CFR Presents

Asia Unbound

CFR experts give their take on the cutting-edge issues emerging in Asia today.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


Has North Korea Shut the Door to Diplomacy?

by Scott A. Snyder
May 7, 2013

South Korean President Park Geun-hye visits Arlington National Cemetery near Washington. (Yuri Gripas/courtesy Reuters)


North Korea’s efforts to legitimize itself as a nuclear weapons state and its cut-off of access to the Kaesong Industrial Complex have diminished prospects for peaceful coexistence on the Korean peninsula. American and South Korean tolerance of North Korean provocations has waned, and it is increasingly clear that strategic patience in dealing with North Korea may only result in increasingly unattractive options.  When they meet today, Presidents Park and Obama must pursue an even more closely coordinated effort to change the North Korean leadership’s calculus sooner rather than later or North Korea’s capacity to impose higher costs and burdens on the allies will only grow.

Kim Jong-un’s pride in North Korea’s nuclear deterrent and satellite launch capabilities has fed the perception in Pyongyang that North Korea can enhance its deterrent and gain respect through intimidation of the United States and South Korea.  Far from driving up the price that North Korea might demand for keeping the peace, Kim Jong-un has priced the nuclear program out of the market and raised the risk premium on inter-Korean economic cooperation to unacceptable levels.  No negotiation with the United States will yield acceptance of a nuclear North Korea, and North Korea’s abandonment of Kaesong has wiped away a decade of South Korean investment in a peaceful and stable modus vivendi with the North.

North Korea has overplayed its hand and faces either a humiliating climb down or the prospect of losing it all. But either scenario will impose unwanted costs on North Korea’s neighbors.  Kim’s neighbors will have to save his face as the cost of avoiding immediate conflict.  But the cost of buying time will include further provocations from an insecure North Korean leadership whose strategy for survival imposes instability on its neighbors.

Despite the Korean Workers Party’s recent commitment to the dual priorities of nuclear and economic development, North Korea is in a cul de sac.  It insists on pursuing nuclear development as a right of self-defense in the face of international condemnation, but its expanding threat capacity undermines the likelihood that nuclear North Korean leaders can ever be accepted in the international community.

At present, there is no intersection of interests between the positions of North Korea and the United States that can justify a return to negotiations.  North Korea demands the end of U.S. hostility toward the North as a prerequisite for denuclearization, while the United States seeks North Korea’s denuclearization in return for an improvement of relations based on the 2005 six party joint statement.  The loss of Kaesong represents a lost decade of sunk costs in infrastructure inside North Korea, returning the inter-Korean relationship to square one.  New South Korean investment cannot continue until economic governance trumps the whims of North Korea’s political leaders as the guiding principle for managing North Korea’s external relations.

A combined U.S.-South Korea vision should urgently insist that North Korea must change, but the allies have not yet developed a detailed joint strategy for bringing about those changes. Diplomatic engagement with North Korea should be a part of the strategy, but diplomacy should not enable North Korea to buy time, lead to acceptance of a nuclear North Korea, or extend its disruptive influence in the region.

The United States and South Korea should reach out to China based on the understanding that there is a time limit for North Korea to come back to negotiations and that denuclearization must be a main agenda for any new dialogue, recognizing that China is vested in the status quo.  Only by trying to bring China along will it be possible to prove that peaceful options for transforming North Korea have been exhausted.

The two presidents should also deepen coordination designed to prepare for the possibility that there is no pathway to peaceful co-existence under the North Korean leadership.  This approach would involve a joint examination of the most severe potential costs of confrontation with North Korea and develop strategies to minimize the costs if North Korea continues down the wrong path.

In the past, the prospective costs of any conflict have inhibited a realistic U.S.-ROK discussion of how to achieve a desirable end state on the Korean peninsula, and negotiations have inspired false hopes for a peaceful pathway to Korean reunification.  But North Korea’s aspirations to develop a nuclear strike capacity and the closure of Kaesong have shattered these illusions. Presidents Obama and Park must show decisive and coordinated leadership to contain North Korea’s reckless threats.

Post a Comment 3 Comments

  • Posted by Patrick Galley

    The thought that a nuclear North Korean is unacceptable is in factthe ludicrous. It has already happened and it is delusional of the United States to think that North Koreans leaders could ever give up the Nukes and save face. That thought flies in the face of Asian culture across the board. If the United States wants to look a a country that should not have nuclear weapons simply look to Israel. Talk about an unstablizing reagional force. So this makes the United States hypocrites, they will support one war monger comtry that seems to hate peace and has a taste for its neighbors lands. But in the same breath condemns a North Korea that has’t been to war since the 50’s. This makes no sense to any one with a brain. The United States should embrace a nuclear North Korea and intertwine its economic future with the rest of the world to the point that the thought of dropping a Nuke would never cross their mind.

  • Posted by Thangleader

    Until now or at least the US policies toward Korean Peninsula still be right. Where is North Korea in the table rounds by its strongest decision to close Kaesong zone? The audience once again hears the cry and smile from someone who involves this subject.

    But who is loser, absolutely? The people of North Korea and whom like the peace or at least, restore the order in North Korea area. In fact, the menace of “brink of war” message had been falling in silence and bankrupt that why they must show the last resort when using the stone hitting his leg…

    Naturally we feel the scares, currently and especially this is contradicted to whatever they promised previously. Either North Korea wants to become an active agent and an US guest or China doesn’t want it in this game. Two boxers are fighting for anti the ghosts arising or incubus from the real game in Asian logistics where a chasing dream vs. a pivot for actualize a world governance next time.

  • Posted by Mediel Hove

    Its high time the US and allies accept the irreversible reality that North Korea is a nuclear giant then pave way for the country to behave that is observing the dos and don’ts which other nuclear countries take into consideration. I think the world is safer with a friendly DPRK than an aggressive one. It would not help to regret as was the case with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki disastser of 6 and 8 August 1945, which I think in all truthfulness and all humility the USA should regret and feel bad about. If the USA feels bad about the past they must be highly on the alert and avert igniting nuclear war with detrimental effects on the USA and allies. What is the problem just admit the country as a nuclear power. There is need to weigh the two options war or peace. The path of sanctions makes the sanctioned contry hostile, maybe remove the sanctions and see the reaction, I am convinced there would be some positive change in the conflictual environment. The multi-trillion dolar question is who should regulate? If its the UN who owns it? If it is owned by the US is there justice? Why is DPRK behaving that way? Is the DPRK wrong? whose wrong? Wider thinking needs to carried out before jumping from perceived insecurities into jeopardy. it is of importance to employ engagement strategies than rift widening strategies like sanctions and threats of retaliation. If DPRK wants to use nuclear weapons and threaten to retaliate is there a solution in that?

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required