Steve January 14, 2021

An especially frustrating aspect of the defense and foreign policy team
that Joe Biden is assembling is the pervasive view among its members that U.S.
foreign policy was in splendid shape before Tweety McTreason became president. Given
that comforting delusion, it’s not surprising that their “solution”
is merely to restore
the status quo ante
– return US policy to what it was under Barack Obama.
Given the train wreck that actually characterized the Obama administration’s
foreign policy, it is a very dangerous assumption. Obama and his minions managed
to launch three new, disastrous US military interventions in the Middle East – Libya,
Syria and Yemen. They also perpetuated the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan
and reversed an initial decision to exit the Iraq quagmire.

The administration’s performance was not much better elsewhere. By meddling
in Ukraine’s internal affairs to help unseat the elected, pro-Russia president,
Washington further poisoned already fragile relations with Moscow. Tensions
also continued to escalate with China, as the United States sought to execute
a “strategic pivot” to East Asia, characterized by a buildup of US
forces in the region and a surge of “freedom of navigation” patrols
by the US Navy in the contested South China Sea.

Given that track record, merely returning to the policy status quo ante
is a spectacularly bad idea. Nowhere is the need for meaningful change more
urgent than with respect to Washington’s policy toward North Korea. Obama did
little more than keep on autopilot the longstanding, sterile US strategy of
trying to isolate the North Korean regime and compel it to relinquish its nuclear
weapons. If Biden embraces that approach, we could be heading for a nasty confrontation
with nuclear implications. New thinking and a new strategy is imperative.

Unfortunately, Biden and the Democratic Party as a whole show no signs of flexibility
or creativity about policy toward North Korea. Indeed, the prevailing attitude
has been profoundly reactionary and confrontational. Prominent Democrats, including
Biden, even condemned Tweety McTreason for his modest efforts to promote a rapprochement
with Pyongyang. Some of them denounced the president’s willingness even to meet
with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, contending that according Kim such an
honor implicitly “legitimized” his brutal dictatorship. President
Trump “elevated North Korea to the level of the United States while preserving
the regime’s status quo,” intoned then-House minority leader Nancy
. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) later exuded
in a tweet that Trump favored continuing a dialogue with such a
monstrous leader. “It’s simply heartbreaking to know tonight that [Kim’s]
biggest global cheerleader is the President of the United States of America.”

More recent comments from Biden himself offer little cause for optimism. In
January 2020, he stated that there was “no
” he would agree to meet Kim without “preconditions” – meaning
an ironclad commitment to denuclearization. During the final presidential debate
with Trump, Biden stated specifically that he would meet with Kim only “on
the condition
that he would be drawing down his nuclear capacity.”

If the new president wants to prevent a crisis, he must adopt a very
different approach
. Instead of continuing the futile quest of insisting
that North Korea implement denuclearization as a precondition for a grudging,
partial lifting of sanctions and tepid moves toward more normal relations, Washington
should pursue the full normalization of relations with Pyongyang. Such a move
would greatly reduce the dangerous, ongoing tensions.

Above all, Biden must spurn the advice of hawks (including some in his own
party) who would not shy away from a military confrontation with North Korea.
Unfortunately, a flirtation with that option goes all the way back to Bill Clinton’s
administration. In early 1994, officials were furious when North Korea blocked
international inspectors from certifying Pyongyang’s adherence to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. There was growing evidence that the North Koreans were
processing plutonium from a reactor at Yongbyon, and may have already extracted
enough fissile material to build two bombs.

In his memoirs,
Clinton described his administration’s reaction to those developments. “I
was determined to prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear arsenal, even
at the risk of war.” He had Secretary of Defense William Perry convey that
message in the strongest terms in comments to a group of newspaper reporters
and editors. Clinton added: “In order to make absolutely certain that the
North Koreans knew we were serious, Perry continued the tough talk over the
next three days, even saying we would not rule out a preemptive military strike.”

They were not making idle threats. Perry later confirmed that the administration
seriously considered conducting “surgical
” against North Korea’s nuclear installations. The world was
perilously close to witnessing another armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula.
Only a special diplomatic mission headed by former president Jimmy Carter forestalled
a potentially horrific conflict by negotiating an accord.

Contemplating the military option would be even more perilous today. In 1994,
Pyongyang’s nuclear program was in its infancy and the regime was years away
from building operational nuclear weapons. Now, North Korea possesses an estimated
10 to 15 such weapons and likely will have 50 to 60 by the end of Biden’s term
in January 2025. Likewise, North Korea will likely continue
its ballistic missiles in terms of both range and reliability.
Those missiles are already capable of reaching the North American continent.

Without the normalization of relations, the danger of a catastrophic confrontation
will continue to grow. Normalization includes the establishment of embassies
in both countries, a treaty formally ending the Korean War, and the lifting
of economic sanctions. Normalization also requires Washington to assure Pyongyang
that it is out of the forcible regime-change business. One of the main reasons
why North Korean leaders have doggedly continued to build a nuclear deterrent
is that they saw how Washington treated
non-nuclear adversaries
such as Serbia, Iraq, and Libya.

Returning to the Obama era policy of issuing impotent demands that Pyongyang
give up its nukes is not only pointless, it’s potentially lethal. President
Biden needs to adopt an entirely different approach.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute,
is the author of 12 books and more than 850 articles on international affairs.

Read More