North Korea Would Be Stupid to Trust the U.S.
By Jacob G. Hornberger | Future of Freedom Foundation | September 28, 2017
To many mainstream pundits, the solution to the crisis in Korea is for U.S. officials to sit down and “talk” to North Korea in the hopes of negotiating a mutually beneficial agreement. While it won’t guarantee that a deal will be worked out, they say, “talking” is the only chance there is to resolve the crisis.
They ignore an important point: Any deal that would be reached would involve trusting the U.S. government to keep its end of the bargain. And trusting the U.S. government would be the stupidest thing North Korea could ever do. That’s because as soon as U.S. officials found it advantageous, they would break the deal and pounce on North Korea, with the aim of achieving the regime change they have sought ever since the dawn of the Cold War more than 70 years ago.
Look at what U.S. officials did to Libya. Its dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, agreed to give up his nuclear-weapons program in return for regime security. That turned out to be stupid move. As soon as U.S. officials saw an opening, they pounced with a regime-change operation. Today, Qaddafi is dead and Libya is in perpetual crisis and turmoil. That wouldn’t have happened if Qaddafi had a nuclear deterrent to a U.S. regime-change operation.
Look at what U.S. officials are doing to Iran. They entered into a deal in which the U.S. government agreed to lift its brutal system of sanctions, which has brought untold suffering to the Iranian people, in return for Iran’s abandoning its nuclear-weapons [sic] program. After the deal was reached and Iran had complied, U.S. officials broke their side of the deal by refusing to lift their brutal system of sanctions and even imposing more sanctions. U.S. officials are also now looking for any excuse or justification for getting out of the deal to which they agreed.
Even longtime partners and allies of the U.S. government can never be certain that the Empire won’t suddenly turn against them.
Look at what happened to the U.S. government’s loyal partner and ally Saddam Hussein. U.S. officials worked closely with him during the 1980s to kill Iranians. But when Saddam invaded Kuwait to settle an oil-drilling dispute, U.S. officials went after him with a vengeance, and notwithstanding the fact that, prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, they had falsely indicated to Saddam their indifference to his dispute with Kuwait. Result? Today Saddam is dead, and the U.S. government succeeded in achieving regime change in Iraq.
Look at Syria, which for a time served as a loyal partner and ally of the U.S. government, as reflected by the secret agreement to torture Canadian citizen Mahar Arar on behalf of U.S. officials and report their findings back to the CIA. Later, U.S. officials turned on Syria’s ruler, Bashar al-Assad, in a regime-change operation.
Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon. Recall the countless agreements that U.S. officials made in the 1800s with Native Americans. U.S. officials were notorious for breaking them once it became advantageous to do so. Native Americans were entirely justified in accusing U.S. officials of speaking with a “forked tongue.”
If you were a North Korean, would you trust U.S. officials? Would you give up the one thing that is deterring a U.S. regime-change operation in return for a promise from U.S. officials that they would not initiate a regime-change operation? That would really be a really stupid thing to do, from the standpoint of North Korea. As soon as the U.S. government found it advantageous to break the deal and invade North Korea, engage in another state-sponsored assassination, or impose a new round of regime-change sanctions, they would do it.
“Talking” to North Korea will do no good because North Korea will never trust the United States to fulfill its part of any deal that is worked out. There is but one solution to the crisis in Korea: withdraw all U.S. forces from that part of the world immediately and bring them home. Anything less will only continue the crisis or, even worse, result in a very deadly and destructive war.

Jacob Hornberger has no realistic basis for his argument. His defense of out law rogue regimes is rediculas. His call for nuclear proliferation to preserve these rogue regimes is a mark of insanity.
LikeLike
You’re kidding, right? What he says is actually fact, but you sound like someone who doesn’t like to let facts ruin a good story.
LikeLike
Polar opposites w/Coleman and his “rediculas” charge: I agree 100 percent with Mr. Hornberger. Patriotic North Koreans, Patriotic Americans: alike are liable to be extremists blind to facts, history and prospects for survival of humans and their precious planet. But it is the U.S. that should be more mature and a lot more humble given its many-recent-decades’ belligerence and war crimes/crimes against humanity: Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945, obliterating (yes!) the north of the Korean Peninsula in 1950-53, Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia in the 1960s-70s, (complicit with the evil Zionist regime occupying “Israel” time after time) Lebanon in the 1980s-90s-2006, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran among an astonishing array of others…and I must include Palestine from 1948 and forever beyond.
Author Hornberger may be inadvertent in his use of ‘“talk” to North Korea,’ but that surely is the US wont, and not only on the Korean Peninsula. Talk *with* North Korea makes a lot more sense, IMO.
LikeLike
In 1991, Bush the elder, began his Presidential Nuclear Initiative and withdrew tactical nuclear weapons from the peninsula. The following year, a Joint Declaration, binding both sides not to test, or in any way deploy or store nuclear weapons entered into force. The North ignored it’s public commitment and secretly continued it’s nuclear program. Non-proliferation and countries bound to the NPT failed to make the Middle East a nuclear weapons free zone and they will fail in the Korea(s). How can we, the U.S. withdraw our nuclear umbrella and suddenly adopt a foreign policy of neutrality? A new security alliance would require a comprehensive change that would necessitate an entire denuclearized region. What chance is there for a truly successful NPT or the fantasy of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? Sanctions, endless Security Council UN meetings, have come to naught, deterrence was and remains the only option. Our armed forces have a Mutual Defense Treaty with Japan and South Korea and we’re going to stick to it! Xi and Putin know this and so, they better pull out all the stops and get Un to behave, because everyone knows what’s next…the world is just days away from catastrophe.
LikeLike
“…a comprehensive change….”: Right–how about a comprehensive change toward a sincere commitment to negotiating the Peace Treaty required by the terms of the 1953 Armistice?
“…countries bound to the NPT failed to make the Middle East a nuclear weapons free zone…”: Last I checked, the Middle East — sans the Zioentity so-called Israel that refuses to sign or abide by the NPT — *is* a “nuclear weapons-free zone,” and numerous proposals have been advanced by the countries there (again, less the Zioentity) to formalize and institutionalize such a zone.
LikeLike