Some of the material in is restricted to members of the community. By logging in, you may be able to gain additional access to certain collections or items. If you have questions about access or logging in, please use the form on the Contact Page.
North Korean foreign policy decision process has complexity and differences from that of democratic states. Pyongyang has multiple motivations related to developing nuclear weapons, which are derived by both international and domestic factors. Moreover, North Korean preferences related to the pursuit of the nuclear weapons have also changed according to the circumstance that the country faces. The regime begun to build the nuclear weapons because of the external security threats resulting from the geopolitical changes like the disassembly of the Soviet Union. After Pyongyang faced the severe economic stagnation, their priority has moved into economic interests. Moreover, Kim’s regime has faced a domestic political legitimacy issue of the authoritarian regime so that the regime has utilized the nuclear development as means to consolidate their power. The characteristics of authoritarian regime also impact the leadership’s preferences and rational decision choices. However, the U.S. foreign policy in the past, based on the security-oriented approaches and a theory focused on economics, failed to understand the regime’s systematic complexity. Washington’s political changes, following its power transitions, also exaggerate distrust between the United States and North Korea. The shifts in its political strategies also create the credible commitment problems. In addition, its external complexity around North Korea also reduces the effectiveness of the U.S. strategies. In this regard, the new alternative strategy for Washington should build on a comprehensive understanding of how Kim’s regime thinks, what it values, and how it judges its options. In addition, the United States should understand not only Pyongyang’s objectives but also how Kim’s regime views U.S. objectives and whether they consider U.S. statements credible in order to resolve the issue. Thus, this paper proposes a comprehensive option which is a combination of coercive diplomacy and diplomatic, economic strategies.