Canceling US-South Korea military exercises: Will resolving the impasse lead to a breakthrough?

A gesture of goodwill

The United States and South Korea have decided to postpone joint winter air force exercises to further current diplomatic efforts with North Korea. On November 17, South Korean Defense Minister Jeong Kyeong-doo and his U.S. counterpart Mark Esper made the announcement on the sidelines of the 6th ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM+) in Bangkok, Thailand. Speaking at a press conference, U.S. Defense Secretary Esper affirmed that this move was not a concession, but a goodwill effort "to give peace a chance."

US Defense Secretary Mark Esper and his South Korean counterpart announced the decision to postpone the joint military exercise during a meeting in Thailand on November 17. Photo: Associated Press

Earlier, Esper had left open the possibility of adjusting the upcoming joint military exercises based on conditions favorable to diplomatic efforts. Esper emphasized that the U.S. and South Korea remain flexible in their approach to supporting diplomatic efforts with Pyongyang, and therefore are not closing any doors that could facilitate progress on the diplomatic front.

The United States and South Korea have planned to conduct joint air exercises later this November, dubbed the Combined Flight Training Event. This is a scaled-down version of the two countries' original winter exercises, called Vigilant Ace. However, North Korea has criticized these plans, warning of "a greater threat" if the U.S. proceeds with the planned exercises.

The US and South Korea made this decision amid fading prospects for resuming bilateral US-North Korea nuclear talks following the fruitless summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Hanoi in February. Since then, the two leaders met again at the inter-Korean border in late June 2019 and held a working-level meeting in Sweden last month, but without achieving any results. In fact, Pyongyang has been increasing pressure on Washington to present an acceptable proposal by the end of this year, hoping for the lifting of sanctions and security guarantees in exchange for abandoning its nuclear program.

US and South Korean air forces during the Vigilant Ace 2017 exercise. Photo: Reuters

For its part, North Korea has also repeatedly urged the US to act. On November 14, the North Korean Foreign Ministry called for direct dialogue with the US "anywhere and anytime" in response to Washington's new proposal for nuclear talks in December. Kim Myong-gil, North Korea's roving ambassador and top nuclear envoy, said the US State Department had sent a message to Pyongyang proposing that officials from both sides meet in December through a third country. Kim Myong-gil also warned that if the US does not offer a fundamental solution to end its hostile policies toward Pyongyang, the issue of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula will remain unresolved. According to Kim Myong-gil, Washington is not ready to give Pyongyang a satisfactory answer, and its proposal for further talks is merely a delaying tactic. North Korea has set a deadline of the end of this year for the U.S. to offer a practical and acceptable agreement.

Is it true that "haste makes waste"?

In reality, setting aside the tough rhetoric from both sides, the US-North Korea nuclear negotiations are not as "dangerous" as they appear. The issue is that both sides need to present reasonable proposals and persevere with their plans to reach an agreement. The slow progress over the past period does not mean that the Donald Trump administration is no longer interested in the North Korean nuclear issue. 2019 is drawing to a close, and the US is still grappling with numerous problems, from the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump to the complex US-China trade war. The time and dedication of the current US administration to the North Korean issue are also being significantly tested. This is what is causing public impatience. However, it should also be noted that both US President Donald Trump and South Korean leader Moon Jae-in want to negotiate to find a long-term solution for peace on the Korean Peninsula. It is possible that the North Korean leader also sees a higher chance of reaching an agreement with Donald Trump than with other US presidential candidates. Proof of this is that the White House once fired National Security Advisor John Bolton, who held a very hardline stance on North Korea.

A South Korean television news report about North Korea's missile launch in October 2019. Photo: Reuters

Therefore, it is easy to see that North Korea's setting of deadlines and continued tough statements regarding the US-South Korea joint military exercises are aimed at increasing its leverage and pressuring the US to change its stance. Even the short-range missile tests are part of this objective. Furthermore, considering the upcoming US presidential election next year, North Korea naturally understands that, to gain favor with American voters by resolving a global hotspot, Donald Trump might quickly make concessions to reach a historic agreement with leader Kim Jong-un.

Frank Aum, a longtime expert on North Korea at the U.S. Institute of Peace, stated: “Trump wants a foreign policy victory, while Kim Jong-un needs sanctions eased.” The question is how bold each side needs to be to reach an agreement. President Trump may be satisfied with the current situation where North Korea has not conducted any nuclear tests or launched intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. territory, but according to Aum, “Trump also doesn’t want to wait for North Korea to commit a more provocative act before taking stronger action against Pyongyang.” And Trump doesn’t want his policy toward North Korea to fail before the U.S. elections. That is the crux of the matter, requiring persistence from all sides.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un met with US President Donald Trump at the inter-Korean border in late June. Photo: Reuters

From that perspective, it is argued that: Ideally, the two leaders would agree on greater flexibility, after which the US and South Korea could signal Pyongyang. The first option is for both sides to accept a smaller deal, including some sanctions relief in exchange for closing North Korea's main nuclear facility at Yongbyon. The second option is for both sides to reach a comprehensive agreement, then implement it in stages. But this option requires time and carries risks if negotiators fail to find common ground.

Meanwhile, Bruce Klingner, a South Korea expert at the Heritage Foundation, argues that since the second US-North Korea summit in Hanoi, the two sides have lacked expert-level talks, a factor that could determine the success or failure of high-level negotiations. Therefore, the current high priority should be to restart talks at the lower levels to find common ground in the list of concessions for both the US and South Korea.

The common thread among all options remains diplomatic dialogue aimed at resolving the deadlock on the Korean Peninsula's nuclear program. The question now is how willing both the US and North Korea are to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both sides.