Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
 Ngo Dinh Diem assassination
Top photo credit: Newspaper coverage of the coup and deaths, later ruled assassination of Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu. (Los Angeles Times)

JFK oversaw Vietnam decapitation. He didn't live to witness the rest.

Washington Politics

American presidents have never been shy about unseating foreign heads of state, by either overt or covert means. Since the late 19th century, our leaders have deposed, or tried to depose their counterparts in Iran, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and elsewhere.

Our presidents indulge in regime change when they perceive foreign leaders as inimical to U.S. security or corporate interests. But such efforts can backfire. The 1961 attempt to topple Fidel Castro, organized under President Eisenhower and executed under President Kennedy, led to a slaughter of CIA-trained invasion forces at the Bay of Pigs and a triumph for Castro’s communist government. Despite being driven from power by President George W. Bush in retribution for the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban roared back in 2023, again making Afghanistan a haven for terrorist groups.

keep readingShow less
Trump SOTU 2025
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump holds a copy of an executive order in address to Congress 04 Mar 2025 Credit: POOL via CNP/INSTARimages.com

Has my party become 'eunuchs in the thrall' of the president?

Washington Politics

I take a back seat to no one in my disdain and loathing of state-sponsored socialism.

In fact, I wrote a book, The Case Against Socialism, describing the historic link between socialism, communism and state-sponsored violence.

keep readingShow less
US air force Venezuela operation absolute resolve
Top image credit: U.S. Air Force crew chiefs watch as F-35A Lightning II’s taxi following military actions in Venezuela in support of Operation Absolute Resolve, Jan. 3, 2026. (U.S. Air Force Photo)

The US military is feeling invincible, and that's dangerous

Latin America

The U.S. military certainly put on an impressive display Saturday during the raid to capture Nicolás Maduro.

It’s a testament to the professionalism of the staff and operators that they were able to design such a complex operation, coordinating ground and naval forces with all the supporting air, communications, and logistical elements. The 140-minute operation apparently went off without a significant hitch as evidenced by the fact that the mission was accomplished without losing a single American.

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.