At the United Nations Security Council meeting in New York on September 24, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken highlighted the role of international aid to Russia, identifying North Korea and Iran as outsized partners to Moscow in an axis of adversaries. The Biden administration’s interest in naming and shaming this coalition of states brings to question how the next U.S. presidential administration will handle growing global hot zones of conflict.
While disappointingly short on specific policy proposals for managing national security and global challenges, both the Trump and Harris campaigns have provided sporadic insight into the candidates’ differing worldviews and diplomatic approaches as it pertains to North Korea.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Korean Peninsula – technically still at war with relative peace only maintained through an armistice treaty from 1953 – has sometimes been called the last bastion of the Cold War, given the global ideological and strategic competition it reflected on a regional scale. Whether that moniker remains relevant in the 2020s is up for debate, but what is true is that the North Korea challenge represents some of the world’s biggest military, technological, and economic struggles today.
The brief mention of North Korea in the first (and likely only) debate between presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris belies the gravity and complexity of the situation and its role in global geopolitics more broadly. As Kim Jong Un advances his nuclear and missile programs, expands North Korea’s sophisticated cyber warfare capabilities, and forges concerning pacts with Russia, the need for a comprehensive strategy becomes ever more pressing.
In June this year Kim and Russian President Vladimir Putin upgraded their relationship by signing a mutual defense pact. This strategic commitment builds on North Korea’s military and munitions assistance to Russia’s war efforts in Ukraine. In return for the practical aid, Putin will presumably reward Kim with diplomatic and, perhaps, financial and technological aid.
Trump’s foreign policy approach is characterized by a penchant for media attention and preference for strong-man world leaders. This was made clear in the presidential debate, when Trump highlighted his popularity among world leaders by citing solely Viktor Orban, the authoritarian Hungarian leader who has dismantled democratic protocols, violated rights, and remains one of Putin’s staunchest allies. During his term as president, Trump’s approach to North Korea was volatile, ricocheting from threats of unleashing “fire and fury” in order to retaliate against the “little rocket man” to effusing that he “fell in love” through exchanging diplomatic epistles with the North Korean supreme leader.
Trump’s personality-centered approach provided the political will needed to reinitiate stalled talks to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula in 2018 and 2019. The South Korean president at the time, Moon Jae-in, took an approach uncharacteristic to progressives, who generally prefer direct talks with North Korea, and instead enabled trilateral summits. But any promise of substantive diplomatic advancement to deescalate tensions on the peninsula was tattered as Kim and Trump failed to get what they wanted – the former, sanctions relief and a security guarantee from the United States, and the latter, continued praise and media attention.
For her part, Kamala Harris has made few direct mentions of North Korea policy, aside from labeling Kim Jong Un as a tyrant and dictator, a refrain she repeated during the September 10 debate. But the specifics of Harris’ approach to North Korea remain largely unclear.
The Democratic National Committee’s policy documents notably omit specific mentions of North Korean denuclearization, human rights, or engagement efforts. Lack of specific policy proposal for the North Korea threat – which is, granted, a 70-year-long intractable issue – perhaps reflects a broader ambiguity in the specific tactics she would undertake in pursuit of a more idealistic vision of U.S. leadership. As Joshua Keating at Vox aptly put it, “When it comes to that, the analysis often comes down to – to use the buzzword of the moment – vibes.”
Addressing the North Korean threat will require a multifaceted approach that balances deterrence, diplomacy, and regional cooperation. The China issue is particularly important when discussing the U.S. approach to North Korea, which is backed by Beijing’s security guarantee, as is the alliance with South Korea, which feels full-force the economic pull of China and politico-security pull of the United States.
As it stands, much of U.S. global engagement is fundamentally based on a drive to contain or deny the influence of China, particularly in the Global South or border partners in the Indo-Pacific. As the United States navigates the challenges posed by China and North Korea, these alliances will be crucial.
The increasing credibility of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, coupled with its expanding sophisticated cyber capabilities and strengthened ties with Russia, demands an adaptable strategy. If left to fester, the North Korea issue could grow from Cold War remnant to powder keg in an Indo-Pacific that already suffers with latent strategic flashpoints.
A tangible approach to North Korea requires working closely with South Korea, Japan, and China, and should explore avenues for conditional engagement that could lead to meaningful steps toward denuclearization and improved human rights conditions. A pragmatic foreign policy must recognize and leverage the full potential of these relationships.