바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • P-ISSN0023-3900
  • E-ISSN2733-9343

Strategies for Positive Engagement with North Korea

Korea Journal, (P)0023-3900; (E)2733-9343
2013, v.53 no.3, pp.133-157
https://doi.org/10.25024/kj.2013.53.3.133

  • Downloaded
  • Viewed

Abstract

Arguing against the view that “coercive measures” or “neglect approaches” work, this article suggests ways to utilize “positive engagement” as a cooperative measure for reducing threats and facilitating the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Thus far, tactics for avoiding lethal confrontation on the Korean peninsula have been based heavily on coercion with a lack of genuine negotiation, and such measures are clearly unstable and conflict-prone. Instead, the positive engagement approach aims to achieve the peaceful transformation and social rehabilitation of North Korea. In order to prevent future conflict, the self-imposed isolation of North Korea and the antagonistic attitude of Pyongyang must be subverted through a judicious combination of aid and deterrence. North Korea must be encouraged to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, with a strong emphasis on transparency. The most appropriate policy for effectively dealing with North Korea is a bold, open approach that combines positive engagement with a genuine willingness to negotiate, with the ultimate goal of preventing nuclear proliferation and other potentially dangerous situations. In this context, the “Nunn-Lugar” concept may be a viable option, allowing supervising states to enact control measures that are very difficult to reverse.

keywords
North Korea positive engagement Nunn-Lugar nuclear security risk avoidance joint consortium

Reference

1.

Allison, Graham. 2006. “North Korean Nuclear Challenge: Bush Administration Failure: China’s Opportunity.” Korean Journal of Defense Analysis 18.3: 7–34.

2.

Babbage, Maria. 2004. “White Elephants: Why South Africa Gave Up the Bomb and the Implications for Nuclear Non-proliferation Policy.” Journal of Public and International Affairs 15: 1-20.

3.

Baldwin, David A. 1971. “The Power of Positive Sanctions.” World Politics 24.1: 19-38.

4.

Byman, Daniel, and Jennifer Lind. 2010. “Pyongyang’s Survival Strategy: Tools of Authoritarian Control in North Korea.” International Security 35.1: 44–74.

5.

Carter, Ashton B. 2003. “The Korean Nuclear Crisis: Preventing the Truly Dangerous Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Harvard Magazine 106.1: 38-41.

6.

Cha, Victor D. 2002. “Hawk Engagement and Preventive Defense on the Korean Peninsula.” International Security 27.1: 40-78.

7.

Cheon, Seongwhun. 2007. “North Korea and the ROK-U.S. Security Alliance.” Armed Forces and Society 34.1: 5-28.

8.

Cho, Young Chul. 2010. “Collective Identity Formation on the Korean Peninsula: United States’ Different North Korea Policies, Kim Dae-Jung’s Sunshine Policy, and United States-South Korea-North Korea Relations.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 10.1: 93-127.

9.

Cloud, David S. 2005. “Pentagon Studies Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes.” New York Times. September 11.

10.

Colin, Kahl, and William Odom. 2008. “When to Leave Iraq: Today, Tomorrow or Yesterday?” Foreign Affairs 87.4: 151-157.

11.

Davies, J. E. 2007. Constructive Engagement?: Chester Crocker and American Policy in South Africa, Namibia and Angola, 1981-8. Oxford: James Currey.

12.

Davis, James W. Jr., 2000. Threats and Promises: the Pursuit of International Influence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

13.

Evans, Peter, Harold K. Jacobson, and Robert D. Putnam, eds. 1993. Double-Edged Diplomacy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

14.

Evera, Stephen Van. 1998. “Offense, Defense, and the Causes of Wars.” International Security 22.4: 5-43.

15.

Evera, Stephen Van. 1999. Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. Cornell: Cornell University Press.

16.

Fitzpatrick, Kathy R. 2010. U.S. Public Diplomacy’s Neglected Domestic Mandate. Los Angeles: Figueroa Press.

17.

Gill, Bates. 1999. “Limited Engagement.” Foreign Affairs 78.4: 65-77.

18.

Grunau, Steven. 2004. “Negotiating Survival: The Problem of Commitment in U.S.-North Korean Relations.” Journal of Public and International Affairs 15: 99-120.

19.

Ha, Sang-Sik. 2009. “Revisiting the S. Korea’s Engagement Policy toward N. Korea under Kim Daejung and Roh Moohyun Administrations.” IRI Review 14.2: 31-61.

20.

Haggard, Stephan, and Marcus Noland. 2007. Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform. New York: Columbia University Press.

21.

Han, Kyu-han. 2013. “North Korean Nuclear for 20 Years: U.S. Made an Unreasonable Demand of.” Last modified February 16. http://left21.com/article/12503.

22.

Hanlon, Michael O. 1998. “Stopping a North Korean Invasion: Why Defending South Korea Is Easier than the Pentagon Thinks.” International Security 22.4: 135-170.

23.

Kim, Hak-Joon. 2003. “Sunshine or Thunder? Tension between the Kim and Bush Administrations in Historical Perspectives.” Korea Observer 34.1: 1-40.

24.

Kim, Keun-sik. 2006. “Segye cheje-ui appak-gwa yaksoja-roseoui bukhan-ui daeeung” (The Pressure of the World System and Response of North Korea as a Weak State). Silcheon munhak (Literature in Practice) 83: 441-548.

25.

Kim, Keun-sik. 2007. “North Korea’s Nuclear Test and South Korea’s Engagement Policy: Correlations and the Need for Continuance.” Peace Studies 15.1: 5-21.

26.

Kim, Taehyun. 2010. “Gathering Storm or Silver Lining Out of the Clouds? The North Korean Nuclear Issue and the Case for Coercive Diplomacy.” Korea Observer 41.3: 439-469.

27.

Kwak, Tae-Hwan, and Seung-Ho Joo, eds. 2006. The United States and the Korean Peninsula in the 21st Century. Hampshire: Ashgate.

28.

Lee, Chung-Min. 2007. “Nuclear Sisyphus: The Myth of Denuclearizing North Korea.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 61.1: 15-22.

29.

Lee, Jong-Sok. 1999. “Daebuk poyong jeongchaek 18 gaewol, pyeongga-wa gwaje” (18 Months after Engagement Policy toward North Korea: Assessment and Challenges). Gukka jeollyak (National Strategy) 5.2: 50-62.

30.

Lee, Jung-hoon. 2008. “A Real Deal or a Political Masquerade? The North Korean Nuclear Question Revisited.” In Towards Sustainable Economic and Security Relations in East Asia: U.S. and ROK Policy Options, edited by James M. Lister, 137-148. Seoul: Korea Economic Institute.

31.

Levin, Norman D., and Yong-Sup Han. 2003. Sunshine in Korea: The South Korean Debate over Policies toward North Korea. Santa Monica: Rand Publishing.

32.

Madden, David. 2003. “Can America and Her Allies Pay Kim Jong Il to Go Into Exile? Plan ‘C’: A New Option for North Korea.” American Foreign Policy (October).

33.

Martin, Lisa. 1993. “Credibility, Costs, and Institutions: Cooperation on Economic Sanctions.” World Politics 45.3: 406-432.

34.

Paik, Hak-soon. 2001. “Continuity or Change?: The New U.S. Policy toward North Korea.” East Asian Review 13.2: 23-38.

35.

Paik, Hak-soon. 2012. Obama jeongbu sigi-ui bungmi gwangye, 2009-2012 (The U.S.-North Korea Relation under the Obama Administration, 2009-2012). Seong-nam: Sejong Institute.

36.

Park, Kun Young. 2004. “Bungmi gwangye-ui jeongae-wa jeonmang, geurigo hanbando pyeonghwa-wa anjeong-eul wihan hanguk-ui jeollyak” (The Evolution and Prospect of North Korea-U.S. Relations and Korea’s Strategy for Peace and Stability on the Peninsula). Hanguk-gwa gukje jeongchi (Korea and World Politics) 20.1: 63-89.

37.

Park, Kun Young, and Cheong Wooksik. 2009. “Kim Dae-jung Bush jeongbu sigi hanmi gwangye” (Korea-U.S. Relations under the Kim Dae-jung and Bush Administrations: Focusing on North Korea Policies). Yeoksa bipyeong (Critical Review of History) 86: 140-168.

38.

Perkovich, George. 2003. “Bush’s Nuclear Revolution: A Regime Change in Nonproliferation.” Foreign Affairs 82.2: 2-8.

39.

Przystup, James J. 2002. “Anticipating Strategic Surprise on the Korean Peninsula.” Strategic Forum 190 (March): 1-5.

40.

Rumsfeld, Donald H. 2002. “Transforming the Military.” Foreign Affairs 81.3: 20-32.

41.

Sigal, Leon V. 2001. “Bush Administration’s Policy toward North Korea.” Paper presented at the international conference “The Bush Administration’s Policy toward North Korea,” Washington, D.C., October 24.

42.

Sigal, Leon V. 2005. “North Korean Nuclear Brinkmanship, 1993-94 and 2002-03.” In North Korea and the World: Explaining Pyongyang’s Foreign Policy, edited by Byung Chul Koh, 35-60. Seoul: Kyungnam University Press.

43.

Snyder, Scott. 2009. “North Korea’s Nuclear and Missile Tests and Six-Party Talks: Where Do We Go from Here?” Testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, June 17.

44.

Sperber, Daniel, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communications and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

45.

United States. White House. 2010. “National Security Strategy.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf.

46.

United States. White House. 2011. “National Strategy for Conterterrorism.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/counterterrorism_strategy.pdf.

47.

Yoo, Ho-yeol. 2011. “Seeking New Policy toward North Korea: From Engagement to Regime Change.” Korea Focus (webzine), May. http://www.koreafocus.or.kr/design3/essays/view.asp?volume_id=109&content_id=103528&category=G.

48.

Yoon, Young-Kwan. 2002. “The Sunshine Policy: A South Korean Perspective.” Paper presented at the conference “Inter-Korean Relations: Past, Present, and Future,” organized by the CSIS and the Council of Foreign Relations, Washing-ton, D.C., June 12-13.

49.

Yun, Dukmin. 2005. “Historical Origins of the North Korean Nuclear Issue: Examining 20 Years of Negotiation Records.” Korea Journal 45.4: 9-40.

Korea Journal