Reestablishing Peace on the Korean Peninsula

Consider the Vietnam and German experiences.

In Vietnam there was a horrible conflict and America was involved to protect the Democracy of the South. It can only be called a complete and tragic failure -- for America. For the two Vietnams it ended in a reuniting of the country and today they have changed to become a better place. Which part of that story was bad and which was good? The first part was terrible and the second was better. It wasn't the success America wanted, but the approach we favored involved a disaster. Next, consider Germany, divided after World War II. There was no war. It was at peace. We did not seek to resolve that by conquering East Germany (because the Soviet Union backed them) and the West German part was a successful Democracy until decades later when the Soviet Union weakened their grip on East Germany and the two were reunited. There was far less suffering and despite our greiving for the lives the East Germans were forced to live, the nation reunited and today is a thriving strong nation.

Now consider the Koreas.

We are avoiding war, this time because of the tremendous dangers that nuclear powers present. That is an improvement over the Vietnam experience. It means the South has been able to become a strong thriving Democracy, as did West Germany. Unlike the German experience, in N. Korea the nuclear threat isn't likely to dissipate or dissolve in four or forty decades. But, there is a willingness on the part of their leadership to talk about another path forward. That is good. It has only been a few decades (1950s-2010s) that the N. Koreans have had a very difficult poor life. The question then is what method to use to avoid having to wait for the nukes to disappear, so the two nations can recommence good relations or plan for some future reuniting.

I have watched time and time again the Israeli - Palestinian peace talks fail. The message from that is that if the two parties don't want it enough, it won't happen. Golda Meir once said they will want it (peace) when they value the lives of their children more than their hatred for the other. In Korea I don't believe the two sides hate one another at all. That's a huge advantage when trying to devise a method or process for them to talk and improve relations.

I have always been leery of negotiations processes where each side creates a list of things they want the other side to give up. It becomes a divorce in reverse -- quite unpleasant.

What I am proposing instead of war or "strategic waiting" or bickering is to create lists of things each side WANTS TO DO for the other. When two people marry they may be asked what they hope to get out of the marriage and their answers are never that the other has to give them something as much as it is a request that they be ALLOWED to give. I believe the Koreans are firmly in that camp and want to work together for their mutual benefit. This is why I believe the first part of this must be between those two parties. They each know they want the other to benefit and they know their people and what they can give. Both have political security. The South has a stronger economy. The North has a population that can work and natural resources. The way forward should probably utilize those basic facts. Limitations such as the long-standing relations the North has with China and the South has with America will not be allowed to stand in their way. It is for them to proceed. When they have established better relations on multiple fronts and we have seen the progress, there will be a time for other nations to become more involved in expanding this process. How quickly these days arrive is unknown. We will know when it happens. When does Spring arrive? We don't know precisely, but we recognize it when it when it is here.

I think the first stage is being begun ceremoniously and that's good. It's like an engagement to marry announcement or a signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (a MOU, in business terms). The Korean people will do the majority of the work and international backing will arrive when necessary to keep it moving forward.

There are clearly things that each side could do to break it off, if they want. I would hope this doesn't happen, but everyone has their own will and reasons. Nobody can do more than pretend to know the future on that. But, if the good will is strong and the desire to proceed is strong and continuous, then good things can happen. There is no need to require the other to give up things which the other consider very important. That way only leads to acrimony.