Thread by @BonicMichael

BIDEN’S FIRST NEWS CONFERENCE
“President Joe Biden said Thursday that North Korea is the top foreign policy issue facing the United States.”
politico.com/news/2021/03/2…
“He warned that there will be “responses” if North Korea escalates, but signaled he was open to diplomacy.

2/"We will respond accordingly,” Biden said Thursday.

“But I'm also prepared for some form of diplomacy, but it has to be conditioned upon the end result of denuclearization.””

Squaring Biden’s North Korea Policy with Choe Son Hui’s Remarks

https://twitter.com/BonicMichael/status/1372652906072006659?s=20

3/"We have already declared our stand that no DPRK-U.S. contact and dialogue of any kind can be possible unless the U.S. rolls back its hostile policy towards the DPRK. Therefore, we will disregard such an attempt of the U.S. in the future, too.”

“In order for a dialogue to be

4/"made, an atmosphere for both parties to exchange words on an equal basis must be created.”

“It will only be a waste of time to sit with the U.S. as it is not ready to feel and accept new change and new times.”

Nonprofessional Korea watcher armchair analyst that I am, my

5/reading of Joe Biden's conditioning "some form of diplomacy" "upon the end result of denuclearization" against the backdrop of Choe Son Hui's remarks is that DPRK will be highly skeptical and dubious about US's intentions. They would need to know the precise meaning of "the end

6/result of denuclearization". If the US explicitly means "complete denuclearization of North Korea" and not "denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula", Choe Son Hui will likely say there is no "atmosphere for both parties to exchange words on an equal basis" b/c the US will be

7/unilaterally setting up the precondition where DPRK must agree at the onset that the end goal in US-DPRK diplomacy must be the "denuclearization of North Korea". This is just another iteration of the US "hostile policy" where coercion & sanctions are used in trying to force

8/DPRK to denuclearize. She'll say (quoted above👆) that since the US isn't rolling back its hostile policy, "no
DPRK-US contact and dialogue of any kind can be possible". DPRK might want to negotiate limiting their nuclear & ICBM programs if US would agree to coexist w/ nuclear

9/DPRK and commit to peace, even conceding letting USFK troops stay permanently in ROK so long as joint exercises targeting them end (this would be the double moratorium made permanent which you'd think DC would be glad to agree to), but there is zero oxygen for that in Biden's

10/proposition. They would ironically follow a tactic used by Trump: "No deal is better than a bad deal", and decline to sit w/ a US that preconditions talks w/ DPRK agreeing upfront to complete denuclearization as the "end result". That isn't in DPRK's national interest, doesn't

11/meet their security concerns and won't fly w/ the domestic audience. Joe Biden's NK policy - insensitive, unrealistic and unworthy of DPRK's time - will be rejected w/ disdain and DPRK will be more convinced the US "is not ready to feel and accept new changes and new times."

12/Biden then has an offramp of enforcing sanctions, which everyone agrees to, China perhaps reluctantly, and if Kim Jong Un doesn't cross the "red line" of launching a long-range ICBM or do a nuclear test, PY has a better chance "tomorrow" - esp. if Trump runs again. Then, if

13/Trump and Kim exchange communications even before the 2024 election, we could have a revisit of the Singapore Summit, w/ the subsequent failures (Hanoi) and patch work (DMV Summit that produced a highly fruitful exchange b/t Trump & Kim) baked in so that Trump and Kim would be

14/doubly motivated to forge ahead and make substantial progress to "the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula", the eventual ending of the Korean War, building trust & normalizing relations. In a journey of diplomatic discovery and an even deeper rapprochement, we could get

15/to the major crossroads of reducing threat reduction by DPRK setting a maximum limit on it's nuclear, ICBM and SLBM programs (keeping what they have and shutting down production & plutonium enrichment) - the so-called "Double Freeze" China and Russia called for - while the US

16/commits to working towards formally ending the War in a peace treaty and can live w/ a nuclear DPRK that will abide by all the conditions in the next Trump-Kim Deal (if there is one). We are already breathing fine since KJU hasn't yet broken his self-imposed double-moratorium.

17/So if DPRK agrees to a deal where it will never cross US red lines, and the US won't cross DPRK red lines (USFK joint military exercises), that's just a permanent extension of the current status quo right? Well, that's the way forward!! "We don't cross your red lines, you

18/don't cross our red lines." Each party is invested in such a deal b/c as long as it doesn't cross the other's red line it gets all the benefits of the deal. What does DPRK want? DPRK wants peace (an end to the War), as does virtually everyone else, economic integration w/ ROK

19/and normalization w/ the US and Western nations. Sanctions lifting will just be the cherry on top. DPRK wouldn't be building up it's nuclear and ICBM/SLBM capabilities if the US wanted to end the War. Peace is the "Promised Land" for DPRK b/c it will bring economic prosperity

20/to the people and allow DPRKers to freely travel the world and in and out of South Korea.

DPRK will trust the US when the US commits to peace and is willing to co-exist w/ a limited DPRK.

The US will learn it can trust DPRK by seeing it commit fully to a deal like the above

21/Joe Biden's NK policy is a dead-end for DPRK so I expect them to avoid sitting w/ the US and look to 2024, holding their position: "DPRK's nuclear weapons are non-negotiable, unless the U.S. is prepared to co-exist with the nuclear DPRK." - Choe Son Hui

@threadreaderapp compile