Follow us on social

48164731071_71b4999269_o-scaled

Why the renewed hotline between South and North Korea is a big deal

The move will mitigate crises and open the door to resolving wider issues diplomatically.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

On July 27, 2021 at 10 AM Korea Standard Time, South Korea and North Korea announced that their direct hotline has been restored in a move that could signal thawing of bilateral relations. The Biden administration should encourage such moves, as greater communication between the two Koreas better protects U.S. interests in the region than passively waiting for North Korea to initiate dialogue. 

The announcement was important for several reasons. 

First, the fact that the two Koreas timed the reopening of direct channels on the 68th anniversary of the Korean War armistice agreement indicates their desire to draw international attention to the unresolved Korean War. According to the Senior Secretary for Public Communication Park Soo-hyun of South Korea’s Blue House, "the two leaders of the South and the North...shared an understanding to recover mutual trust and again push the countries' relationship forward." The North Korean state media Korean Central News Agency affirmed this news, noting that these communication lines will play a "positive role in improving and further developing inter-Korean relations." 

The strategically timed and well-coordinated nature of the move suggests that South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had agreed in advance on the content of the announcement and its timing. Indeed, the Blue House noted that Moon and Kim had exchanged personal letters on several occasions since April. Exploring what is possible away from the public eye is a good way to build the trust and confidence needed to get to the negotiating table, and the United States should explore similar possibilities with the help of South Koreans.

Second, inter-Korean diplomacy will likely reduce tensions on the Korean Peninsula far more effectively than through military threats such as joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises and pressure-based campaigns, neither of which have stopped North Koreans from building nuclear weapons. 

To be sure, ending the Korean War will require political and diplomatic finesse, rather than solely relying on the threat of force to change Pyongyang’s behavior. As Quincy Institute President Andrew Bacevich noted, “the U.S.’s continued reliance on military deterrence to prevent the resumption of hostilities is both costly and fraught with risk.” This includes not just the threat of military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula but the risk of underestimating North Korea’s insecurities, which lead to an increasing reliance on nuclear weapons for regime survival, thereby making renewed conflict more likely. 

Third, resumption of North-South direct talks could lead to an eventual resumption in U.S.-North Korea talks, which has been at an impasse since October 2019. Pro-engagement policies under South Korean Presidents Kim Dae Jung (1998-2003) and Roh Moo Hyun (2003-2008) led to progress in multilateral negotiations such as the Six-Party Talks that led to the September 2005 agreement, whereby North Korea agreed to denuclearize in exchange for certain commitments, such as affirmation by the United States that it will not attack or invade North Korea with nuclear or conventional weapons. 

Unfortunately, the 2005 agreement eventually broke down when the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned Banco Delta Asia for hosting $25 million of the Kim regime’s funds, and it became clear that the light water reactors for energy generation that was promised to Pyongyang under the Agreed Framework would never materialize. In June 2006, North Korea launched six ballistic missiles in violation of a moratorium on long-range missile launches.

Fifty years ago, the first inter-Korean hotline opened in Panmunjom in the demilitarized zone. These direct channels of communication have historically served as an important tool for confidence-building and crisis management, as well as facilitating delivery of humanitarian assistance between the two Koreas. When there are no direct communication lines, inter-Korean relations are strained, often with deadly results

At a minimum, yesterday’s resumption of the inter-Korean hotline will provide a much-needed channel for crisis communication and in improving inter-Korean relations. A more forward-leaning way of reading the latest development is that North Korea may soon be ready to talk with the United States. When that time comes, the Biden administration should be ready to negotiate, rather than simply “leave the door open for dialogue,” as Secretary of Defense Austin noted. For upholding the Singapore Declaration, as President Biden has pledged to do, will require taking a broader view of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula to include formally ending the Korean War, however belatedly.


President Donald J. Trump and Republic of South Korea President Moon Jae-in bid farewell to Chairman of the Workers’ Party Kim Jong Un Korea Sunday, June 30, 2019, at the demarcation line separating North and South Korea at the Korean Demilitarized Zone. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

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.