The nuclear shadow of North Korea
evidence. What is certain is that the absence of any sustained meaningful dialogue with North Korea is a source of serious concern.
The South Korean leadership, which understands better than anyone the danger that North Korea poses, has long recognized the need for such a dialogue. Indeed, despite North Korea’s refusal to make any real concessions on human rights issues and family visits, much less its military posture, South Korea has regularly sought to establish a process for such discussions.
The challenge for the US is to support South Korea’s efforts, without wavering on its demand that the North participate in a new round of nuclear talks, based on the terms to which it previously agreed. Opponents of this approach insist that there is no place for such “preconditions” in a genuine dialogue, in which the relevant parties are simply supposed to exchange views. But the fact is that North Korea’s refusal to acknowledge its 2005 commitment to abandon its nuclear program effectively renders any prospective dialogue moot. After all, reversing the country’s nuclear buildup was a fundamental reason for launching talks in the first place.
With the two-year election clock in the US about to be reset to 2016, there is probably enough time for one more major push for substantive nuclear talks with North Korea. Given the country’s negotiating record, such an effort will depend on the triumph of hope over experience; but it is worth a try, given the lack of alternatives.
Indeed, the challenge extends far beyond convincing North Korea to participate. The US cannot hope to make any progress without support from China and others, including Russia, or without all countries bringing their leverage to bear. Russia cannot forever maintain a foreign policy based on spite. The international community, as fragmented and conflicted as it currently is, can find common ground in recognizing the threat that North Korea’s unpredictable and enigmatic regime poses, and take cooperative action to mitigate it. The first step in that process must be dialogue based on commitments already made. A dialogue with the deaf can be difficult; but a dialogue with an amnesiac can be no dialogue at all.