seems to have asked her to make her statement, so her words indeed reflect official DPRK policy. These quotes Washington can take to the bank:

6/“I believe that the previous theme of the DPRK-U.S. negotiations, that is, "denuclearization measures versus lifting of sanctions" should be changed into a formula of "withdrawal of hostility versus resumption of DPRK-U.S. negotiations".

7/"It would be easier and more favourable for the U.S. to rack its brains to make our nukes no threat to the U.S., rather than racking it to dispossess our nukes."

"We do not have the slightest intention to pose a threat to the U.S. and Comrade Chairman has already made it clear

8/"to President Trump.

Everything will go smoothly if they leave us alone and make no provocation on us."

In the following video Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Choe Son Hui affirms DPRK's nuclear policy:

9/"DPRK's nuclear weapons are non-negotiable, unless the U.S. is prepared to co-exist with the nuclear DPRK. Because this is the only way to ensure lasting peace on the Korean peninsula and stability and security in the North East Asia."

10/Add her statement to this by Kim Yo Jong: "It would be easier and more favourable for the U.S. to rack its brains to make our nukes no threat to the U.S., rather than racking it to dispossess our nukes." and North Korea's logic-based strategic position comes into focus:

11/DPRK's nukes are "non-negotiable" as long as the U.S. isn't prepared to co-exist with the nuclear DPRK. This 👆statement is the contrapositive of this 👇one:

"DPRK's nukes are negotiable if the U.S. is prepared to co-exist with nuclear DPRK."

The logical breakdown:

12/Let A = "U.S. is NOT willing to co-exist w/ the nuclear DPRK"

Let B = "DPRK's nukes are NON-negotiable"

If A then B is: If the U.S. is NOT willing to co-exist w/ the nuclear DPRK, then DPRK's nukes are NON-negotiable.

That's the essence of what Choe Son Hui said and meant.

13/So what's the contrapositive of: If A then B? Or: If not B then not A?

not B = DPRK's nukes are negotiable

not A = U.S. is willing to co-exist w/ the nuclear DPRK

If not B then not A = If DPRK's nukes are negotiable, then the U.S. is willing to co-exist w/ the nuclear DPRK.

14/I've concluded this: They want to negotiate their nukes but only if the U.S. is willing to co-exist w/ the nuclear DPRK. The Glass Half-Full proposition accept a nuclear DPRK that agrees to finite limits on it's nuclear & ICBM programs. Will it work? That's my question to you.

@threadreaderapp compile