Tuesday, March 13, 2018

North Korea’s Recent Proposal: A Path Towards Denuclearization of The Korean Peninsula or A Horrific Nuclear War (Final & Edited Version).

If the hypothetical plan explored in this article is not the real intention of Kim Jong-Un for upcoming direct talks, then i seriously suggest the decision makers in North Korea, South Korea and China read this article and think about it. 

The recent proposal of North Korea amid direct talk with President Trump with regards to solving the conflict in Korean Peninsula and denuclearization of this part of the world has generated mixed messages, confused reactions and heated debates among many high-ranking politicians and think tanks around the world. This issue raises the following questions. Are these reactions & debates compatible with the reality of current situation? What is the possible intention of North Korea behind this unexpected and sudden proposal? And would this surprising proposal lead to a peaceful, fundamental and sustainable solution for nearly seven decades old conflict in Korean peninsula?
When it comes to Korean peninsula conflict and recent proposal of North Korea, various responses and statements have been offered. These responses can briefly be categorized into the following groups.

A- The First Group: Happy Dreamers & Flattery Supporters:
The reaction of this group has been a combination of confused, mixed messages and some extremely exaggerated statements. In this respect, the mixed reaction of the White House about this proposal is a good example. Following receiving North Korea’s proposal directly from South Korean officials, President Trump accepted this direct talk without any precondition or objection in the first instance. In less than twenty-four hours, however, the White House changed its position and added some precondition to this meeting. Some members of this group call this news and the invitation for a direct talk a great victory for Trump administration and the result of his tough policy towards North Korea in a very exaggerated & flattery manner. Some statements such as: the sanctions have crippled North Korea, Trump’s tough policy has forced Kim Jong-Un to retreat from his aggressive position, North Korea has started to respect the USA, woooooooow Kim Jong-Un has invited President Trump for a direct talk and this is a very huge achievement or President Trump has done an important job or Trump is going to make A Historical Deal that the previous U.S. presidents have not been able to do, etc are some of the extremely exaggerated, shallow & flattery expressions, that we hear from the members of this group from different directions.
When it comes to this group, the following explanations are in order.

A-1: This is a fact that our contemporary legitimate international institutions, laws, conventions and regulations suffer from various types of structural and fundamental weaknesses and loopholes. Due to the existence of these weaknesses and loopholes: A- there is no legitimate powerful and authoritative international body in our world to fully protect and preserve the security of the weak and small states against the aggression of powerful states. In this respect, the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 could be mentioned. B- Due to these weaknesses, we are unable to deal with various challenges and conflicts around the world in a diplomatic, proper, fundamental and sustainable manner on time. The nearly seventy-years old Israeli and Palestinian conflict is an example in this regard. The existence of such weaknesses forced North Korea to obtain its nuclear weapon in order to preserve its security, sovereignty and survival against any powerful foreign threat. As long as these weaknesses exist, the chance that North Korea would give up its nuclear weapon is almost zero; unless Pyongyang or some other actors would be able to find a much better solution in this regard.

A-2: In order to obtain nuclear weapon and ballistic missile to preserve its survival and security, North Korea has experienced various types of sanctions, restrictions, political isolation and pressure in different terms and scales throughout the last couple of years. The entire country and its citizens have suffered a lot in this regard. The extreme famine and malnourishment of millions of North Korean people including children and infants (1994-1998) are just a few examples in this regard. Based on this, the idea that imposed sanctions have forced North Korea to bow down to President Trump’s demand and Pyongyang is going to give up its nuclear & ballistic missile arsenals in exchange for removing sanctions cannot be a convincing argument.  

A-3: This is a fact that imposing sanction (at any level) is not a pleasant news for any state and its citizens. But sanction by itself has some limitations, complications and side effects not only for targeted state but also for its neighboring countries. For example, in case of North Korea, the imposed sanctions would mainly target the North Korean ordinary citizens; not the North Korean political elites. Moreover, imposing sanctions on North Korea (depends on its scale & time duration) might highly likely create some type of instability and disorder in some terms within North Korea. This instability would not remain only in North Korea and its geographical territory. Sooner or later, the effects of this instability would spill over to neighboring countries such as China and South Korea in different terms, forms and scales. In this regard, influx of North Korean refugees to China & South Korea could be mentioned. From this and the notion that current political system in North Korea and this country play an important role in not only economic and Geo-Strategical aspects but also from ideological point of view for China, we can conclude that no matter how hard the USA, its allies and generally speaking the international community would try, China would not allow that the imposed sanctions would lead North Korea towards an irreversible breaking point.

A-4: When it comes to North Korea’s invitation for direct talk, President Trump was not / is not the first U.S. sitting president. There have been some number of attempts in this regard in case of previous U.S. sitting presidents.

A-3: This proposal is just a simple positive sign for starting a series of negotiations & talks; which might highly likely happen in the next coming months or might not happen at all due to some unexpected event or reason. In addition, the full details of this round of negotiations are still unknown not only for us as some ordinary citizens but also for both current North Korean & Trump administrations. Moreover, we have absolutely no idea at this stage, whether this round of talks would lead to a positive, fundamental & sustainable result at the end of the road or not. Considering these issues, raising the flag of victory or shouting hooray by and for any actor at this stage is an extremely shallow reaction, which mainly derives from the lack of proper knowledge about some subjects such as International Relations, International Politics and Foreign Policy. To sum up this part, I suggest this group to be patient for a while, wait to see the final episode of this story and then decide what to do.                  

B- The Second Group: Naysayers & Visible Warmongers:
This group includes various approaches from those, who believe that this is another trick of North Korea and by this move, Pyongyang would try to buy time, to those, who claim that this upcoming meeting would legitimize the current political system in North Korea and would consequently increase the popularity of Kim Jong-Un, to those, who openly & publicly propose that the current tension in the Korean Peninsula has only one solution and that is a Pre-Emptive Bloody Nose Strike” on military and nuclear facilities of North Korea. This group with different words, tunes and “Analyses” would pursue one goal and that is: closing the road towards a fundamental & sustainable solution for Korean Peninsula through a diplomatic & peaceful manner. In fact, the members of this group would directly, indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, not only would try to preserve the current critical and dangerous status quo in the Korean peninsula, but also in some cases would try to pave the way towards a devastating direct military confrontation against North Korea somewhere in the future based on numerous reasons, which exploring them is beyond the scope of this short article.
The statements of this group deserve brief evaluations as follows.

B-1: Some high ranking political figures and pundits in the West do not still recognize the political system in North Korea and its leader Kim Jong-Un as legitimate entity and political official. This group is free to keep its opinion in this regards until the end of the world, but this group cannot convince or force us to deny the following facts:- there are nearly 195 countries in our world (Including the Holy City & the State of Palestine), which North Korea is one of them – As a sovereign & independent state, North Korea with its special type of political system is an official member of the international community and the UN - Kim Jong-Un is the current leader of North Korea and North Korean people. Whether some like it or not, agree or disagree with it, these facts exist in our world beyond the will, power and authority of any powerful state, institution, actor.

B-2: Considering the facts mentioned above and the scope of inherent hostility between North Korean political system and some political systems in the West, which derives from their ideological differences, the idea that the upcoming meeting would legitimize North Korean political system or its leader Kim Jong-Un is a very illogical, shallow and outdated argument in my opinion.

B-3: Some claim that this is another trick of North Korea and by this proposal, Pyongyang want to buy time. There is no doubt that North Korea has used different types of tricks and tactics in the past to buy time and pursue its secret nuclear & ballistic missile programs behind the scene. But as the recent tests openly and publicly confirm, the country has achieved those goals. Based on this argument and some other reasons, which will be discussed in the following sections, I can claim that not only North Korea does not need additional time to buy, but also there is “No Proper Time For Buying Time” at this critical stage.    

B-4: A “Pre-Emptive Bloody Nose Strike”: Such A Move Like A Black hole Will Undoubtedly Drag Many Countries Into A Devastating Long Period Military Confrontation, Exactly Like the First & Second World Wars.
The proponents of this “genius” proposal claim that by a short-fast-comprehensive military strike on all military, nuclear and other vital facilities of North Korea, the USA and its allies would be able to force North Korea to abandon its nuclear, ballistic missile and other type of WMD programs for ever or for many years to come and consequently they would win the war. What this group of experts would describe for us by this proposal is in fact similar to a scenario of one of those Hollywoodian movies, wherein someone like Sylvester. Stallone or Chuck. Norris or Steven. Seagal by the help of some handful but invincible associates would attack a hypothetical naughty country, kill many of their enemies, overthrow its political system or rescue some prisoners and return to their home safe and happily in a very short period of time at the end of the story. I don’t like to shatter the dream of this group of so-called “Experts”. But I can ensure them with one thing: A Pre-Emptive Bloody Nose Strike on North Korea, which would undoubtedly cause unlimited catastrophic consequences in multiple dimensions, would be the source of endless tragic movies, documentary movies, theatrical performances, books, articles, poems, etc for some decades to come. But not a single one of them would be similarly pleasant like one of those movies that this group of experts have seen from those actors mentioned above.
This group of so-called “Experts” would not or do not want to pay attention to the following facts and some extremely dangerous possibilities.

B-4-1: The USA & its allies have not been able to overthrow and change the political system in North Korea whether during three years devastating war between 1950-1953 or through different types of covert or overt attempts so far. Considering numerous developments in different conventional and non-conventional weaponry, arms and military sectors by North Korea, China and Russia in the past couple of decades, how on earth would the USA and its allies be able to win a military confrontation against North Korea through a Bloody Nose Strike?

B-4-2: Whether by itself or by the help of some foreign state/s or non-state/s actor/s or obtained from “the Black Market”, North Korea has achieved enough knowledge, expertise and technology to build and develop its nuclear weapon and ballistic missile. This is a fact now. A military strike on North Korean nuclear & ballistic missile facilities, even a successful & comprehensive one, might totally destroy the entire military muscle of North Korea. But it cannot completely and for ever erase and delete the knowledge and expertise of nuclear and ballistic missile programs from the brain of North Korean scientists or North Korean data system. Such a military strike (if successfully would be implemented & finished in a short period of time) might temporary interrupt North Korea in this regard, but it would not stop it for ever. Regardless of what might happen in the future, this type of knowledge and expertise exist and remain in North Korea; it will continue with its cycle of production and development (more or less, slow or fast, depends on many factors) in the future as well. Unless, we, as the international community, would be able to find a proper, fundamental and sustainable solution for this conflict for once and for ever.

B-4-3:  Another issue that the proponents of a Bloody Nose Strike against North Korea would not pay attention to it at all, is the fact that current North Korea is a nuclear-armed country and in terms of its nuclear & ballistic missile programs, it has achieved the capability to hit any target around the world including anywhere in the USA, as the recent tests confirm. In addition, we should bear in mind that North Korea might not be a highly developed country in different terms. But, when it comes to conventional weapons, North Korea has allocated most of its budget in the past couple of decades on its military muscle. From this, we can conclude that not only some cities like Seoul or Tokyo each with a population size of 10 million citizens, but also almost everywhere around the world are within the range of either conventional, unconventional or both types of military arsenals of North Korea.
The combination of this information and the concept of a Bloody Nose Strike raises the following questions. 1- What might be the possible reaction of North Korea following a Bloody Nose Strike? 2- Would the special forces of the USA and its allies be able to somehow detach Kim Jong-Un and his responsible deputies from the famous “Red Bottom” before or during a Bloody Nose Strike, the way that “Sylvester. Stallone, Chuck. Norris and Steven. Seagal” perform in some movies? And finally, 3- What might be the overall consequences of a Bloody Nose Strike on North Korea?  
As briefly explored in the previous section, North Korea has gone through various types of austerity, isolation and restriction and paid a very heavy price in different terms specially in the past couple of years in order to obtain its nuclear and ballistic missile weapons. These types of costly unconventional weapons have not been developed and obtained to be used only for decoration or purely for some military parades. These powerful weapons are responsible to preserve the security & survival of North Korea against any type of foreign threat. In addition, we should also bear in mind that no matter how powerful, North Korea cannot militarily compete with the USA by only using its conventional weapons, in case of a military confrontation. The decision makers in Pyongyang are fully aware of this weakness. To put it simply, a Bloody Nose Strike, would put North Korea in some type of compulsory “now or never” or “use it or lose it” conditions. Based on these details, we can answer the Q1 by saying that North Korea would highly likely use all its conventional and unconventional military power including its nuclear and ballistic missile arsenals to defend itself in case of a Bloody Nose Strike performed by the USA and its allies.
The answer to Q2 is negative based on many reasons including intelligence, security and technical points of view. No country including North Korea would put all its eggs in one basket, especially when it comes to a very critical and vital issue like this one. In addition, we should bear in mind that we are talking about a highly militarized and organized state like North Korea; not a failed and chaotic one like current Libya. The answer to Q3 starts with the retaliatory reaction of North Korea following a hypothetical Bloody Nose Strike on its territory. In such a hypothetical event, North Korea would highly likely use all its conventional and unconventional military muscle by all means and target various bases, facilities and cities not only in South East Asia (e.g. Japan) but also in the USA. The chance that current high-tech Missile Défense systems of the USA and those states, who would join the USA in this adventurous & miscalculated operation, would be able to completely deter and dismantle North Korean nuclear & ballistic missiles (in short conventional & unconventional weapons) and fully protect their facilities, cities and citizens is almost zero. Some of these missiles & rockets would undoubtedly hit some targets in the countries of aggressors.
This simply means the beginning of a devastating nuclear war. Hitting some targets within the U.S. soil would inevitably force NATO to trigger the Article 5 and enter into the war against North Korea. We should bear in mind that parts of these hypothetical horrific and destructive events are happening in North Korea one of the closest allies and neighbouring countries of China. China would not remain silent & watch the collapse of North Korean political system and total destruction of this country close to its borders. This issue would undoubtedly force China to enter the war to protect North Korea. Not to mention, China is a leading member of the Shanghai Treaty. Its participation in such a war, would force other members of Shanghai Treaty including Russia would enter the war and the rest of the story.
In short, a Bloody Nose Strike on North Korea, like a black hole, will undoubtedly drag many countries into a devastating & catastrophic nuclear war, worse than the First & Second World War. Needless to explore the scope of collateral damages, environmental destruction and overall horrific negative consequences of such an event in different terms. In a very short sentence, I can only say that an event like this would highly likely turn the entire remaining human community (If any would remain) into some cave dwellers. To sum up, the proponents of a Bloody Nose Strike can be categorized into two major groups. 1- The First Group: Those, who physically are living in 2018, but their mind, mentality and perception about international politics and many events around the world are floating in the memories of those golden years in 1950s, 60s or 70s. This group might observe various types of real changes & developments in different terms in current world affairs with their own senses, but their outdated and frozen mindset is preferably eager to revitalize those golden years in the past at any cost, no matter how. 2- The Second Group: Those, who are ready to sacrifice everything including their own fellow citizens & countries in order to achieve their own economic and Geo-Strategic interests. The finger prints of these two groups are clearly visible in many tragic and destructive events around the world. Among these tragic events, the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 could be mentioned.   

C- The Third Group: Old School & Proponents of Current Status Quo:
This group includes various approaches, from those experts, who are totally criticizing, rejecting and ignoring “the Sunshine Policy” and its positive achievements, to those, who claim that nuclear weapon is an assurance for survival of North Korean political system and this country would never give up its nuclear & ballistic missile weapons. One of the major problems of proponents of these approaches is the notion that they might reject and refute a policy, for example in case of the Sunshine Policy and current tension with North Korea, but they do not offer a reasonable, archivable, fundamental and sustainable alternative compatible with current reality on the ground for this conflict. The second major problem of this group is that its proponents are sticking to old and in some cases outdated arguments and they do not want to accept the fact that there might be a new proposal beyond their old-school driven idea for this conflict. In this respect, the recent argument of Fareed. Zakaria is a good example. In an interview with Anderson. Cooper about recent proposal of North Korea, Fareed. Zakaria repeated the same old statement that the nuclear weapon is an assurance for survival of North Korean political system and this country would never give them up. According to Fareed. Zakaria’s statement, there is no other way, at all, other than his proposal.
Contrary to the arguments of this group, I believe there might be a new proposal, which by its implementation, we might be able to preserve the survival of North Korea and at the same time denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. The following section will explore this new proposal with more arguments.   

C-1: The Survival of North Korea, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula And Possible Intention Of North Korea By This Unexpected Proposal:
The argument of F. Zakaria and some experts like him in this regard is not wrong by itself. Based on what all we have learned throughout our studies; this argument is correct. But contrary to F. Zakaria and people like him, I look at this issue from another perspective and claim that there might be a new proposal, which would achieve both goals simultaneously. A hypothetical plan, which in case of its successful implementation, would simultaneously preserve the survival of North Korea and would lead to denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula at the end of the road. Here is the story.
My hypothesis starts from the point that without some type of deliberate help or support or assistance or green light of China, a small neighbouring country like North Korea couldn’t achieve such successful results in terms of obtaining nuclear and ballistic missile weapons. Such developments not only Would preserve and maintain the survival of North Korea against any foreign threat but also would automatically create a secure buffer zone in Southern part of China and partly in the Korean Peninsula against China’s rivals. Such developments would, in addition, dramatically change the balance of power in some parts of South East Asia in the favour of China and its close allies. This is the beneficiary dimension of this story, which mainly includes North Korea and China. But this story has a losing dimension for some other states as well. In this respect, the USA as a global super power and two neighbouring countries of South Korea and Japan could be mentioned. Not to mention, there are some other actors around the world, who based on different reasons criticize and condemn the recent nuclear and ballistic missile developments of North Korea. I leave aside this part.    

In short, these new developments have, to a large extent, intensified the scope of tension in the Korean Peninsula. It would not be illogical, if we say that the Korean Peninsula or some parts of South East Asia are on the verge of a devastating huge explosion following these developments and its possible consequences. In order to control the further intensification of this tension and solve this conflict, North Korea and China (behind the scene) have highly likely come up with the following hypothetical plan in my opinion. Based on my hypothesis, the plan is that North Korea would make a deal with China indicating that China would provide a nuclear, ballistic missile and full defence umbrella for North Korea against any foreign threat including the USA. (This part of the plan might be kept secretly between Chinese and North Korean political systems or might openly and publicly be announced to the rest of the world). Following this guarantee, North Korea would agree to fully give up its nuclear & ballistic missile arsenals and hand over them either to China or a neutral legitimate international body like the UN. In exchange for these moves, North Korea would highly likely demand the USA to fully close all its military bases and withdraw all its military forces from the Korean Peninsula or maybe further from Japan as well. As briefly explained above, by successful implementation of this hypothetical plan, not only the survival of North Korea would be preserved, but also the Korean Peninsula would be denuclearized, contrary to the statement of F. Zakaria and other experts like him. Some might claim such a scenario is impossible. In response to this claim, following explanations are in order.

C-1-1: I don’t claim that China & North Korea would execute this plan with 100% guarantee. But I argue that there is high probability in this regard.

C-1-2: In case of implementation of such a hypothetical plan, China and North Korea would not be the only or first countries to perform such a move. If we review many events in the past couple of decades, we would notice that some other countries have done such a move and have not had any major problem in terms of their survival and security following implementation of such a plan. In this respect, most of the European countries, Australia, South Korea or Japan could be mentioned. Almost all these states do have enough capacity and capability in different terms to develop highly sophisticated nuclear weapon or ballistic missile in a very short period of time. But they haven’t done that and hopefully they don’t do it in the future. Because in almost all these cases, the USA has agreed to provide a secure nuclear umbrella for them against any foreign nuclear attack. The nuclear disarmament of some former East European countries following the collapse of USSR and Eastern Bloc is another example in this regard.

C-1-3: The relationship between China and North Korea is not worse than the relationship between the USA and its allies. China has proved its full support in different terms to North Korea in the past couple of decades; Whether throughout three-year war between 1950-53 or after that up until now. Based on all explained in this section, I can claim that this hypothetical plan is not a strange, illogical, or impossible one. This hypothetical plan would raise an important question as follows.

D- Why or based on what type of calculation might China & North Korea have come up with such a hypothetical proposal at this critical stage?
To answer this question properly, number of issues and factors could be explored.   

D-1: The conflict between the USA and North Korea Has Reached its Final Peak.
The first and important thing is the fact that our world and the entire its components are not static objects and subjects. Everything is changing. These changes would occur due to internal or external factors, actors or forces. They might be partly or fully progressive or regressive. To put it simply, everything is in an infinite motion and transformation; a movement within some types of continuous and constant cycles, which each cycle has a start point and an end point or Peak Point. By Peak Point, I mean that subject or object based on some reasons and factors should move to new cycle. The end point of one cycle for every object or subject is the start point of a new cycle or a new phase. Each cycle has some type of duration. This duration in some cases, might be measurable or unmeasurable in advance, based on many reasons. For example, in case of an object like an apple, we might be able to estimate that a special type of apple Nr 1 in X temperature would be rotten after X days, if we keep it out of the refrigerator. Such an argument can be applied to all apple Nr 1 everywhere around the world. But, for subjects and events, this type of estimation, in advance, is difficult or I might say nearly impossible in most of the cases. This brief information can be used and applied in various parts of our human community including in our conflict with each other. The case of current tension in Syria is a good example in this regard.

The USA, some other Western countries, Israel and some Arab states have spent billions of dollars in the past seven years, in order to remove Bashar. Assad from the power and establish a friendly government in Syria, based on many reasons. After all these years effort and using various types of resources, this group has not been able to achieve its objective in this regard again based on numerous reasons, which exploring them is beyond the scope of this article. The current situation of Syria is simply the following: The Syrian rebels are continuously losing the battle in different parts of the country and on the contrary, Bashar. Assad and his allies Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are seizing the ground in Syria. Based on what I briefly explored in the beginning of this section and my calculation, the conflict in Syria has reached its “Peak Point”. By this, I mean that the conflict in Syria has reached its final point and cannot continue like before based on many reasons. In other words, the conflict in Syria has finished a cycle and has entered a new phase. Again, based on some reasons and unfortunately, this new phase has only two limited options and nothing else. A- A peaceful and diplomatic solution and compromise between Bashar. Assad and his opponents and consequently, putting an end to this conflict or B- A direct military confrontation and war between The USA and its allies in one side, Russia, Iran and Syria in the other side. 

There is no third achievable option for this conflict. Some might claim that by continuation of the civil war or some changes in strategy or tactics, some Syrian rebels might recapture some areas from Bashar. Assad somewhere in the future like before. This option can be tried; some Syrian rebels might also be able to recapture some areas after a while. But I will assure you, such a move will lead to a direct military confrontation and war somewhere in the middle of this process based on again: Many existing factors at the present time in current Syria. In this respect, if someone asks me about the Peak Point in terms of Israel-Palestine conflict or current war in Yemen or Afghanistan, my answer would be negative. Based on my calculation and analysis, these three conflicts have not reached their Peak Points and would not reach the Peak Point in a foreseeable future; unless something extraordinary happen. Based on all explained above and many reasons, I can claim that the case of nuclear- armed North Korea and as a whole the conflict between North Korea and the USA at this particular period of time have reached its Final Peak Point. This simply means continuation of current status quo in the Korean Peninsula is nearly impossible and current standoff between the USA and North Korea would not and cannot last for a long period of time anymore. These new developments in North Korea have left the USA with only two limited options. The first option is that the USA would accept a nuclear-armed North Korea and close its eyes to this event. If the USA would accept this issue, some other countries around the world would learn from this event and would try to develop their own nuclear weapon. In this respect, Iran is a dangerous and suspicious actor for Trump administration and its allies in the Middle East.  Accepting a nuclear-armed North Korea, in addition, means not only diminishing the U.S. power, authority and influence in the Korean Peninsula, but also a devastating breaking point for the USA as a powerful state at global level.

The second option for the USA and its allies (South Korea might not join) is a direct military confrontation and a nuclear war with North Korea and its possible allies. Such a move would be a catastrophic event in different terms for many actors including the USA itself. Some might claim there might be a third option and that would be that North Korea would give up its nuclear & ballistic missiles in exchange for some type of written agreement guarantee by the USA or the UN. The chance for such an option is very low or I might say nearly impossible based on many reasons including the existence of many weaknesses & loopholes in our world system. Considering all explained above, if we put our feet in the shoes of the main decision makers in the USA, we might highly likely come to the conclusion to go for the second option; although it is a very risky move based on many reasons.  By choosing this option: 1- the USA might be able to preserve its global authority, 2- The USA would destroy most of the nuclear and ballistic missile facilities of North Korea, if not all and 3- The USA would send an extremely alarming sign to Iran or some other possible actors around the world, who are thinking to develop their nuclear weapon. I think the main decision makers in Beijing and Pyongyang have reached such a calculation in their analyses; therefore, they might propose this hypothetical plan.  

D-2: The Special Progressive Position of China At Regional & Global Level:
Some part of the reason behind proposing such a hypothetical plan by China might have a direct correlation with progressive position of China at regional and global level. If we review the moves of China since last couple of decades up until now, we might notice few important characteristics as follows.

D-2-1: From 1970s to End of 1990s & Beginning of 2000s: Accepting and Implementing Free Market Economy & Reform: In this phase, the main focus of China in different terms is mainly and mostly on growth, development and reform at domestic level.  

D-2-2: From End of 1990s & Beginning of 2000s Onward: In this phase, In addition to its domestic issues, China is starting to expand its economic and soft power leverages around the world.

D-2-3: In 2001, China along with some of its allies create the Shanghai Treaty.

D-2-4: Up Until 2015: The main focus of China is only on economic and soft power expansion around the world. Throughout all these years, China tries to do not repeat some of those mistakes of former USSR (For example: costly and futile project-mistake or generating unnecessary hostility, etc) in its relation with the USA or some other powerful actors.  

D-2-5: From 2015-Onward: In this phase, we observe some new shifts and patterns in China’s foreign policy. In this phase, in addition to its regular economic and soft power expansion around the world, we observe that China is starting to increase its military presence and expansion gradually and steady in some parts of the world. In this respect, deploying some military advisers to Syria, building a military base in Djibouti (Naval-2015-2016), building the artificial Islands in South East Asia (from probably 2015 onward) could be mentioned. To all these details, the recent change in China’s Constitutional Laws and offering Xi Jinping unlimited Presidential term should be added.  
The details noted above specially the last paragraph indicate a fact that China has entered a new phase. A new phase, which is a combination of long term planning, growth, development, expansion in different terms and building a progressive powerful military muscle to preserve not only the previous achievements but also the future ones. Such an important and critical long-term phase requires one solid and well-experienced leader, according to the policy makers in China. One might ask what is the correlation between the details of this section and the hypothetical plan of North Korea amid direct talk with President Trump and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula? The tricky point is here in my opinion. As explored above, China has a long-term plan to expand its power in different terms around the world. A direct military confrontation between the USA and North Korea because of nuclear weapon & ballistic missile not only would not help China in that regard; on the contrary, it would inevitably drag China into a devastating nuclear war with the USA. The simply means that China would lose most of everything that it has achieved throughout all past decades. From this point of view and calculation, I think, China has convinced North Korea and both have developed such a hypothetical plan. The Nuclear & ballistic missile disarmament of North Korea and providing a full Defence Umbrella for North Korea is less costly and safer for China. In addition, by this hypothetical plan, China might cause the withdrawal of the U.S. military forces from the Korean Peninsula and maybe more from Japan as well.      

E- What would be the possible response of the President Trump with regard to this hypothetical plan?
In my opinion, if the entire this process from A to Z was fully in the hands of the current “U.S. First Administration” (i.e. the President Trump, Ivanka. Trump and Jared. Kushner), I could say with high probability that the USA would agree with the entire details of this hypothetical plan. However, due to the fact that A-This is a very serious & critical matter, B- As the president of the USA, D. Trump has some limitations with regard to the U.S. Constitutional Laws, C- Those powerful U.S. institutions and actors, who have supported and helped D. Trump to become the president, have different types of demands and will, and D- There are well-experienced people such as General J. Mattis, General H. R. McMaster and M. Popmpeo in Trump administration, predicting the response of the President Trump in this case with high certainty is not an easy task. However, due to the enormous catastrophic consequences of a possible military confrontation and nuclear war with North Korea, the President Trump and its Second Administration might come to the logical conclusion to accept this hypothetical plan. Should this happen, there might be some type of diplomatic marathon amid withdrawal of the U.S. forces from only the Korean Peninsula or Japan as well. But these differences with some compromises and negotiations could be solved. Reaching such a hypothetical point, would pave the way towards the Unification of both North and South Korea in a much faster and shorter period of time.   

Based on all explained in this article, I can admit that the current situation in the Korean Peninsula has reached a very dangerous, critical and tense point. At this stage, we are left only with two options. The first one is a military confrontation between North Korea and the USA, which like a black hole would drag many countries into the devastating nuclear war worse than the First and Second World War. The second option is a hypothetical plan, which would put an end to the conflict in the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful and diplomatic manner for once and for ever. What I partly explored in this article was my prediction about the possible proposal of North Korea and China for this conflict. My prediction might not come true. North Korea or China or South Korea or the USA might come with a much better plan following the upcoming negotiations. I personally hope so. However, if they have not developed a plan yet, the details of this article might be a source of inspiration for them.

M. Sirani        13.03.2018