Diplomacy or Deterrence? Contradictions in the Washington Declaration

The U.S.-ROK Alliance's Struggle to Balance Military Readiness and Peaceful Diplomacy with North Korea

The Washington Declaration, signed by President Joseph R. Biden and President Yoon Suk Yeol, is a testament to the enduring alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK). While the declaration encompasses various aspects of the U.S.-ROK relationship, it concludes with a seemingly harmonious statement advocating for dialogue and diplomacy with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. However, this statement directly contradicts other elements of the document, particularly those of the continued expansion of military capabilities and deterrence strategies.

Firstly, the declaration emphasizes developing a stronger mutual defense relationship between the U.S. and ROK under the Mutual Defense Treaty. This approach dangerously prioritizes the buildup of military capabilities rather than prioritizing diplomatic efforts. By highlighting the need to strengthen the alliance's combined defense posture, the document sends a message of military readiness and potential escalation, which will discourage the DPRK from engaging in meaningful dialogue regarding denuclearization.

Additionally, establishing the Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG) as referenced in the Washington Declaration and enhancing U.S. strategic assets' visibility on the Korean Peninsula demonstrates a commitment to bolstering nuclear deterrence. These actions signal a heightened sense of military preparedness and create a sense of urgency regarding the perceived nuclear threat posed by the DPRK. As such, the pursuit of dialogue and diplomacy with North Korea appears contradictory to these actions, reinforcing the notion of an arms race rather than fostering a diplomatic environment.

Moreover, President Biden's firm reassurance that any nuclear attack by North Korea (DPRK) against South Korea (ROK) will see a "swift, overwhelming, and decisive response" implies a willingness to engage in a military confrontation. While such a declaration is a hopeful deterrent, it also conveys a stance of aggression, undermining the prospect of peaceful dialogue with North Korea. This rhetoric starkly contrasts the pursuit of diplomacy "without preconditions," as mentioned in the document's closing statement.

Furthermore, the expansion and deepening of coordination between the U.S. and ROK militaries and the strengthening of standing bodies for consultations on extended deterrence contribute to an aggressive environment already perceived as hostile by the DPRK. This environment growing in geopolitical tension is at the same time becoming increasingly detrimental to the initiation of diplomatic dialogue, as North Korea will see these actions as a direct threat to its security and sovereignty.

This analysis is not an endorsement or justification of North Korea but rather to point out inconsistencies within the Washington Declaration and emphasize the importance of understanding how the DPRK is likely to perceive both the declaration itself and President Biden's decision to send nuke armed submarines to South Korea for the first time in 40 years.

The declaration's emphasis on the ROK's (Republic of Korea, aka South Korea) commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the U.S.-ROK Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy highlights the alliance's commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. While this commitment is commendable, it is most likely perceived by the DPRK as a double standard, given the ongoing enhancement of nuclear deterrence capabilities within the U.S.-ROK alliance.

Without preconditions, the Washington Declaration's call for dialogue and diplomacy with the DPRK directly contradicts its emphasis on military readiness and the expansion of nuclear deterrence strategies. These contradictory elements risk undermining the prospects for peaceful diplomacy with North Korea because they will naturally be received as hostile and aggressive acts. To foster an environment conducive to dialogue, all parties involved must reevaluate their approach and prioritize diplomatic efforts over military escalation.

Prioritize diplomatic efforts via established religious and humanitarian organizations over military escalation for a change and watch tensions lessen on the Korean Peninsula.

The United States' approach to the Korean Peninsula has long been centered on military readiness and deterrence, with over $34 billion spent on military presence in South Korea and Japan between 2016 and 2019. While this strategy is said to have played a role in maintaining regional stability, it is crucial to consider alternative methods to foster peaceful diplomacy with North Korea for truly sustainable peace. The U.S. could significantly enhance its diplomatic efforts and advance tactful, positive outcomes by allocating just 1/34th of that budget to established religious and humanitarian groups engaged in humanitarian and cultural exchange work in North Korea to achieve this goal.

Investing in humanitarian and cultural exchanges are proven method for building bridges between the more democratic kinds of countries with the more closed-off ones, fostering mutual understanding and trust, naturally going in the opposite direction of a nuclear standoff. Such initiatives can help dismantle deeply ingrained stereotypes and facilitate open dialogue on shared interests and concerns. By supporting the alternative approach to North Korea, which is the vital work of established religious and humanitarian organizations, the U.S. can help address the pressing humanitarian needs of the North Korean people, thus promoting goodwill and laying the foundation for more meaningful diplomatic engagements and less military escalation.

Moreover, a shift in focus from military expenditure to humanitarian and cultural endeavors would signal the U.S.'s commitment to a peaceful and collaborative approach to the Korean Peninsula. This gesture could pave the way for enhanced cooperation in various sectors, including disarmament, nonproliferation, and regional security. Ultimately, a more balanced approach that combines military deterrence with diplomatic and humanitarian efforts has the potential to yield far-reaching, positive outcomes in cultivating peace throughout the Korean Peninsula and world-at-large.