US needs Korea policy reset

This is the fifth in a "Letter to President Biden" series aimed at conveying policy recommendations in an open letter from politicians, scholars and experts to the new U.S. president following his Jan. 20 inauguration. ― ED.

By Sandip Kumar Mishra

Dear Mr. President,

Your election as the 46th president of the United States is not only important for the U.S. but also for a rapidly changing world. More specifically, there are lots of expectations that you will bring coherence and direction in the U.S. policy toward Korea.

The U.S. policy toward Korea under the Donald Trump administration was, to put it mildly, problematic. The gap between the U.S. and its ally, South Korea, became more visible because Trump had scant regards for the old friendship and common vision, instead pursuing a transactional approach toward South Korea.

Rather than appreciating the value of the U.S. alliance with South Korea and its mutual benefits, Trump appeared to be more concerned about the cost of the alliance. The Trump administration reportedly demanded that South Korea increase its annual payment from $1.3 billion to $5 billion for the stationing of the U.S. troops in South Korea.

Even though South Korea agreed to increase its share to a reasonable extent, the U.S. position remained obstinate. Trump also demanded a revision of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with South Korea, which was done in 2018. South Korea was also overtly forced to increase its defense purchases from the U.S. during Trump's term.

It was just the depth and breadth of the U.S.-South Korea connection which saved the alliance in spite of several jolts given by the myopic and self-centered Trump administration. President Biden, you need to restore the lost trust between the U.S. and South Korea by reviewing and responding on all these issues.

More urgently, you must announce as soon as possible that the U.S. will not demand an unrealistic sum from South Korea for stationing the U.S. troops, along with abandoning the “rotational deployment” policy of the U.S. troops.

The next important challenge for you will be to articulate a coherent policy to deal with North Korea and actively work on it. The Trump administration had no coherent policy to deal with North Korea, though Donald Trump must be given credit for being apparently the most active American president in dealing with North Korea.

It must be understood that Trump's activism, without a clear-cut policy vis-a-vis North Korea, led to him oscillating between “maximum pressure” and having three summit meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. His activism led to false hope that some forward movements in denuclearizing North Korea, along with putting a cap on its missile capabilities, would be achieved, but in the end he ended his term playing around with photo-op events.

Actually, I would like to submit that even though you need to change the U.S. approach in its dealings with North Korea, you should not go back to the U.S. policy employed during the Barack Obama administration in which you served as the vice president. The two most important pillars of the Obama administration's North Korea policy were “strategic patience” and allowing American allies in different regions to be the prime movers.

Both of these pillars constituted a coherent policy but both of them essentially meant that the U.S. remained inactive, which led North Korea to take great leaps in its nuclear and missile capabilities.

I would suggest that your administration, rather than having a “principled inactivism” approach, should pursue a “principled proactivism.” Thus, a better choice would be to mix the principled approach of the Obama administration with the proactive approach of the Trump administration.

On the more substantive issue of dealing with North Korea, I would say that it would be better to begin from the admission that all the available choices are imperfect and thus, rather than waiting for the articulation of a perfect choice, attempts should be made to utilize the least imperfect choice. For example, demanding complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization (CVID) as a precondition to listen to North Korea might not be a pragmatic choice.

Rather, a step-by-step approach could be adopted in which quid pro quo must be operationalized from the very beginning. Most importantly, attempts must also be made to bring China onboard. It might not appear easy, but if you work for it sincerely, it might not be so difficult. Your sobriety and constructive persona would definitely be of help in the process.

Last but not the least, I would like to appeal to you to provide more space to South Korea in its dealing with North Korea if you feel that South Korea has a coherent and consistent vision. The current South Korean administration has made several constructive moves in the last three and half years to reach out to North Korea, and it has been partially successful also.

The Moon Jae-in administration has a consistent North Korea policy, through which South Korea wants to establish peace and reconciliation with North Korea. You must appreciate South Korea's policy and coordinate the U.S. efforts to denuclearize North Korea with it. I wish you success and good health.

Sincerely,

Sandip Kumar Mishra

Sandip Kumar Mishra (sandipmishra10@gmail.com) is an associate professor at the Centre for East Asian Studies, the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.