TOKYO — As his term comes to an end, South Korean President Moon Jae-in made a final plea last week to resume diplomatic talks with North Korea — the defining ambition of his presidency, and one that feels more out of reach than ever.
To that end, researchers at three think tanks in Washington and Seoul envisioned a world where Moon’s (and Trump’s) efforts toward rapprochement with the nuclear state panned out.
A team of former diplomats, policymakers, academics and analysts created three scenarios in which, rather than walking away from the Hanoi summit in 2019, Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un reached an interim deal, which led to further negotiations.
For example, one scenario was set several years from now, in a world where the United States and North Korea had taken mutual confidence-building measures, such as Pyongyang declaring a list of nuclear facilities and Washington temporarily easing certain sanctions — both sticking points in real life as the two sides have hardened their positions.
The authors of the report, released Monday, acknowledge that it’s difficult to extrapolate too much from the exercise, but say it was designed to open up perspectives beyond the status quo. They argue that for too long, U.S. negotiators have viewed North Korea as a security threat to manage, rather than a country they can work with over time toward a peace agreement.
The research was conducted by analysts from the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft (which advocates for military restraint), and the South Korean think tank Sejong Institute, whose leadership is allied with Moon.
“The problem with [the] conventional approach is that while it may have been successful in deterring and containing North Korea, and preventing a war, it’s also been equally unsuccessful in improving relations and reducing the threat and building peace,” said Frank Aum, a senior expert on Northeast Asia at the U.S. Institute of Peace and former Pentagon senior adviser on North Korea issues, who co-wrote the report.
The writers presented takeaways they hope will give new perspectives — including scenarios in which U.S. and North Korean “negotiators” were more willing to find areas of agreement and make concessions after they received instructions from their respective leaders to “seek, as best they could, to reach a final, comprehensive peace settlement.”
“The intractability of the Korean Peninsula problem and the calcification of positions over the last seven decades means that only the highest level of executive leadership can compel an end to the impasse,” the report read.
The finding reflects the view among some analysts that Trump’s summit diplomacy, while imperfect, was a new and “extraordinarily bold” approach that brought new momentum toward progress. For example, a recent NK News survey of 82 North Korea specialists from around the world found overwhelming agreement that Trump’s leader-to-leader approach with Kim “represents the best decision by Washington during the Kim Jong Un era.”
In addition, in response to a question about what Washington should do next, more than one-third of the respondents said they believed the United States “should take a radical turn in its policy toward North Korea.”
“It seems to me that we are very close to returning to a period of constant provocations. The situation is not good, and what we can expect is a chorus of people that say … we need to double down, squeeze North Korea even harder,” said Jessica Lee, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute’s East Asia Program and co-author of the report. “I would say the situation on the peninsula has evolved, and we need fresh perspectives like the ones offered in this report.”
North Korea has conducted a flurry of missile tests in recent months as it expands and diversifies its arsenal.
U.S. and South Korean negotiators have urged North Korea to return to talks, assuring Pyongyang that they have no preconditions. But the Biden administration has not shown it is willing to grant the sanctions relief that Kim seeks. Meanwhile, South Korea has continued to build up its military capabilities, which it describes as a defensive measure toward the nuclear-armed North.
North Korea views sanctions, South Korea’s arms buildup and U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises as “hostile” policies that are inconsistent with talk of negotiations. And there is little sign of either side backing down.
Read more:
