Tuesday saw another step forward for peace on the Korean Peninsula as the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) successfully fulfilled part of a military agreement signed in September with its southern counterpart. 

As agreed, the DPRK demolished up to 10 guard posts in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), further easing tensions on a border which was once fierce.

The move illustrates that Pyongyang is making some serious commitments in fostering a non-confrontational relationship with the Republic of Korea (ROK), ultimately considering a way to secure permanent peace on the Peninsula.

These efforts should be praised. Accordingly, the United States should accordingly maximize its efforts at attaining ways to peacefully co-exist with the country, rather than continuing to make unrealistic, short-term demands. 

Despite cynicism from ROK and American conservatives, ROK President Moon Jae-in's peace offensive which started in the middle of last year, has been successful in reducing tensions between the two countries.

Over the past 12 months, we have seen the two countries go from the verge of conflict to securing new trust-building agreements, demilitarization plans, new channels for diplomatic contact and a wide variety of cultural and grassroots exchanges.

Contrary to the criticism he has received, Moon's policies have not crossed the boundaries of United Nations resolutions nor even shown real disregard for the ROK ally in Washington. 

Instead, he has built a foundation for a more prosperous and engaged future between the two countries which could potentially end the Korean War itself.

His critics cannot propose any alternative plans for the Peninsula other than measures which will return Pyongyang to a state of hostility.

Above all, this will benefit nobody. It is baffling how his opponents believe a bombardment of missile and nuclear testing from Pyongyang, and threats of conflict from Washington offer a better chance for ending the Korean conflict?

There will always be skeptics, not least because little progress has been attained on the nuclear front, yet that cannot deny the plausible results in inter-Korean relations and peace.

When this is considered, it is the United States which stands as the primary troublemaker on the issue.

Only yesterday did Mike Pompeo specify that inter-Korean relations must progress at the same pace as denuclearization. In other words, yet again concessions should be minimal until Pyongyang gives Washington almost everything it wants unilaterally.

It has been said more than enough how unrealistic this position is. Yet, Moon's policies should be an example of what to do.

If the United States wants to truly resolve matters with Pyongyang, then building relations must come above all else. The DPRK does not trust Washington and vice versa. Rather than making one-sided demands and attempting to force its will in an imposing way on the country, the U.S. should instead seek to co-exist with the country and move towards formal diplomatic relations with it as a prerequisite to everything else. 

Of course, hawks in DC would never agree to it, but it is the best course of action.

For too long the U.S. has withheld formal diplomatic recognition of the DPRK as a sovereign state in a de-facto assertion that Seoul ought to be the legitimate government of the entire peninsula, leaving the door open for a quick regime change which removes the state from existence altogether.

After 1991, this became a serious option in a unipolar American world, where such forced regime changes became a norm. Thus it is no coincidence that Pyongyang went nuclear in the bid to secure its independence as an entity, something it has been willing to pay a price for.

As a result, rather than demanding everything all at once, Washington ideally should build a foundation of trust by working to establish relations, which can accelerate normalization and thus, a peace regime.

The first Kim-Trump summit was excellent progress in this area, but it cannot end here.

Washington must be pragmatic; it is not simply about forcing the country on “America's path,” but instead finding a new path by which both countries can reconcile and join. Then, a real and tangible agreement concerning the nuclear program might just be possible in the long run.