Peking University professor Chen Fengjun argued in an April 18 Global Times article that the "US should take on [a] greater share of blame for Korean Peninsula crisis." I offer Global Times readers a response to each of Professor Chen's arguments.

Chen's first claim is that "As the stronger side, the US should be primarily liable for the North Korean security crisis."

It is nonsensical to say that the stronger side is always responsible for a crisis. This is not supported by either logic or historical evidence. 

He then states that "The US turns its back upon North Korea's request for security." Washington has repeatedly said the US has no intention of attacking or invading North Korea unless to defend against a North Korean attack. Pyongyang claims not to be satisfied, using this issue to demand more concessions from the US.

Washington has offered Pyongyang a path to greater security that can begin if the North gives up its nuclear weapon, a goal that Beijing supports. Pyongyang's insecurity is mostly self-inflicted.  The Kim government is afraid to follow the path that China took in the 1980s, because the regime fears opening-up will expose the regime's failures, leading to overthrow by its own people.

Chen further argues that the US "has never given up its intent of overthrowing the regime by force." This simply repeats North Korean propaganda, and is designed to create a false "victory" for Kim Jong-un for scaring off alleged US plans to attack his country. Americans generally despise the North Korean regime, but gave up long ago the idea of overthrowing the regime by force. 

The cost of regime change is far too high because of the suffering this would cause to South Korea. US saber rattling in the Korean Peninsula is mainly a response to egregious actions from the North, including provocations that the Chinese government has criticized.

Pyongyang intentionally raises regional tensions in an effort to extort economic and political gifts from Seoul and Washington.

Chen states that North Korea getting nuclear weapons is justifiable; it "resorts to radical solutions" in "a matter of life and death." The North's "solution" of developing nuclear missiles is not only "radical," it is unwise. 

Such a capability, accompanied by the threats Pyongyang has already made to use it, decreases rather than increases the North's security. Previously the US could ignore the North's threats. Now it cannot. It makes no sense to blame the US for Pyongyang choosing the very "solution" that the US repeatedly warned it could not tolerate. 

Chen also argues that the US should "reach out and negotiate with the leadership of North Korea."

Washington is open to negotiations about improving economic and political relations with North Korea provided Pyongyang first reaffirms its 2005 commitment to denuclearize. Pyongyang now insists it will never give up its nuclear weapons. If Washington drops the precondition, the North Koreans will have again gained a concession through provocative behavior. 

Another argument is that US troops in South Korea are "the crux of the North Korean nuclear crisis." The South Korean government wants US troops as a deterrent against attack from the North.

Although not as well equipped, North Korea's army is larger than South Korea's. Even the South's left-leaning presidents did not try to discontinue the alliance. Panic and criticism of the US break out in South Korea whenever Washington talks even a little about reducing US troops.

The number of US troops in South Korea is too small to be a threat to North Korea. Their main function is political rather than military: They assure South Koreans that the US would intervene in the event of a North Korean invasion, because these US troops would die alongside their South Korean comrades.

Both US and Chinese policies toward North Korea need constant attention and reevaluation.

Americans and Chinese should have a serious, reasonable discussion about this and other issues in which we have a common interest in maintaining regional peace and prosperity.  

The author is a senior fellow at the East-West Center, Honolulu. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn