CFR Report Warns U.S. Must Prepare for Potential Instability in North Korea

(WASHINGTON D.C.) - Continuing uncertainties about the health of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il and possible succession arrangements “warrant heightened attention and preparation” by U.S. policymakers, says a new Council on Foreign Relations report.

“The risks are too great and the stakes too high” for U.S. policymakers “to rely on last-minute improvisation for a peaceful and stable outcome” in nuclear-armed North Korea, says the report sponsored by CFR’s Center for Preventive Action (CPA).

In preparing for sudden change, the report recommends that the United States “continue to promote behavioral change within the current regime rather than actively seek to overthrow it unless extreme circumstances dictate otherwise.” But it cautions that: “The United States should not support efforts to prop up the current regime beyond the point at which it has clearly ceased to govern effectively.”

The report also warns against “high-handed U.S. action,” advocating that the United States “defer to South Korean wishes and leadership in the management of change in North Korea,” except if “overriding national interests compel unilateral action.” The report was coauthored by CPA Director Paul B. Stares and Joel S. Wit of the Weatherhead East Asia Institute at Columbia University.

The report also stresses that the potential political, economic, security, and humanitarian challenges presented by instability in the Korean Peninsula as a result of sudden change demand U.S. cooperation with the region’s principal powers. “Failure to accommodate [these powers’] national interests… could have profoundly negative consequences for the evolution of Korea, the stability of northeast Asia, and U.S. relations with major allies and other countries in the region,” says the report.

The report, titled Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea, examines three potential succession scenarios, each of which poses its own set of challenges to U.S. policymakers:

1) Managed succession: the current regime, which has ruled North Korea since 1948, maintains power but under new leadership.

2) Contested succession: different factions vie for power in Pyongyang, resulting in regime change and a new policy direction. “How a power struggle would play out and who the eventual winner or winners might be is obviously impossible to predict, but a prolonged, divisive, and potentially even violent succession struggle is not out of the question,” says the report.

3) Failed succession: changes in North Korean leadership produce no clear and effective national leader, fatally weakening the state’s ability to function and leading to its eventual demise. In this scenario, North Korea’s “rapid absorption by South Korea is widely viewed as the inevitable next step.”

Regardless of how succession transpires, the report offers specific policy recommendations on how the United States can improve its ability to manage sudden change in the peninsula. These include:

Enhancing U.S. readiness: “The United States should upgrade its ability to discern and comprehend domestic political, economic, and other developments in North Korea.” For example, the report recommends enhancing U.S. intelligence to take advantage of a variety of new sources of information; establishing broader contacts with Pyongyang during ongoing denuclearization negotiations; and reestablishing the working relationship between the U.S. and North Korean militaries to recover the remains of American soldiers missing or killed in action during the Korean War.

Promoting allied coordination and preparedness: “The United States should work closely with South Korea and Japan to improve allied coordination and preparedness for contingencies in North Korea… The current joint military planning between the United States and South Korea needs to be augmented with a coordinated political, diplomatic, economic, and legal strategy to tackle the core issues likely to arise.”

Fostering regional transparency and capacity-building: “To reduce the risk of misunderstanding and friction in a crisis involving North Korea, the United States should pursue a quiet dialogue with the People’s Republic of China to discuss issues of mutual concern… The aim of such talks would be not only to raise potential concerns and discuss possible responses but also to minimize misunderstandings that might arise and seriously exacerbate a crisis.” The United States also should open discussions with South Korea and Japan, UN agencies, European counterparts, and nongovernmental organizations.

The report concludes: “Improving contingency planning, sharing the results of this planning, improving consultation on the future of the Korean peninsula, and taking concrete steps to build up generic, potentially useful capabilities—though certainly not sufficient in and of themselves to cope with these challenges—will establish a much firmer foundation for the future.”

The report is coauthored by Paul B. Stares, the General John W. Vessey Senior Fellow for Conflict Prevention and Director of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Joel S. Wit, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the Weatherhead East Asia Institute, Columbia University, and a Visiting Fellow at the U.S.-Korea Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark February 1, 2009 3:11 pm (Pacific time)

Stephen: You wrote:"to say obama and diplomatic resolution in the same sentence is absurd." Au contraire, sir ! Diplomacy is only sane step left in a world plagued by fools who do not understand that the ONLY other course is the Big One... and that ANY use of that One will bring on Others, from assorted sources,for mindless and miscellaneous reasons, to the greatest damage ever recorded on this fragile globe. Whatever is left of the human race will be so far reduced to animal-state that nothing else will matter --not even cause of Zionism. IF you do not understand that unavoidable truth, there's no other matter worth your breath and effort --or our attention to your wildly varying notes. Do you contend otherwise than that any A-bomb usage will bring on global disaster ?? Those who do so contend are uninformed, misinformed or merely mightily mindless. Your continued personal conflicts and psychotic focus on Zionism indicates that may be the case, sir. Can you now declare yourself on something other than that theme ?

stephen January 31, 2009 7:43 pm (Pacific time)

Diplomatic steps by obama?? he just ordered a pakistan bombing.. dear lord henry!! He is sending troops to afghanistan!! dear lord henry!!
I like snoozer, just not on this issue, I disagree with him/her, and think as you do in regards.. but to say obama and diplomatic resolution in the same sentence is absurd.
He said NOTHING about Gaza, and he wants to keep fighting in Afghanistan, ordering more troops there, yeesh.. I cant keep doing this. your love for someone you dont even know is not worth my time.
Still...bad boy snoozer :-), but I still like ya.
henry, you crack me up.. diplomatic solutions.. :-)
bomb pakistan, more troops in afghanistan.. you really crack me up. :-)
Both afghanistan and pakistan AND iraq are governments set up by the U.S. They decide to change their minds, we bomb them to set up another puppet government, then they go against us. etc etc etc.
obama..diplomatic..how funny.

Tim King: Pakistan is the source of the Taliban. They have a distorted take on religion and they treat women very badly. Being "friends" with Pakistan has clouded our nation's ability to see what is really taking place. We shouldn't convince ourselves into believing that the Taliban is some kind of acceptable group. At the end of the day it doesn't mean anything to America, but we do stand the chance of improving problems for women in these parts of the world. That is a realistic goal if it is what they are trying to achieve. Of course it has not been, but that kind of oppression should not be tolerated in the world. The whole "terrorist" thing is very overblown, and for the sake of all of the good Muslim people in the world, we need to stay the course to whatever degree that allows peace to reign in this region.

Snoozer January 31, 2009 5:47 pm (Pacific time)

As for what we should do... we should do every possible thing within our power to ENSURE collapse of the NK state.

Snoozer January 31, 2009 5:46 pm (Pacific time)

Dorsett: Yeah, I'm aware of the horrendous cost of WWII. And, I consider it to have been more than "worth it". Sadly, we didn't learn that much from it and allowed Communism to remain in place. We crushed Naziism and failed to take down Communism... and billions around the world have suffered incomprehensibly because of it. If you're unwilling to even understand that point, and realize that as human beings, we have a level of obligation to humanity itself to work towards righting these wrongs, then I have no hope for folks like you. The term "narcissism" doesn't even begin to describe that condition.

Anonymous January 31, 2009 7:59 am (Pacific time)

"We should proactively seek to topple and remove all forms of that corrosive and abusive regime and seek to set NK on the path to a legitimate state, one that respects, defends, and promotes the freedoms and welfare of its people, rather than a militaristic state that leeches the work and wealth of the people." That sounds great, but can we do that here first? That fits the US to a T.. more than any other country in the world. WHO spends more on weapons than the rest of the world combined? Us. WHO has used nuclear weapons against civilians? Us. WHO thinks they have the right to invade, bomb and kill whoever they want? Us. WHO currently has over 700 military bases around the world and is actively building more? Us. WHO cannot even begin to pay the INTEREST on their national debt, yet spends half of every borrowed dollar on the military? Us. Who sacrifices schools, highways, bridges and infrastructure, social programs, health and education programs, and is the only industrialized nation in the world that has no health care program for its citizens, yet spends half a million dollars every minute of every day on the military? Us. North Korea is no model state, but we have them beat in every category.

Henry Ruark January 30, 2009 5:48 pm (Pacific time)

Snoozer: Do you believe we must pursue a new "Manifest Destiny" all the way to horrendous A-bomb confrontation with any who refuse to submit to our choice of their kind of life and government ? WHO are we to so enthrall or enslave THEM ? What other way is there than those two ? "Persuade" or "Force" have proven the only possibles for the past several centuries, or hadn't you noticed ? These are not primitive Indian tribes we now confront, and the old musketloaders won't do the job. It ultimately takes that first "Big One", sure to be followed by others for manifest, sometimes mystical and always driven by fear. Have you any "proactive" weapon except force to offer us ? Do you, of all persons, truly suggest "diplomatic" steps by Obama et al ?? Speaking of "leeching the work of the people", we have some slight work to do here, don't you agree ? Check out last 30 years of deficits and national debt, now at historic highs, and then lay out for us your program for America. Fact is fact and international-force fury is futile and fiercely futuristic with that Big One waiting to incinerate as in Hiroshima, with thousands of others to follow from any and all involved worldwide whether involuntary or by choice. Big words easy to write, but big deeds harder to prove and put into place, as all neocons should now have learned, if indeed they are still capable to do so.

Dorsett Bennett January 30, 2009 3:31 pm (Pacific time)

Snoozer, Do you really want to pick a fight with a Zenophobic country with an army of 1.7 million and some primitive nuclear weapons. Have you not yet seen the horrendous costs to the United States by trying to bring "democracy"to other countries? Dorsett Bennett

Jimmy January 30, 2009 12:59 pm (Pacific time)

Snoozer, are you advocating that we topple China too? Just to be perfectly clear... Kim Jong is not Il

Snoozer January 29, 2009 7:00 pm (Pacific time)

We erred long ago by allowing NK to remain Communist. We should proactively seek to topple and remove all forms of that corrosive and abusive regime and seek to set NK on the path to a legitimate state, one that respects, defends, and promotes the freedoms and welfare of its people, rather than a militaristic state that leeches the work and wealth of the people.

[Return to Top]