John Park, a senior program officer who directs USIP’s Korea Working Group, analyzes prospects for South Korean President Lee Myung-bak’s state visit to the United States October 13.

October 12, 2011

John Park, a senior program officer who directs USIP’s Korea Working Group, analyzes prospects for South Korean President Lee Myung-bak’s state visit to the United States October 13. A stalwart U.S. ally with increasing global reach, President Lee will be granted the rare privilege for a foreign head of state: addressing a joint session of Congress. Under the leadership of both presidents, the U.S.-South Korean alliance has been a key factor in preventing conflict on the Korean Peninsula by keeping a belligerent North Korea in check.

What’s the significance of President Lee’s state visit?

On the eve of entering the last year of a single five-year term, President Lee’s address to Congress will not only mark the affirmation of the close security ties between two allies, but also the long-anticipated ratification of a landmark free trade agreement. In many respects, the state visit is intended to profile the major strides that both allies have achieved towards realizing the Joint Vision Statement that Presidents Obama and Lee unveiled in June 2009.

Amid setbacks and chronic challenges in almost every major region, Washington views South Korea as a linchpin on a global scale. From hosting the G20 summit in 2010 to preparing to host the next Nuclear Security Summit in 2012, South Korea has been establishing itself as a global partner in addressing common challenges, ranging from rebalancing the international economy to preventing the use of nuclear materials for terrorist attacks. For President Lee, the state visit is an important opportunity to demonstrate South Korea’s unique role as a bridge between the developed and developing countries.

Back to top

What's the state of the U.S.-South Korean alliance?

Confronted by a series of direct attacks from North Korea on South Korea in 2010, the U.S.-South Korean alliance has emerged stronger and more robust in preserving peace and stability in the region. The U.S.’s steadfast support of its ally demonstrated that the U.S. is a resident power in the Asia-Pacific region. While security analysts believe that this enhanced defense posture has kept North Korean provocations in check, it has elicited a strong reaction from China, which views the deployment of the USS George Washington aircraft carrier group as a military capability that also threatens Chinese territory. Indeed, an unintended consequence of the U.S.’s increased support of its South Korean ally has been growing security tensions between Washington and Beijing.

With respect to the U.S. military base relocation activities in South Korea, the consolidation of U.S. Forces Korea in a central hub in Pyeongtaek is moving forward. By the end of this relocation, wartime operational control of South Korean military forces will transfer from the U.S. to the Seoul government. This process is in direct contrast to the planned relocation of U.S. forces in Japan from Okinawa to the U.S. territory of Guam.

Back to top

How are both allies currently dealing with North Korea?

South Korea is currently seeking to make tactical adjustments to its North Korea policy in order to deter future North Korean provocations and do so in a sustainable manner that will transfer to the next South Korean administration. While peaceful denuclearization of North Korea remains a central goal of the Lee Myung-bak administration, the priority objective is preventing another North Korean attack. As recent inter-Korean talks in Beijing demonstrated, however, the gap between Seoul and Pyongyang remains wide. The opacity of the North Korean leadership succession process is adding another layer of complexity to an already difficult predicament.

Following an exploratory meeting with the North Koreans in New York in July, the U.S. has moved forward with additional bilateral talks aimed at restarting work on the recovery of U.S. servicemen’s remains in North Korea from the Korean War. A key conclusion in Washington appears to be that whenever the U.S. is engaged in talks with Pyongyang, the North Koreans refrain from provocations and brinkmanship. Keen to avoid another dangerous escalation of tensions on the Korean Peninsula, Washington is proceeding with its limited tactical engagement of Pyongyang while adhering to its broader policy of strategic patience.

Back to top

How is USIP contributing to efforts to prevent conflict on the Korean Peninsula?

Given frequent leadership changes and rapidly evolving security, political, economic and environmental challenges in the region, the U.S. and its Northeast Asian counterparts increasingly lack the capacity for sustained analysis, development and implementation of policy approaches to prevent conflicts. USIP launched and convenes recurring Track 1.5 policy dialogues – like the Korea Working Group – with current and former policymakers and advisers. They facilitate three things: a deeper understanding of complex policy issues, early direct crisis communication, and the development of prevention initiatives and strategies. By generating feedback on early-stage policy proposals developed and discussed in USIP’s Track 1.5 meetings, we have been able to increase the likelihood of traction at the Track 1 level.

Back to top

Explore Further

 

Related Publications

Increasing Information Access for the North Korean People

Increasing Information Access for the North Korean People

Monday, April 15, 2024

By: Sokeel Park

In recent years, North Korea has become more repressive, more impoverished and more allergic to the outside world. Already turning inward after the failure of diplomatic efforts in 2019, the North Korean government isolated itself further amid the global COVID-19 pandemic. North Korea has learned to operate, and Kim Jong Un has learned to rule, with greater levels of self-isolation than aggressive international sanctions regimes could ever hope to impose. Given North Korea’s current mode of rejecting even humanitarian assistance and its recent turn toward Russia, the chances for diplomatic breakthroughs with Pyongyang look like a wishful long-term hope at best.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

It’s Time to Resolve the Korean War

It’s Time to Resolve the Korean War

Monday, April 1, 2024

By: Dan Leaf

The greatest challenge to peaceful coexistence between North Korea and the United States is the technical state of war between the two countries. The United States and the Soviet Union may have been at ideological loggerheads, used proxies in regional conflicts and come close to direct superpower blows — but they were not in a state of war. Resolution of the Korean War should be set as a stated U.S. policy objective. This is a necessary Step Zero on the road to peaceful coexistence with North Korea today and could reduce the risk of deliberate or accidental conflict, nuclear or otherwise.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

Three Conditions for Successful Engagement with North Korea

Three Conditions for Successful Engagement with North Korea

Monday, March 25, 2024

By: Mark Tokola

The September 13, 2023, meeting between Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un in Russia’s Amur Oblast marked a significant crippling of the decades-long U.S. pressure-based approach toward North Korea. The strategy of isolating and pressuring North Korea through United Nations Security Council resolutions to compel its nuclear disarmament in exchange for providing normalized relations, economic aid and sanctions relief may or may not ever have been a winning strategy, but now is no longer viable. The strategy required cooperation among the United States, South Korea, China and Russia, but this now seems a distant prospect.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

Building Trust through Health Cooperation with North Korea

Building Trust through Health Cooperation with North Korea

Monday, March 18, 2024

By: Kee B. Park

The United States needs to address the existing trust deficit with North Korea if it wants to coexist peacefully with that country. Trust building through health cooperation may be the least contentious way politically and the most likely to succeed. However, engagement on health and humanitarian assistance with North Korea, like security negotiations, has been undermined by geopolitics.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

View All Publications