The North Korean government and its young leader, Kim Jong Un, are threatening the United States and its allies with nuclear war. The North is apparently preparing for a new missile test and warning diplomats in its capital that their safety cannot be guaranteed if conflict erupts. Other East Asian nations are growing concerned about the bellicose rhetoric, notably China, which previously tolerated Pyongyang's aggressiveness.
A key question now is whether the United States and its allies should take a more proactive approach. But it is clear at this stage that continuity and consistency are critical.
As tensions have ratcheted up, the Obama administration-with mixed results-has charted a course of strategic patience. It has combined prudent defense and deterrence with quiet diplomacy among the North's neighbors and reassurance for U.S. allies in the region. The goal is to convince North Korea that it will lose any fight, U.S.-South Korean solidarity is unshakable, the region collectively opposes aggression, and the North's current behavior will only lead to further isolation and a bleaker future.
At this stage, no one knows how serious the situation on the peninsula could become. "Morning Calm" may be one way to read the Chinese characters for the name of the Korean Peninsula, but that has certainly proved elusive lately. North Korea might initiate violence, perhaps on purpose to push back against international sanctions or to prove its deterrent capability and gain acceptance for its nuclear and rocket programs. It could also spark conflict by accident through miscalculation.
The South Korean government believes that promises of swift and strong retaliation are the best way to deter attacks (and it might be right). But such a stance puts the peninsula on an unpredictable hair trigger and could lead to dangerous escalation.
Some advocate applying more pressure, either through tougher financial sanctions on the North's banks or ramped-up military exercises. Others argue that Washington should dial back its own rhetoric about deterrence and "reach out" to Pyongyang through a high-level envoy. Both miss the mark.
U.S. pressure applied thus far has been generally well calibrated. The deterrence measures employed-such as involving U.S. nuclear-capable aircraft in recent exercises with South Korea-are useful. They help reassure allies and minimize the potential that Pyongyang will miscalculate and decide that Washington and Seoul are not prepared to respond if attacked.
Moderate pressure has been applied on North Korea through multilateral trade and technology sanctions, which were agreed to unanimously at the United Nations Security Council to punish Pyongyang's violations of UN resolutions. They should squeeze the North's ruling elite and their coveted weapons programs as much as possible.
Tougher measures risk eroding the unified international stance. China won't support sanctions that could cripple North Korea's government and foster chaos in the country.
Dialogue with the North would be great, and the door for talks has long been open. But by reaching out proactively at a high level, Washington would project weakness in the face of Pyongyang's threats.
The international community-including traditional North Korea supporters China and Russia-has resoundingly condemned Pyongyang's recent rocket launch and nuclear test. Washington should let that condemnation run its course. North Korea must come to terms with that judgment and find nonthreatening ways to pursue its interests.
Moreover, any high-level outreach from the United States would undermine an important message for Pyongyang: the path to true peace on the Korean Peninsula runs through Seoul not Washington. South Korea is not a "puppet regime" as the North pretends. It is a successful, independent, and influential global leader, and Pyongyang will get nowhere if it does not recognize this.
