The Alternative to Washington's Bankrupt North Korea Policy

The longer that the U.S. waits to engage, the bigger the problem will be.

Frank Aum makes the case for engagement with North Korea:

The empirical evidence is compelling. When the United States engages North Korea, it behaves significantly better.

A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that, between 1990 and 2017, there was a strong correlation between periods when Washington was negotiating with Pyongyang and a decrease in North Korean provocations.

The Biden administration has paid lip service to talking to North Korea and made some tentative inquiries, but as Aum notes these attempts “seem insincere and halfhearted” to North Korea “when accompanied by aggressive military muscle-flexing and terse messages from Biden to Kim.” The standard U.S. line on North Korea for the last two and half years is that the “ball is in their court,” which is another way of saying that the U.S. won’t lift a finger to facilitate diplomatic progress.

Washington’s cavalier attitude might be somewhat understandable if North Korea weren’t steadily building up and improving its nuclear arsenal and missile forces, but it is. The longer that the U.S. waits to engage, the bigger the problem will be. The price for getting it under control will also be that much higher.