To help U.S. policymakers better manage the myriad risks they face on the Korean Peninsula, this report assesses whether and how to pursue national security diplomacy with North Korea. This concept of engagement responds to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2020 regarding the benefits and risks for U.S. national security. Persistent engagement with North Korea’s national security elites, the report argues, is a policy wager with a large potential upside and very little cost and risk.

U.S. President Donald Trump sits across from Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea, during a February 2019 meeting in Vietnam. (Photo by Doug Mills/New York Times)
U.S. President Donald Trump sits across from Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea, during a February 2019 meeting in Vietnam. (Photo by Doug Mills/New York Times)

Summary

  • Isolating North Korea from the United States and the international community is self-defeating. The sparseness of U.S. ties to North Korean officials magnifies risks related to crisis management, nuclear stability, and diplomatic negotiations.
  • U.S policy inadvertently increases the difficulty for U.S. officials to manage a host of security problems in Northeast Asia because it constricts U.S. interactions with North Koreans.
  • The United States has a substantial interest in using engagement with North Korean national security officials as a low-cost hedging option in U.S. statecraft.
  • Institutionalizing defense and intelligence diplomacy with North Korean counterparts puts U.S. officials in a relatively stronger position than the status quo to reduce geopolitical risks and influence events.
  • Thickening elite ties with a historical adversary puts the United States in a marginally better position to preserve nuclear stability, avoid war, and capitalize on opportunities for positive change as they arise.

About the Report

This report examines the benefits and risks to the United States of establishing regular diplomatic engagements with North Korea’s national security elites in an effort to improve the prospects of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. The report was commissioned by the North Korea program at the United States Institute of Peace.

About the Author

Van Jackson is a professor of international relations at Victoria University of Wellington. He also holds appointments as an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and Defence & Strategy Fellow at the Centre for Strategic Studies. He is the host of The Un-Diplomatic Podcast and author of Rival Reputations: Coercion and Credibility in U.S.-North Korea Relations (2016) and On the Brink: Trump, Kim, and the Threat of Nuclear War (2018).

Related Publications

Making Sense of North Korea’s Missile Test

Making Sense of North Korea’s Missile Test

Tuesday, September 14, 2021

By: Frank Aum

North Korea announced on September 13 that it had tested long-range cruise missiles over the weekend. It described the missiles as a “strategic weapon of great significance.” The test caused alarm in North Korea’s neighbors — South Korea and Japan, both U.S. allies — as the revelation now puts both countries within striking distance. But despite the test, a spokesperson for the Biden administration said the United States remains prepared to engage with North Korea. USIP’s Frank Aum discusses the significance of the tests, the arms race on the Korean Peninsula, and what signals North Korean leader Kim Jong Un may be sending to the United States with this latest test. 

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

The Case for Maximizing Engagement with North Korea

The Case for Maximizing Engagement with North Korea

Tuesday, April 20, 2021

By: Frank Aum; Daniel Jasper

As the Biden administration’s North Korea policy review nears completion, there is growing worry that it could dig in its heels on previous U.S. efforts to change North Korea’s behavior through isolation and pressure. Early signals indicate the Biden team is prioritizing pressure among many options. Several experts, however, believe this approach will continue to fail because it incorrectly assumes North Korea will yield to coercive tactics and that China will cooperate in this effort.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue; Conflict Analysis & Prevention

Can Markets Help Foster Civil Society in North Korea?

Can Markets Help Foster Civil Society in North Korea?

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

By: Anthony Navone

After North Korea’s planned economy faltered in the 1990’s, resulting in a devastating famine known as the “Arduous March,” citizens turned to an informal market system for survival. Desperate for some semblance of stability, the North Korean state initially tolerated these rudimentary transactions as a financial necessity. These markets have grown in scale and complexity over the last two decades—and in the process, have facilitated the growth of unofficial economic networks that exhibit signs of a nascent semi-autonomous public sphere that is unprecedented in North Korean society.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Democracy & Governance

North Korea in Africa: Historical Solidarity, China’s Role, and Sanctions Evasion

North Korea in Africa: Historical Solidarity, China’s Role, and Sanctions Evasion

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

By: Benjamin R. Young

North Korea serves as a mutually beneficial partner for many African governments. Although these ties are often viewed solely through the lens of economic and security interests, this report shows Pyongyang's deep historical connections and ideological linkages with several of the continent’s nations. North Korea–Africa relations are also bolstered by China, which has been complicit in North Korea’s arms and ivory trade, activities providing funds that likely support the Kim regime’s nuclear ambitions and allow it to withstand international sanctions.

Type: Special Report

Democracy & Governance

View All Publications