Follow us on social

South_korean_army_1st_lt._choi_min_kyu_left_points_across_the_border_into_north_korea_while_briefing_u.s._vice_president_joe_biden-scaled

Joe Biden should seize the opportunity for peace on the Korean Peninsula

Trump was right to meet with Kim Jong Un. As president, Biden can build on that opening for a lasting peace.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

President-elect Joe Biden made history by selecting a Black and Asian American woman to be his vice president, and he can do it once again by charting a new path forward with North Korea, building upon President Donald Trump’s diplomatic opening.

For months, observers of U.S. foreign policy have wondered if a Biden administration would revert to “strategic patience” on North Korea — a euphemism for a highly risk-averse containment strategy that came to define the Obama administration. Unfortunately, returning to the policy of non-engagement and economic sanctions (some of which have shown to harm ordinary North Koreans) will not undo North Korea’s nuclear weapons program nor make conflict on the Korean Peninsula less likely. It would only buy Pyongyang more time to strengthen its nuclear deterrence.  

Despite the fact that time is not on the U.S.’s side, advocates of “maximum pressure” contend that the only language that the North Korean government understands is pressure and that the next president must instill yet even greater pain on the Kim regime until it gives up its nuclear weapons. Such a narrative misses the political dimensions of U.S.-North Korea relations, which have long been Washington’s blind spot.

History shows that North Korea has sought to have better relations with the United States, dating back at least to the 1990s. As former senior State Department official Robert Carlin and China expert John W. Lewis noted on the Agreed Framework negotiations during the Clinton administration, North Korea’s founding leader Kim Il Sung “press[ed] for engagement with the United States and [would] even accept a continuing U.S. military presence on the Peninsula as a hedge against expanded, potentially hostile, Chinese or Russian influence.” 

In Washington Post editor Bob Woodward’s book, “Rage,” it is again apparent how much Kim Il Sung’s grandson and current leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, was concerned about balancing geopolitical interests in the region. According to Woodward, “Kim never once, directly or indirectly, raised the issue of the 30,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea. Kim wanted them there, Secretary of State Pompeo concluded, because they were a restraint on China.”

Despite North Korea’s self-interest in improving ties with the United States, Kim Jong Un has not made negotiations easy for Washington to pursue. It continues to test and build nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and ignores U.S. calls for renewed dialogue. To be sure, there are domestic advantages for Kim in painting the United States as a dire threat to the North Korean people. An external threat legitimizes the Kim regime’s investment in weapons of mass destruction. In that sense, drastic improvements in relations with the United States would test Kim’s proposition in a fundamental way.

Given this reality, what is the best way forward for the Biden administration? 

First, Biden should approach stakeholders in the region with an open mind and try to find common ground wherever possible. Biden’s preference for consulting with U.S. allies South Korea and Japan, as well as working with China, to improve the security conditions on the Korean Peninsula issue is commendable.

At the same time, Biden must recognize that there are diverging views on how to get there, especially among U.S. allies. The progressive South Korean government and the conservative Japanese government view U.S. leadership on the North Korea issue very differently, both for policy reasons as well as political reasons driven by domestic constituents. The work of Biden’s team will be equal parts consulting our allies and persuading them toward a common agenda.

Additionally, Biden must find a way to distinguish between denuclearization as a long-term goal and a more immediate path forward on North Korea. The fact is that an arms control agreement is the most realistic way to restrict North Korea’s development, proliferation, and use of nuclear weapons. Biden would do well to focus on incentives and sequencing that will encourage North Korea’s cooperation in an arms control agreement, with an eye toward a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula as a long-term vision. 

There is growing bipartisan interest on Capitol Hill for fresh thinking on North Korea. There is also growing concern about the foreign policy establishment’s myopic focus on North Korea’s nuclear weapons in ways that have become too insular and inflexible.

President-elect Biden has the mandate to pursue a new agenda for our country. On North Korea, Biden should build upon the best of what his Republican predecessor offers and assemble a transpartisan consensus toward change. The 2018 Joint Statement, signed by President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un, is a good starting point for building “a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.”

Wednesday is Veterans Day, a day when we remember the sacrifices of our men and women who paid the ultimate price for our freedom. At a time of extreme domestic challenges, there is ever greater need for innovative solutions on a wide range of issues that threaten U.S. national security interests. A North Korea policy based on bipartisanship, multilateralism, and realism offers the best chance for President-elect Biden to turn President Trump’s vision of a more peaceful Korean Peninsula into a reality.


South Korea Army 1st Lt. Choi Min Kyu, left, points across the border into North Korea while briefing U.S. Vice President Joe Biden Dec. 7, 2013, during a visit to Observation Post Ouelette in South Korea. Biden's three-day visit underscored the commitment of the U.S. administration to its alliance with South Korea. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Chris Church/Released)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Zelensky  and Merz
Top photo credit: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy (2R) is welcomed by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (R) upon arrival in the garden of the chancellery in Berlin to join a video conference of European leaders with the US President on the Ukraine war ahead of the summit between the US and Russian leaders, on August 13, 2025. JOHN MACDOUGALL/Pool via REUTERS

On Ukraine war, Euro leaders begin to make concessions — to reality

Europe

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky huddled with European leaders yesterday in advance of Donald Trump’s highly touted meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. The call, which Trump joined as well, was viewed as Europe and Ukraine’s final chance to influence the American president’s thinking ahead of the U.S.-Russia summit in Anchorage.

With Ukraine’s position on the battlefield progressively worsening and Trump renewing his push for a ceasefire, European leaders have begun to make concessions to reality. Most strikingly, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said yesterday that the frontline should be the starting point for territorial negotiations, echoing NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s recent comment that there may be a need for de facto recognition of Russian occupation of Ukrainian land.

keep readingShow less
El Sisi Netanyahu
Top image credit: miss.cabul / Shutterstock.com

Why Egypt can't criticize Israel for at least another two decades

Middle East

In early August, Israeli energy company NewMed announced a record-breaking $35 billion deal to supply natural gas to Egypt, nearly tripling its current imports and binding Cairo’s energy future to its neighbor until at least 2040.

Though Egyptian officials were quick to frame this not as a new agreement but as an “amendment” to a 2019 deal, the sheer scale of the deal — the largest in Israel’s export history — is indicative of a deepening and dangerous dependence on its neighbor for its energy needs.

The pact is driven by the mutual, if asymmetric, political needs of two deeply entangled governments. For Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the deal provides the energy needed to prevent domestic unrest. For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, the benefits are especially outsized. The $35 billion pact provides a massive, long-term revenue stream and solidifies Israel’s status as a critical energy player in the Eastern Mediterranean. Furthermore, it delivers a strategic victory by binding the most populous Arab state into deep and lasting economic dependency.

keep readingShow less
Stephen Cohen's legacy: Warnings unheeded, a war without end
Stephen Cohen, 2015. (Courtesy of Katrina vanden Huevel)

Stephen Cohen's legacy: Warnings unheeded, a war without end

Europe

Russian historian Stephen F. Cohen, who passed away five years ago this September, occupied a position in American intellectual life that has become increasingly rare: a tenured Ivy League professor with deep establishment credentials who used his considerable influence to challenge rather than echo establishment narratives.

As Ukrainian-American journalist Lev Golinkin observed, Cohen was “someone who didn’t just write about history but had dinner with it,” having briefed U.S. presidents and maintained friendships with figures like former Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev.

keep readingShow less

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.