Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_780205474-scaled

The coronavirus crisis should convince Washington to abandon ‘maximum pressure’ against North Korea

This crisis is exposing just how senseless Washington’s approach to Pyongyang has been for the last seventy years, and why it must change as soon as possible.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

Many people are rightfully outraged that the United States just imposed fresh sanctions on Iran during a global pandemic, as the U.S.-led sanctions regime is already causing ordinary Iranians to suffer, and the coronavirus crisis only puts them more at risk. But amidst demands to lift sanctions on Iran, it’s important to remember that another country is also at grave risk because of U.S. militarism and “maximum pressure”: North Korea.

Although North Korea has not internationally reported any cases of COVID-19, experts agree that the virus has likely begun to spread there. With more than 88,000 confirmed cases in China and South Korea combined, North Korea is highly susceptible to a coronavirus outbreak. And an outbreak in North Korea has the potential to be catastrophic given the country’s socioeconomic conditions and already debilitated health care system due to being one of the most heavily sanctioned countries in the world.

As in Iran and Venezuela, the U.S.-led global sanctions regime against North Korea has seriously undermined the country’s health care system, economic development, and the ability of humanitarian workers to deliver life-saving aid. Forty percent of North Korea’s population — 11 million people — lack “sufficient nutritious food, clean drinking water or access to basic services like health and sanitation,” according to a 2019 U.N. report. In 2018 alone, an estimated 3,968 civilians — mostly women and children — died from sanctions-related delays and funding shortfalls to U.N. humanitarian programs. In this current crisis, many more North Koreans are certain to suffer.

Despite the State Department’s recent assurances to “expeditiously facilitate” exemption requests, in practice, most humanitarian workers will be unable to provide timely assistance as international financial institutions generally refuse to facilitate the transfer of funds in North Korea needed to cover medical and operating expenses. Furthermore, it has been extremely difficult for international public health officials and humanitarian workers to assess and respond to the coronavirus’s impact in North Korea.

This isn't an accident. It’s the result of years of deliberate and flawed policymaking. In the decades since American officials arbitrarily divided the Korean peninsula along the 38th parallel, our posture toward North Korea has been almost entirely based on militarism, sanctions, and isolation. Consider the Korean War: the conflict turns 70 this year and, true to what textbooks call America’s “forgotten war,” remains unresolved as it concluded not with a formal peace agreement but a temporary armistice. The continued state of war may seem like a technicality for most Americans, but it’s responsible for keeping tens of thousands of families divided, prohibiting inter-Korean cultural and economic exchange, and threatening millions in the region with renewed military conflict.

While the Trump administration’s behavior toward North Korea has been particularly erratic — lurching from threats of nuclear war to love letters — it’s not fundamentally different from prior administrations. The Obama administration’s “strategic patience” was based on the same flawed theory that North Korea could be punished and isolated into compliance with maximalist demands. North Korea policy under the Bush administration was largely driven by hardliners like Vice President Dick Cheney and noted war enthusiast John Bolton, both of whom preferred a strategy of regime change. Even the Clinton administration’s most modest diplomatic efforts were badly undermined by congressional opposition, and the administration initially came very close to bombing North Korea.

The global health crisis we now face underscores that such measures don’t just punish North Korea, they punish us all. Ignoring and isolating North Korea hasn’t led to any progress on denuclearization or human rights. It has only ensured that millions of people remain critically vulnerable to a global pandemic, and that the international community remains divided at a time when cooperation, solidarity, and our common humanity are essential to confronting a massive threat that endangers us all.

The coronavirus pandemic is bringing into sharp relief a devastating policy reality: sanctions kill.

Ultimately, the coronavirus crisis demonstrates that just about every assumption undergirding the U.S. national security apparatus is at best misguided and at worst false. Washington has carefully and meticulously constructed a military machine that’s the most powerful and destructive in the world, stationed troops and bases across the globe, and continued to maintain an war paradigm with seemingly no end in sight.

But none of this is of any use right now. There’s an imminent threat to all of our security, and we can’t bomb it, invade it, or occupy it. It’s not a military challenge and there’s no military cure.

U.S-North Korea relations may be just one aspect of failed U.S. national security policy, but it’s a crucial feature of both the problem and solution. The unresolved Korean War helped usher in the modern era of endless war and exponentially growing military budgets that continues to destabilize entire countries and regions. The decades-long bipartisan failure to account for such legacies of war-making and to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation to confront shared challenges has left us ill-prepared and insecure to deal with the current moment.

This is the crux of the question we are now faced with: Are we capable of adjusting our notion of what “security” means moving forward from this crisis? To repeat the same old playbook — implementing more sanctions, refusing to resolve the war, ignoring and isolating North Korea — could put millions of lives in jeopardy. Instead, let’s move to a people-centered human security paradigm that is guided by a vision of peace, international cooperation, and an ethics of care.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Photo credit: Yeongsik Im / Shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025
Top image credit: Dabari CGI/Shutterstock

The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025

Media

I spent the last few weeks asking experts about the foreign policy books that stood out in 2025. My goal was to create a wide-ranging list, featuring volumes that shed light on the most important issues facing American policymakers today, from military spending to the war in Gaza and the competition with China. Here are the eight books that made the cut.

keep readingShow less
Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war
Top image credit: People walking on Red square in Moscow in winter. (Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock)

Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war

Europe

After its emergence from the Soviet collapse, the new Russia grappled with the complex issue of developing a national identity that could embrace the radical contradictions of Russia’s past and foster integration with the West while maintaining Russian distinctiveness.

The Ukraine War has significantly changed public attitudes toward this question, and led to a consolidation of most of the Russian population behind a set of national ideas. This has contributed to the resilience that Russia has shown in the war, and helped to frustrate Western hopes that economic pressure and heavy casualties would undermine support for the war and for President Vladimir Putin. To judge by the evidence to date, there is very little hope of these Western goals being achieved in the future.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.