Earlier this year, South Korean media reported an aim of joint U.S. – Republic of Korea (ROK) military maneuvers included the decapitation of North Korea’s leader. More recently, the U.S. government designated Kim Jong Un as “having engaged in, facilitated or been responsible for an abuse or violation of human rights by the Government of North Korea or the Korea Workers’ Party”. These are only a couple of indicators that the U.S. and South Korea are now taking personal and public aim at North Korea’s leader.

From the North Korean side, rants toward individual United States leaders have been the norm, such as this year’s references to “thick-headed Hillary” or President Obama as “the worst nuclear criminal in the world”. And in this context, unsurprisingly, both sides blame the other for elevating tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

Looking ahead, more surprise provocations are likely from North Korea during the U.S. Presidential election season and transition process, something which could lead the U.S. and the ROK to very well responding in reciprocal fashion.

As such, the next U.S. Administration must demonstrate a heightened level of seriousness in resolving the North Korea situation, by developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy and appointing a Special Envoy-Enforcer to carry out the President’s policy will. And that’s because to date, U.S. policy has failed to bring about an end to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program or contribute toward a peaceful resolution of the overall situation.

SPECIAL ENVOY-ENFORCER

Seventeen years ago, in 1999, Richard Armitage, then a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, chaired a working group on U.S. policy toward North Korea. In his paper outlining the group’s findings, “A Comprehensive Approach to North Korea”, Mr. Armitage raised several points which remain pertinent today regarding North Korea and U.S. dealings with the country. A key part of the group’s recommendations was the proposal for “a new comprehensive approach for management of the problems posed by North Korea …….a package (which) should combine the elements of deterrence and diplomacy”. Among other points, Armitage also emphasized the need for coordination between the Executive and Legislative branches in crafting a North Korea policy.

Presidents typically have not allotted the personal time nor been prompted by grassroots support toward constructing and carrying out a truly comprehensive and consistent plan to deal with North Korea. Other global crisis and distractions have sapped their will to establish and stick with a comprehensive and enduring North Korea policy. Over the years, then, North Korean leaders have benefited from ad hoc iterations of U.S. policy and yawned as one red line after another has been declared by U.S. leaders.

North Korean leaders have benefited from ad hoc iterations of U.S. policy and yawned as one red line after another has been declared by U.S. leaders

During the Administration of President George W. Bush, Senator Richard Lugar, then the Republican Leader of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee proposed that former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker be appointed as the Administration’s Special Envoy to North Korea. A high – profile American statesman, Baker was known to the North Koreans, and familiar with Northeast Asia issues given his service as U.S. Ambassador to Japan. Because of his strong rapport with Capitol Hill, a Baker appointment would have had the benefit of building a stronger bridge between the Executive and Legislative Branches in developing and carrying out North Korea policy. However, the proposal was nixed by the White House.

A NEW APPROACH?

While their respective North Korea policies have not been fully expressed, President Hillary Clinton or President Donald Trump may present a new approach to North Korea. President Clinton might pivot to a strategy similar to her Burma policy road of “action for action” pursued as Secretary of State. President Trump might personally meet with Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un as he has publicly proposed.

The winner of the November election would strengthen their hand with North Korea and Capitol Hill by appointing a Special Envoy – Enforcer of North Korea policy

The winner of the November election would strengthen their hand with North Korea and Capitol Hill by appointing a Special Envoy – Enforcer of North Korea policy – a person who would report directly to the President and have their backing to press policy implementation within the Administration and to inform and consult with Congress on a regular basis. Ideally, Congress would be included in construction of the new North Korea policy. The Envoy-Enforcer would also serve as the President’s personal emissary with both Koreas on the North Korean situation.

However, the effectiveness of the Special Envoy – Enforcer would depend on the President’s personal commitment and attention to the North Korea dilemma. Distinguished Americans have past served in a variety of “Envoy” capacities related to the Six Party Talks or North Korea.  However, at best, they have only been armed with dull machetes, incapable of cutting through the jungle overgrowth of bureaucracy and naysayers pushing back on implementation of a President’s North Korea policy.

Ideally, the North Korea Envoy-Enforcer of the next Administration would report directly to the President and have his or her full support to enforce implementation of a comprehensive North Korea policy rather than being only one of many voices, elbowing to be heard in the bureaucratic entanglement and overgrowth. In this scenario, they would carry a sharpened machete.

The absence of a comprehensive North Korea policy and not designating a policy Envoy-Enforcer by the next President will signal maintenance of an ad hoc strategy based on the anticipated collapse of North Korea’s government (now predicted for decades).

President Clinton or President Trump should appoint a Special Envoy, authorized and fully equipped to implement the Administration’s North Korea policy developed in consultation with the Congress.

(The above comments reflect the writer’s personal opinion)