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

70 Years After the Armistice, the Korean Peninsula Still Struggles for Peace

70 Years After the Armistice, the Korean Peninsula Still Struggles for Peace

Monday, September 11, 2023

By: Bong-geun Jun

On July 27, 1953, military commanders from the United States, North Korea and China signed an armistice agreement that ended the hostilities of the Korean War. The parties agreed to a “complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force until a final peaceful settlement is achieved.” They also recommended holding a “political conference” within three months for “the peaceful settlement of the Korean question.” After 70 years of truce, however, peace on the Korean Peninsula is still elusive.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Frank Aum on the Need for Diplomacy with North Korea

Frank Aum on the Need for Diplomacy with North Korea

Tuesday, August 1, 2023

By: Frank Aum

In the 70 years since the Korean War armistice, mutual deterrence has emerged as the prevailing strategy for preventing conflict on the peninsula. But USIP’s Frank Aum says “deterrence is not an end … [it’s] supposed to buy time” for diplomacy, and the West has the power to restart dialogue with North Korea.

Type: Podcast

Will the ‘Washington Declaration’ Deter North Korea?

Will the ‘Washington Declaration’ Deter North Korea?

Thursday, April 27, 2023

By: Frank Aum;  Adam Gallagher

South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol is in Washington this week as the United States and South Korea celebrate 70 years of bilateral ties. Yoon’s visit is only the second state visit hosted by the Biden administration and the first South Korean state visit in 12 years. While there have been some recent strains in the relationship over U.S. trade and semiconductor policy and Seoul’s support for Ukraine, the focus of the bilateral summit was on the threat posed by North Korea. Although the summit ostensibly achieved both sides’ desired security deliverables related to deterrence, reassurance and nonproliferation, these outcomes will likely not provide enduring solutions to the North Korea challenge.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & PreventionGlobal Policy

North Korean Arms Control Doesn’t Have to Conflict with Disarmament

North Korean Arms Control Doesn’t Have to Conflict with Disarmament

Thursday, January 19, 2023

By: John Carl Baker

There is a tension between limiting North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and pursuing the goal of a denuclearized Korean peninsula. To emphasize the former — through arms control and risk-reduction measures — can seem at times like a repudiation of the latter. Conversely, a focus on disarmament — still the core of U.S. policy — can seem outright fanciful given North Korea’s stunning technological advances. In North Korea, the United States faces a nuclear-armed state whose capabilities continue to expand despite international opposition and extensive economic sanctions. Disarmament simply isn’t in the cards right now.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & PreventionGlobal Policy

View All Publications