It’s not often Canada is called upon to play an important role in finding a solution to a dangerous international issue.
But that’s what is happening in the escalating risks the international community confronts over North Korea’s nuclear weapons threat.
And that growing threat by Pyongyang’s young leader, Kim Jong-un, has in turn exposed the serious differences between U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on how to deal with Kim’s refusal to end North Korea’s missile launches and nuclear tests.
Trump’s apocalyptic threats to destroy North Korea if its nuclear programs aren’t ended and his incredible public statement denigrating Tillerson’s efforts to open a dialogue with Pyongyang as virtually useless have only increased concern. Many fear the tension with Pyongyang could trigger hostilities, with hundreds of thousands of casualties in both North and South Korea.
Trump’s bellicose threats are as much a danger as the unpredictable Kim, a leader who had his own uncle-in-law executed on trumped-up charges and orchestrated the murder of his older half-brother, who was seen as a potential political threat.
At such a dangerous time, many see Tillerson’s efforts to facilitate a dialogue with Pyongyang as preferable to Trump’s constant threats.
And statements made Dec. 19 by Trump’s national security adviser, Gen. H.R. McMaster, have increased concern over the president’s intentions: “We’re not committed to a peaceful [resolution] — we’re committed to a resolution.”
McMaster added: “We have to be prepared, if necessary, to compel the denuclearization of North Korea without the co-operation of that regime.”
In his attempt to open a peaceful dialogue with Pyongyang, Tillerson presumably saw value in having Canada play a role in helping gain support from other countries.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau undoubtedly viewed Tillerson’s support for a peaceful dialogue as the only realistic approach, especially considering the warlike rhetoric of Trump who, under current procedures, can initiate use of nuclear weapons without prior Congressional approval.
As a result, Tillerson and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland will convene a high-level meeting of like-minded representatives from countries keen to reduce the threat posed by North Korea.
How Trump will react to these peaceful initiatives by Tillerson — who was widely reported to have described Trump in private as an idiot — remains to be seen.
Nevertheless, because of Tillerson’s widespread respect among oil-producing governments, along with his perceived support from the American business community, any move to undermine him could have repercussions for Trump, whose erratic policies are slowly undermining the faith of some of his less ardent followers.
Notwithstanding that Trump’s popularity is at an all-time low, he still has considerable support from disgruntled voters who back his divisive policies and scarcely concealed racism.
Although some Republican politicians have criticized Trump’s policies — usually aimed at his most committed followers — most Republicans don’t want to be highly critical of him because it could harm their candidates in next year’s mid-term elections.
If a peaceful agreement isn’t soon reached with North Korea, it could have catastrophic international consequences extending beyond the Korean Peninsula. Nevertheless, resolving the crisis over North Korea’s nuclear threat won’t be easy.
The inescapable reality is that Kim isn’t going to give up Pyongyang’s nuclear threat because it essentially is all he has.
The challenge for Tillerson and Freeland at the January international meeting in Vancouver is to find some kind of agreement that freezes North Korea’s nuclear program through international or UN inspection in exchange for a non-aggression commitment from the U.S. and others, plus trade and aid assistance, as Washington had once promised.
That aborted agreement, including provision of a peaceful nuclear reactor, was undermined by the U.S. Congress, providing Pyongyang with a convenient excuse to violate its commitment to a peaceful nuclear agreement.
However, despite the obvious obstacles confronting everyone, the only realistic choice is to support the efforts of Tillerson and Freeland before Trump intervenes with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Harry Sterling, a former diplomat, is an Ottawa-based commentator. He served in South Korea.
