There have been many suggestions as to what to do regarding North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. Some recommend “staying the course” with a mixture of military preparedness, threats and sanctions. But this amounts to kicking the can down the road and continuing the state of high tension with the increasing possibility of a clash. It is time for a new bold approach in which the U.S. addresses North Korea’s genuine fears in return for a freeze of its nuclear weapons and missile development programs.

The U.S. should recognize reality. North Korea possesses nuclear weapons that threaten its neighbors and U.S. forces stationed in them, and may soon threaten the U.S. mainland. The negotiation of a freeze should begin on this basis.

There are concerns that this option would legitimize Kim Jong Un’s international criminal and domestic behavior, undermine attempts to limit nuclear proliferation, damage any remaining American claim to moral leadership, and hang South Korea and Japan “out to dry.” But by invading sovereign countries and killing enemies and civilians alike in drone strikes without the sovereign’s permission, America is hardly in a position to preach about international criminal behavior. With these and similar illegal acts, the U.S, has already squandered what moral leadership it may have possessed.

Moreover, America has a long history of tolerating and even supporting Asian leaders exhibiting criminal domestic behavior — like the Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos, Indonesia’s Suharto, South Korea’s Park Chung Hee and the like, and continues to cooperate with communist dictatorships like China and Vietnam when it suits its purposes.

As for undermining attempts to limit nuclear proliferation, the U.S. tolerates a nuclear India, Israel and Pakistan although they are not members of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. This has already undermined global nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Moreover, new U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has now raised the possibility of helping South Korea and Japan obtain nuclear weapons. So much for the U.S. policy of nonproliferation.

If negotiations resulted in a ”freeze” in North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs and a lowering of tension and the risk of war in Northeast Asia, South Korea and Japan would probably be better off than living under constant threat and preparing for catastrophe. In terms of North Korea’s military capabilities,, nothing would have changed except acceptance and recognition that North Korea has nuclear weapons — rather than continuing to deny that reality.

Of course the U.S. would have to compromise on some issues, such as canceling its annual military exercises with South Korea and now involving Japan that North Korea understandably sees as threatening. And the U.S. would probably have to assure North Korea that it will not attack it and will cease trying to effect “regime change” there.

It also would probably have to agree to decrease its forward deployed military posture in South Korea and Japan and refrain from introducing missile defenses and far-seeing radar into South Korea and Japan. This should not be a problem if the U.S. is doing this to protect against an attack by North Korea as it claims.

But if the U.S. wants to continue the state of tension and to deepen and expand its forward “defenses” as a hedge against China — as China itself suspects — negotiations between North Korea and the U.S. will be futile. In this even, ”stay the course” will indeed be the likely U.S. policy choice with all its negative implications for better relations and peace in Northeast Asia.

Dr. Mark J. Valencia, of Kaneohe, is an adjunct senior scholar for the National Institute for South China Sea Studies in Haikou, China.