This is NOT a treaty in the traditional sense. It is more of the U.S. overseeing a treaty signed among China, NK, SK, and Japan.
This deal is paving the way for reunification and an end to the Korean War (which technically has not ended).
Was the Japanese surrender to the U.S. submitted to the Senate? No, it wasn't.
Typical, scumbag Republicans meddling and effing thing up.
Our congressional leaders are showing their idiocy once again....begging for face time and political posturing on such a delicate and early on negotiations just throw mud in the waters.
Stand down and let the process get started for crying out loud!
Six years after the Japanese surrender we signed this treaty with them that codified our relationship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Treaty_Between_the_United_States_and_Japan
A treaty with Norklandia is entirely appropriate if our conditions are met.
And Kim would be a laughable fool to accept anything less in exchange for his nukes. It would be nothing but suicide.
The surrender of Japan in 1945 was not submitted to the Senate, but the Treaty of San Francisco, which formally ended hostilities with Japan and the Allies, settled boundaries, and set reparations in 1951, was ratified by the Senate.
This needs to be a treaty, and its needs Senate ratification to bind the United States.
The Korean war was never declared by Congress. We responded to pleas from the South to stop the Norks from invading. It was a defensive effort. What needs to be "ended" is between the Koreans.