Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies

Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies

Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies

Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies


The regime of Kim Jong-Il has been called "mad," "rogue," even, by the Wall Street Journal, the equivalent of an "unreformed serial killer." Yet, despite the avalanche of television and print coverage of the Pyongyang government's violation of nuclear nonproliferation agreements and existing scholarly literature on North Korean policy and security, this critical issue remains mired in political punditry and often misleading sound bites. Victor Cha and David Kang step back from the daily newspaper coverage and cable news commentary and offer a reasoned, rational, and logical debate on the nature of the North Korean regime.

Coming to the issues from different perspectives -- Kang believes the threat posed by Pyongyang has been inflated and endorses a more open approach, while Cha is more skeptical and advocates harsher measures -- the authors together have written an essential work of clear-eyed reflection and authoritative analysis. They refute a number of misconceptions and challenge much faulty thinking that surrounds the discussion of North Korea, particularly the idea that North Korea is an irrational nation. Cha and Kang contend that however provocative, even deplorable, the Pyongyang government's behavior may at times be, it is not incomprehensible or incoherent. Neither is it "suicidal," they argue, although crisis conditions could escalate to a degree that provokes the North Korean regime to "lash out" as the best and only policy, the unintended consequence of which are suicide and/or collapse. Further, the authors seek to fill the current scholarly and policy gap with a vision for a U. S.-South Korea alliance that is not simply premised on a North Korean threat, not simply derivative of Japan, and not eternally based on an older, "Korean War generation" of supporters.

This book uncovers the inherent logic of the politics of the Korean peninsula, presenting an indispensable context for a new policy of engagement. In an intelligent and trenchant debate, the authors look at the implications of a nuclear North Korea for East Asia and U. S. homeland security, rigorously assessing historical and current U. S. policy, and provide a workable framework for constructive policy that should be followed by the United States, Japan, and South Korea if engagement fails to stop North Korean nuclear proliferation.




Put two people in a room to discuss North Korea and three different opinions will emerge—all likely to be charged with emotion, if not outright vitriol. Why? Because the debate on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) has emerged in the past decade as one of the most divisive foreign policy issues for the United States and its allies in Asia. Interested parties have disagreed vehemently over the regime’s intentions and goals, and over the appropriate strategy that the United States should employ to deal with this mysterious country.

The debates over North Korea’s bombshell admission in October 2002 of a second secret nuclear weapons program, their withdrawal from the Nonproliferation Treaty, and the ensuing crisis in 2003, are only the most proximate illustration of the perennial division of views on the opaque regime. Many “hawks” or hardliners assert that Pyongyang’s conduct not only amounted to a violation of a series of nonproliferation agreements (i.e., Nonproliferation treaty, 1994 US-DPRK Agreed Framework, and 1992 Korean denuclearization declaration), but also revealed the fundamentally unchanged and “evil” intentions of the Kim Jong-il . . .

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.