hankyoreh

North Korean First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Kim Kye-gwan and White House National Security Advisor John Bolton

The name of White House National Security Advisor John Bolton appears three times in a statement from North Korean First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Kim Kye-gwan expressing “outrage” on May 16. The majority of the statement clearly targets the message on Pyongyang stated by Bolton in recent press interviews.

The so-called “superhawk” Bolton, who has made a major comeback in the Donald Trump administration after his past role during the George W. Bush presidency, has emerged as a variable on the path to a historic first-ever North Korea-US summit.

The bad blood between Pyongyang and Bolton dates back to the early ’00s. Bolton was viewed as one of the leading neocon hardliners under the Bush administration, where he served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and US Ambassador to the United Nations. As under secretary of state in 2003, he denounced then-North Korean leader Kim Jong-il as a “tyrannical dictator,” prompting Pyongyang to fire back by calling him “human scum” and a “bloodsucker.”

Kim Kye-gwan’s statement referred to this history, stating that North Korea had already “shed light on the quality of Bolton” and does not “hide our feelings of repugnance toward him.”

Kim’s statement also warned of consequences if the US “fails to recall the lessons learned from the past when the DPRK-US talks had to undergo twists and setbacks owing to the likes of Bolton and turns its ear to the advice of quasi-‘patriots.’” This appears to be a reference to the Six-Party Talks on the North Korean nuclear issue in the early ’00s. As under secretary of state in 2004, Bolton directed the relocation of Libya’s nuclear-related equipment to Oak Ridge, Tennessee; while he was not himself part of the Six-Party of Talks, he repeatedly called on Pyongyang to follow the “Libyan model.”

Kim Kye-gwan was the North’s senior representative to the Six-Party Talks at the time. Bolton also spearheaded the Bush administration’s 2002 decision to back out of the 1994 Agreed Framework reached with the North in Geneva.

Bolton’s hawkish leanings remain present today – as seen with his calls for a preemptive strike on North Korea right up until his appointment as National Security Advisor in March. Shortly after being appointed, he made remarks shrugging off his previous statements as being in the past – but on May 13, he once again brought up the “Libyan model,” arguing that North Korea’s nuclear weapons should be taken to Tennessee. It was a repeat of the same familiar song from 14 years earlier, which prompted the outcry from Pyongyang.

As a diplomat, Kim Kye-gwan has stubbornly faced the US in past negotiations related to the North’s nuclear program, including the Six-Party Talks in Beijing. During his time facing US representatives in negotiations, the US presidency changed hands from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush, and then again to Barack Obama. Such is Kim’s symbolic role in the history of North Korea-US nuclear negotiations.

His negotiating strategy is one of finely splitting up the denuclearization process to achieve maximum rewards at each step – a combination of the salami-slice strategy and the principle of “action for action.” His approach has consistently been rooted in “step-by-step, simultaneous measures,” which Pyongyang continues to emphasize now. As a result, he has won an agreement from the US to provide a light-water reactor, recognition of the North’s right to peaceful use of nuclear energy, and the lifting of financial sanctions against Banco Delta Asia in Macau.

From the US’s standpoint, he could also be seen as the driving force behind the “inadequate” deal referred to by Bolton. Indeed, North Korea’s “action for action” principle informs the September 19 Joint Statement adopted at the Six-Party Talks in 2005 and agreements adopted on February 13 and October 3, 2007.

Ahead of the first round of Six-Party Talks in 2003, North Korea was dead set against Bolton – then seen as one of the leading neocons – serving as the US’s senior representative, going so far as to say it would not associate with Bolton if he did serve. The US countered that the decision was to be made by Bush and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell – but Bolton was ultimately not chosen to take in the negotiations. Kim first appeared as North Korea’s senior representative at the second round of Six-Party Talks, once Bolton’s nonparticipation had been confirmed. But Bolton continued voicing his hardline stance from the sidelines of the negotiations, forcing Kim to fight an unseen “war” with him.

Kim has been absent for some time from North Korea’s nuclear diplomacy front lines, prompting speculation that old age and ill health were preventing him from working. Along similar lines, some analysts have suggested the latest statement may simply have been credited to him – the implication being that the symbolism of using his name was meant to stress the weight of the warning to the US.

If Bolton was the one voicing hardline positions for the US outside of negotiations in the past, Kim looks to be playing a similar role this time around.

By Yoo Kang-moon, senior staff writer, and Hwang Joon-bum, staff reporter

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]