[Column] Don’t abandon North Korea

Kim Byung-yeon

The author is a professor of economics and head of the Institute for Future Strategy at Seoul National University.

Shortly after the start of Joe Biden’s administration in 2021, I met a former U.S. official in a foreign policy meeting. He expressed hope for Korea’s proactive participation in the U.S.-led sanctions on China. “The U.S. government puts top priority on dealing with China,” he said. “Therefore, the North Korean issues should be put aside for a while.”

I immediately refuted it. “China may pose a graver risk to the U.S., but North Korea is a more imminent risk,” I said. “If the America cannot resolve the North Korean issue, it will have more trouble dealing with China.” The Biden administration soon came up with a North Korea policy review aimed at denuclearizing the recalcitrant state through “a calibrated, practical approach.” But the details were limited.

The Biden administration expressed strong support for the Yoon Suk Yeol administration’s “audacious initiative” toward the North, but skipped details. The U.S. government seems to prefer the status quo as denuclearization is difficult to achieve. But such a policy does not benefit the U.S.

First, intentional abandonment of North Korea makes denuclearization more difficult. If the U.S. loses its focus on the country, that sends the signal that the rest of the world may ease sanctions on North Korea. In that case, the pivot to the denuclearization collapses. Denuclearization is not a far-fetched dream. I proposed economic sanctions on the North in 2016 and 2017 as the country will not give up nuclear programs on its own. I was convinced that we can find an entrance to denuclearization by building economic pressure on the North.

Many people still seem to weigh the possibility of denuclearization based on Kim Jong-un’s willingness. But it is just like trying to solve a problem based on a wrong hypothesis. The Moon Jae-in administration could not open the door to denuclearization as it rushed to solve the puzzle with a blind faith in Kim’s rhetoric. If the U.S. takes a similar path, denuclearization is impossible.

Second, adherence to military deterrence to solve the nuclear conundrum will only help weaken the South Korea-U.S. alliance. If the U.S. takes the denuclearization off its priority list, South Korea’s effort to reinforce its own military means will gain momentum. The higher the level of North Korean provocations, the more the public opinion in South Korea will shift in favor of nuclear weapons development or the deployment of U.S. tactical nukes in the South. The Yoon administration can hardly ignore such a demand. This year in particular, North Korea is expected to provoke South Korea more strongly than before. That will fuel the demand for the South’s own nuclear armaments and the deployment of tactical weapons. But would the U.S. really agree to the demand? The demands could lead to an unwanted clash between Seoul and Washington. North Korea may hope for it. But that’s a nightmare for South Korea and the United States.

Third, if the U.S. gives up on North Korea, it will help Pyongyang get closer to Beijing and Moscow. The current North Korea-China-Russia relationship is often described as “distrust feigning trust” or “marriage of convenience.” But once North Korea is convinced that the U.S. has lost interest in the North, the country will completely lean toward China and Russia. If North Korea and Russia start military trade — and if the North and China cement their economic relations — North Korea could emerge as a military power and survive its economic hardship. When all means to check North Korea disappear, denuclearization is impossible. If the trio of dictatorships unites, it will endanger the rest of the world. Just imagine what will happen if a military clash occurs in the Taiwan Strait and the Korean Peninsula on top of the Ukraine war.

Balance and combination is the core of the North Korea policy of the U.S. and South Korea. Just as sanctions and reinforced military deterrence help denuclearization, U.S. engagement through economic development and a peace regime helps North Korea take a step closer to denuclearization. A leader like Kim should be handled this way. South Korea-U.S. policymakers and security experts must have a heated debate on denuclearization to share their views and devise detailed action plans.

We cannot abandon North Korea. When I met a U.S. policymaker in 2019, he asked me, “What do you think about food aid to the North?” I answered, “I am one of those who proposed economic sanctions on North Korea. But I cannot leave the pregnant women and children dying of starvation unattended. North Koreans are our brothers and sisters.” After returning home in May that year, I wrote a column about food aid to North Korea.

I have been writing columns for years, but never wrote one in such a painful way. After writing the first line, I just could not keep going. After being heartbroken, I climbed a small mountain behind my university to clear my mind. In the end, I could finish the column primarily thanks to the empathy the American policymaker showed. “Prof. Kim, I also sympathize with malnourished residents in the North. We are doing our best to negotiate with the country,” he said. Though half the world apart, we were looking at the same destination. We both knew the very reason for sanctions and negotiation.

The might which made America the most powerful country in the world came from the universal value of respecting humanity. Uncle Sam must not ditch the North. The U.S. must encourage it to take a step closer to denuclearization and peace.

Translation by the Korea JoongAng Daily staff.