Realistic US approach to North Korea

By Troy Stangarone

Every U.S. president ideally wants to head into their re-election campaign with foreign policy successes to tout to voters. However, foreign policy has traditionally had very little impact on U.S. elections unless there is something deeply wrong in the policy.

In the case of the current talks with North Korea, this history suggests there is likely to be little progress until after the November election.

The potential downside to foreign policy for a president's re-election is perhaps underscored by the Vietnam War.

What began under the Kennedy administration as an effort to support the South Vietnamese government with military advisers in time became a deeply unpopular war in the United States as casualties grew with no end to the conflict in sight. It slowly eroded President Lyndon Johnson's public approval and became a significant factor in his decision not to run for re-election in 1968.

Even foreign policy achievements have often not translated into electoral success. Despite George H.W. Bush's stunning foreign policy successes in peacefully managing the end of the Cold War and then building an international coalition to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991, only a year later he would go on to lose the presidential election to a relatively unknown Democrat named Bill Clinton.

Instead, U.S. elections tend to be fought on domestic issues such as the state of the economy or cultural issues. The 1992 election between Bush and Clinton introduced the phrase "it's the economy, stupid." In more recent elections, those issues have remained the focus of the American electorate despite the country's deeper involvement in conflicts abroad.

President George W. Bush's re-election campaign was the most recent election where foreign policy was a significant issue. September 11 was still fresh in American minds and only the year before the United States had invaded Iraq.

Foreign policy played a larger role than normal. Exit polling from the 2004 election indicates that 19 percent of the American public considered terrorism the most important issue. Another 15 percent viewed the war in Iraq as the most important challenge facing America. However, these two issues still trailed the economy and moral values as the most important considerations for Americans in the election.

In the 2008 election, 63 percent of Americans thought that the economy was the most important issue facing the country. Only a combined 19 percent thought either Iraq or terrorism were the most important issue. In 2012 and 2016, the most important issue for Americans remained the economy. Foreign policy became less relevant.

With his impeachment trial behind him President Donald Trump could try to reach a deal with North Korea prior to the November election, but history suggests that success is unlikely to help him in his re-election.

Failure would be unlikely to be as detrimental to his electoral chances as Vietnam was to Johnson's, but with little potential upside there may be negligible incentives for Trump to take significant steps before the election.

North Korea is also not a significant issue for the American public. Even during the period of "fire and fury" North Korea barely registered as the most pressing problem for the United States in an ongoing Gallup poll.

Trump, who is finely attuned to public opinion, may sense this as well. Reporting suggests that he does not want another summit meeting with Kim Jong-un prior to the election.

U.S. political calculations aside, reaching an agreement likely also faces challenges from North Korea. In the immediate term, North Korea's self-isolation to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus makes restarting talks impractical for the foreseeable future.

However, once North Korea lifts its quarantine it may still have reservations about engaging in substantive talks with the United States. Trump's own actions to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Iran nuclear deal likely signal to Pyongyang the innate uncertainty that comes with U.S. policy after an election.

A Democratic administration might be less likely than Trump to unwind any agreement, but it might also be more of a risk than North Korea is willing to take.

If reaching a deal in 2020 is complicated by politics, that doesn't mean that progress cannot be made with North Korea this year. The best course would be to engage in mid-level talks to work through the issues that need to be finalized prior to concluding a deal.

Ideally, the Trump administration would work in close consultation with leaders on Capitol Hill and the eventual Democratic nominee to ensure that if real progress is made and there is a change of administrations the talks can be quickly picked up and finalized with the support of Congress and the new U.S. administration in 2021.

The enmity in Washington over the impeachment may make this difficult, but continued talks would allow progress and potentially an interim deal to be concluded. The only real question is whether all of the parties are willing to use 2020 as more than a year lost to electoral politics.

Troy Stangarone (ts@keia.org) is senior director and fellow at the Korea Economic Institute.