Seoul says Kim Jong Un has ‘given his word’ on denuclearization. Is this enough?

On Sunday, CBS aired a 30-minute interview with South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha, covering the South Korean Government’s position on the recent developments with North Korea in the lead-up to the inter-Korean and U.S.-DPRK summits in April and May, respectively. There’s much to be dissected from host Margaret Brennan’s dialogue with the foreign minister, but the most telling point was the way in which Kang — and by extension, Seoul — placed confidence in Pyongyang’s verbal commitment to denuclearization.

This should be unnerving, as both Washington and Seoul are about to enter into talks with North Korea, which until most recently has threatened the stability and peace of its neighbors with its nuclear provocations, illicit activities and a dismal human rights record.

{mosads}When asked by Brennan what conditions North Korea would have to meet before a conversation on a vision for a lasting, permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula could happen, Kang replied that the Kim regime has, in effect, already responded to Seoul’s request that the North stop provocations and indicate a clear commitment to denuclearize. Per Kang, Kim has conveyed that commitment by “giving his word,” which is “quite weighty” since the words came directly from the regime’s leader, which has never happened before.

Kang’s response makes us think for a split-second that this is the first time the South Koreans have dealt with the North Korean regime, and that the DPRK has built a long history of credibility such that a mere verbal acquiescence is sufficient for Washington, Seoul and other stakeholders to rest somewhat assured and move forward in the preparatory steps for two high-level dialogues. But even among allies, a leader’s verbal commitment by itself is never adequate to assuage the security concerns of partner nations; his words are backed up by policies, actions and measures to follow through on the pledge.

So when the leader of a hostile country — who until recently threatened the United States with an “all-out war” and a nuclear preemptive strike — conveys his verbal commitment to temporarily halt provocations and denuclearize, skepticism should remain.

The North may have held in abeyance its nuclear provocations, but just this past weekend, we saw reports on the Kim regime’s pirating and illicit transaction techniques to get around international sanctions that are wearing away at the DPRK’s economy. Further, Pyongyang’s egregious human rights violations in the form of prison camps and forced labor continue to this day despite the international community’s efforts to clamp down and hold the regime accountable for its abuses. So it is quite evident that we cannot just yet take “the word” of Kim as having met a condition for talks — or worse yet, concessions or aid down the road — and proceed. It remains to be seen just how the DPRK will conduct itself in the lead-up to and during its talks with South Korea and the United States.

Let’s not hold our breath.

Assuredly, however, Foreign Minister Kang has expressed the South Korean government’s willingness to coordinate preparations for the April inter-Korean summit to go hand-in-hand with the planning for the Trump-Kim summit in May. At the least, the Blue House recognizes that the inter-Korean dialogue will serve as the stepping stone for U.S.-DPRK talks — the outcome of Seoul’s engagement with Pyongyang will inevitably shape and tint the atmospherics and substance of President Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong Un.

We should thus capitalize upon Seoul’s willingness to cooperate and consult with Washington in planning for the summits as an opportunity to align our North Korea policies and deal with Pyongyang as a united front. South Korea President Moon Jae-in’s pro-engagement stance clearly runs counter to the Trump administration’s tougher posture toward the DPRK; yet, if lasting, permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula is a shared goal, assuredly Seoul and Washington can set aside short-term national interests and find some common ground for cooperation and policy coordination.

With about a month remaining until the Seoul-Pyongyang summit and two months until the Trump-Kim meeting, we clearly have our work cut out for us. The time pressure leaves Seoul and Washington vulnerable to hasty decision-making and susceptible to Kim Jong Un’s string-pulling and calculated moves. A lot could happen in the next couple months — let’s make sure that Kim follows through on his word and we make progress toward lasting peace on the Peninsula.

Soo Kim is a former CIA North Korea analyst, focusing on the regime’s leadership, nuclear proliferation and propaganda analysis. She was a 2015 National Security Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where she authored a monograph on the South Korean nuclear program.