As the U.S. fundamentally reshapes its foreign strategy, experts warn this shift is unintentionally fueling an arms race among nations while bolstering North Korea’s strategic influence.
On Thursday, North Korea watchdog 38 North published an analysis by Dr. Lee Sang-soo, founder of Strategic Links consulting firm and senior advisor at the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.
Dr. Lee asserts that North Korea no longer holds a central position in U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy. He notes that denuclearization rhetoric has vanished from key U.S. strategic documents like the National Security Strategy, now appearing only in limited bilateral U.S.-South Korea communications and trilateral statements with Japan.
This silence, Dr. Lee argues, signifies more than a rhetorical shift. It indicates the U.S. is gradually disengaging from Korean Peninsula crisis management, transferring deterrence responsibilities to regional allies like South Korea and Japan. He warns this trend, which increasingly burdens South Korea, is creating a more volatile and unpredictable security landscape rather than fostering stability.
Analysts suggest this strategic realignment is influencing North Korea’s behavior. Pyongyang views the U.S. shift as an opportunity to expand its operational freedom and sees value in pressuring South Korea to strengthen its own deterrence and domestic political legitimacy. North Korea has institutionalized this perspective through recent speeches by Kim Jong Un, doctrinal revisions, and laws redefining inter-Korean relations as hostile.
In this context, North Korea’s military provocations may carry deeper strategic objectives beyond mere shows of force, potentially aimed at gradually altering the status quo.
Exploiting the U.S.’s evolving stance, North Korea appears to be working to erode South Korea’s long-standing control over disputed areas, particularly the Northern Limit Line and Korean Air Defense Identification Zone. By escalating military tensions, Pyongyang aims to increase political pressure and internal divisions within South Korea.
Dr. Lee notes that while South Korea’s responses to North Korean provocations were previously tempered by political considerations, recent security shifts are challenging these fundamental assumptions. Seoul’s push to bolster its independent deterrent capabilities, including advanced weapons systems, is predicated on the ability to respond swiftly and forcefully to North Korean aggression if necessary.
While Dr. Lee acknowledges that the U.S. offloading of security responsibilities doesn’t inherently destabilize the region, he stresses that without robust safeguards, all parties may be emboldened to take greater risks. This dynamic could encourage North Korea to test boundaries, prompt South Korea to escalate its responses, and compel regional powers to prepare for potential fallout.
He warns that situations once manageable through diplomatic messaging and restraint now carry a heightened risk of spiraling into broader conflict. If these dynamics persist, Dr. Lee cautions that both the U.S. and South Korea may find themselves unable to fully control the evolving security situation on the Korean Peninsula.