Patience or Lethargy?: U.S. Policy toward North Korea under the Obama Administration

IntroductionThe denuclearization of North Korea (officially, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK) has been the most important policy objective in U.S.-North Korea relations since the end of the Cold War. But U.S. foreign policy in North Korea proved unsuccessful when Pyongyang conducted its first nuclear test in 2006. Both the William J. Clinton administration (1993-2000) and the George W. Bush administration (2001-2008) sought to prevent a nuclear North Korea by adopting a ety of toward the country, ranging from a possible use of military force to a negotiated settlement. Despite many years of hard work, however, their efforts failed.President Obama has been seeking the denuclearization of North Korea since his inauguration in 2009. Nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and counterterrorism are top priorities in his foreign policy. Like his predecessors, Obama also believes that nuclear nonproliferation is critical not only for the security of the United States, but also for the peace of the international community. On April 5, 2009, he revealed his vision for a world without nuclear weapons in Prague, Czech Republic.1 Approximately one year later, the Obama administration also announced a radical shift in U.S. nuclear weapons strategy in that the United States will not use its nuclear weapons to retaliate against attacks involving biological or chemical weapons or large- scale conventional forces.2 On April 8, 2010, he also signed a historic nuclear arms control treaty with Russian president Dmitri A. Medvedev.3 He was even awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."4However, Obama has not been so successful with the North Korean nuclear issue. Since the Obama administration adopted a "strategic patience" policy, no progress has been made: neither the denuclearization process nor the Six-Party Talks have resumed. Pyongyang even conducted a second nuclear test during Obama's term, and has not rejoined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).The central goal of this paper is to explain why the Obama administration has not had any noticeable accomplishment in its policy on the North Korean nuclear issue. By closely examining the policy goals and strategies of the Obama administration over the past two and a half years, this paper seeks to uncover what is missing from U.S. policy toward North Korea. The starting point is to make sense of what Pyongyang really wants from Washington. Giving due consideration to Pyongyang's objectives, President Obama faces a choice of three different strategies: coercive diplomacy, strategic patience (the status quo), and constructive engagement.This paper argues that the success of the Obama administration in achieving the denuclearization of North Korea is dependent on an appropriate understanding of Pyongyang's security concerns and a careful analysis of North Korean nuclear policy. It suggests that President Obama should radically change his North Korea policy. More specifically, he should abandon the strategic patience policy and instead adopt a "constructive engagement" policy in order to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea and the security of the East Asian region.The North Korea Policy of the Obama AdministrationPresident Barack Obama was expected to bring about dramatic change in not only U.S. domestic policy but also foreign policy. These expectations were incredibly high, both because Obama symbolized change as the first African American president in American history and because he retained the political power to do so with the Democratic Party's control of both chambers of Congress. The inauguration of President Obama also generated expectations in Pyongyang that "the strained relationship between North Korea and the U.S. would improve under the new U.S. administration, for Obama had indicated during the 2008 presidential campaign his willingness to meet even with leaders of rogue nations, such as Kim Jong-Il of North Korea, if that was what it would take to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. …