Thread by @BonicMichael

Maximum Pressure is Antithetical to Promoting Peace and Reducing Tensions:
Frank Aum delineates two paths of diplomacy the US can take w/ North Korea
A New North Korea Policy?

2/There are two paths of diplomacy the US can take w/ North Korea:

I) Deterring North Korea, or

II) Improving Relations with North Korea

The goals in the conventional non-risk-taking approach (deterring North Korea) are:
1) Preventing a war with North Korea
2) Maintaining

3/strong deterrence
3 Coercing Pyongyang into submission
4 Enforcing International sanctions

If we want to expand our goals so they involve:
1) Building peace and confidence
2) Improving relations
3) Reducing tensions
4) Making tangible progress on mutual security
then we have

4/to take a more aggressive, unconventional risk-taking approach that has presidential-level prioritization.

We have to ask: “What are our goals?”

There are two strategies:
I) True Maximum Pressure &
II) Adopt a bold Peace Offensive that:
a) Sincerely seeks to improve relations

5/with North Korea
b) Maximizes engagement
b) Addresses security concerns

If the goal is to reduce tensions and promote peace, then a Maximum Pressure Campaign is completely antithetical to these goals.

“Pressure is inherently a hostile policy. It seeks to coerce, not

6/“persuade…[Neither] North Korea [nor] China responds well to pressure.”

Thanks to Frank’s analysis we get why DPRK always accuses the US of a “hostile policy”: Pressure is inherently a hostile policy! The DPRK is waiting for the US to pivot towards a

https://twitter.com/bonicmichael/status/1478945971845304320?s=21

7/bold new diplomatic approach focused on reducing tensions, promote peace & addressing security guarantees. It’s unlikely this will happen under Biden so they’re likely looking to 2024 for the next opportunity to make progress or a breakthrough in US-DPRK relations.