The Biden administration recently announced that the US has completed a comprehensive review of its North Korea policy, emphasizing that it will adopt a pragmatic approach to achieve complete denuclearization in the Korean peninsula. The new approach differs from that of the previous “strategic patience” approach of the Obama administration or the “grand bargain” approach of the Trump administration. The fact that the North Korea policy of the US — and South Korea — changes administration by administration speaks volumes: they never really worked, and they underestimated the complexity of the problem. The common goal of denuclearization was never reached, and North Korea continues to periodically fire numerous missiles into the nearby seas. The human rights violations in North Korea have persisted to a point where people now take them for granted as well.

Why is the situation with the so-called “hermit kingdom” so hard to resolve? At this point, most people with at least a tiny bit of interest should know that Kim Jong-un is not “crazy”, as he is sometimes portrayed to be (although executing his uncle and assassinating his half-brother never did him any favors). The primary goal of North Korea is the survival of the regime. This explains North Korea’s obsession of maintaining its nuclear arsenal, as similar authoritarian regimes in the Balkans, Iraq, or Libya collapsed after giving in to US requests. Many experts therefore interpret nuclear weapons as North Korea’s way of deterring a potential US attack, or as bargaining chips in easing economic sanctions.

The Obama administration’s policy of strategic patience involved imposing tough sanctions on North Korea with the belief that it will lead to the collapse of the regime and bring North Korea to the negotiating table. With the benefit of hindsight, however, sanctions did not bring forth the desired results, especially as countries like China and Russia, with differing geopolitical interests, provided lifelines to North Korea. With the failure of strategic patience, the Trump administration took an entirely different stance: a “top-down” approach seeking a “grand bargain”. Together with the liberal Moon administration’s preference for diplomatic talks with North Korea, 2018 and 2019 saw an inter-Korean summit as well as two unprecedented US-North Korea summits. While there were growing expectations towards denuclearization and peace in the Korean peninsula, the drama ended with a “no deal” in the Hanoi Summit as the US and North Korea could not come to an agreement regarding sanctions and the denuclearization process. Again, even an entirely different approach was unsuccessful.

The remaining optimism for progress in the North Korea issue was shattered when North Korea blew up the Inter-Korean liaison office in Kaesong, which had been entirely paid for by the South Korean government. The incident where North Korea killed and burned a South Korean official three months after the demolition did no favor to the already worsening relationship in the peninsula. With less than a year left of the current Moon administration, it is highly unlikely that any dramatic advancement regarding North Korea will be made anytime soon. The North Korean dilemma now seems to be back to square one, where all the summits and other policies like the unified Korean sporting teams ended up as empty promises without much progress.

The North Korean dilemma requires the collaboration of South Korea and the US, and often nearby countries such as Japan and China. While these countries share a common preference for denuclearization, their collaboration is hampered by differences in self-interest and an underlying distrust towards each other. Nevertheless, the Biden administration’s announcement of its North Korea policy gives some hints to how North Korea will be dealt with throughout the next few years from one angle; it seems that the US will adopt a middle ground between the Obama and Trump era policies, seeking to exchange partial sanction relief with gradual denuclearization from North Korea.

Obviously, what is on paper is very often different to what happens in reality. Some already doubt the Biden administration’s confidence in achieving complete denuclearization as the administration has not “hyped” its proposal. There are some assessments that the US in reality will seek to keep North Korea as quiet as possible, while focusing on more pressing issues such as the rise of China. On the other hand, if the denuclearization of North Korea has historically proven to be extremely challenging, it may  indeed be wise to start with more realistic objectives, such as lowering the danger of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. This is a new beginning for the North Korean dilemma — but there have been new beginnings before. Whether this will be any different, however unlikely, only time will tell.