Patience or Lethargy?: U.S. Policy toward North Korea under the Obama Administration

Abstract

IntroductionThe denuclearization of North Korea (officially, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK) has been most important policy objective in U.S.-North Korea relations since end of Cold War. But U.S. foreign policy in North Korea proved unsuccessful when Pyongyang conducted its first nuclear test in 2006. Both William J. Clinton administration (1993-2000) and George W. Bush administration (2001-2008) sought to prevent a nuclear North Korea by adopting a ety of toward country, ranging from a possible use of military force to a negotiated settlement. Despite many years of hard work, however, their efforts failed.President Obama has been seeking denuclearization of North Korea since his inauguration in 2009. Nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and counterterrorism are top priorities in his foreign policy. Like his predecessors, Obama also believes that nuclear nonproliferation is critical not only security of United States, but also peace of international community. On April 5, 2009, he revealed his vision a world without nuclear weapons in Prague, Czech Republic.1 Approximately one year later, Obama administration also announced a radical shift in U.S. nuclear weapons strategy in that United States will not use its nuclear weapons to retaliate against attacks involving biological or chemical weapons or large- scale conventional forces.2 On April 8, 2010, he also signed a historic nuclear arms control treaty with Russian president Dmitri A. Medvedev.3 He was even awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.4However, Obama has not been so successful with North Korean nuclear issue. Since Obama administration adopted a policy, no progress has been made: neither denuclearization process nor Six-Party Talks have resumed. Pyongyang even conducted a second nuclear test during Obama's term, and has not rejoined Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).The central goal of this paper is to explain why Obama administration has not had any noticeable accomplishment in its policy on North Korean nuclear issue. By closely examining policy goals and strategies of Obama administration over past two and a half years, this paper seeks to uncover what is missing from U.S. policy toward North Korea. The starting point is to make sense of what Pyongyang really wants from Washington. Giving due consideration to Pyongyang's objectives, President Obama faces a choice of three different strategies: coercive diplomacy, strategic patience (the status quo), and engagement.This paper argues that success of Obama administration in achieving denuclearization of North Korea is dependent on an appropriate understanding of Pyongyang's security concerns and a careful analysis of North Korean nuclear policy. It suggests that President Obama should radically change his North Korea policy. More specifically, he should abandon strategic patience policy and instead adopt a constructive engagement policy in order to achieve denuclearization of North Korea and security of East Asian region.The North Korea Policy of Obama AdministrationPresident Barack Obama was expected to bring about dramatic change in not only U.S. domestic policy but also foreign policy. These expectations were incredibly high, both because Obama symbolized change as first African American president in American history and because he retained political power to do so with Democratic Party's control of both chambers of Congress. The inauguration of President Obama also generated expectations in Pyongyang that the strained relationship between North Korea and U.S. would improve under new U.S. administration, Obama had indicated during 2008 presidential campaign his willingness to meet even with leaders of rogue nations, such as Kim Jong-Il of North Korea, if that was what it would take to resolve North Korean nuclear issue. …