Follow us on social

51051345377_af2d7d40bb_o-scaled

Allies' talks on North Korea a positive first step

US, Japanese, and South Korean officials met today to coordinate their approach: they should start by focusing on a peace regime.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

The news of a meeting today between U.S., Japanese, and South Korean officials to coordinate on North Korea policy is welcome. Washington will hopefully be in listening mode and ready to adjust its North Korean policy review to reflect its allies' views and concerns. 

While denuclearization remains one ultimate goal, the more near-term goal — and better starting point for negotiations — must be the building of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula that incorporates both conventional and nuclear arms reductions and credible, sustained confidence-building measures.  

The notion that the United States has ‘been there’ and ‘done that’ with such a two-track approach is simply untrue. And, in any event, the environment is now very different. Pyongyang is reeling from COVID and likely to double-down on provocations if Tokyo, Seoul, and Washington opt primarily for sticks over carrots in dealing with it. 

The notion, advocated by some, that Washington can work with Seoul and Tokyo to somehow use North Korea policy to maneuver against Beijing or to compel China to apply an unprecedented level of pressure on Pyongyang is fantasy. The allies (and especially Seoul, which wants to maintain good relations with China) won’t cooperate and Beijing will not be persuaded to facilitate the collapse of its troublesome North Korean “ally."


Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin participate in a Special Measures Agreement Initialing Ceremony with Republic of Korea Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong and Republic of Korea Defense Minister Suh Wook, in Seoul, Republic of Korea, on March 18, 2021. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha]
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.