Paper
Eugene Rumer, Richard Sokolsky
{
"authors": [
"Richard Sokolsky"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"East Asia",
"South Korea"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Building Peace and Security on the Korean Peninsula: Whither the U.S.-South Korean Alliance?
Washington and Seoul must agree on the purpose of their alliance if it is no longer needed to deter aggression by a hostile North Korea. Reaching a consensus on this question will not be easy.
Published on Mar 22, 2019
Source: 38 North
Further progress toward building a permanent peace and security regime for the Korean Peninsula will require, at least in the short-run, heavy lifting from North and South Korea if the Trump administration continues to thwart progress on a declaration officially ending the Korean War and other steps to lower tensions and build trust on the peninsula.1 If the two Koreas are successful in moving toward a peace treaty, or if the Trump administration decides to pull US troops out of South Korea, Washington and Seoul will need to take a hard look at adapting the US-South Korean alliance to changing geopolitical dynamics in the region. In the event that US troops leave South Korea, there are alternative security and military arrangements the two countries can and should adopt if North Korea ceases to be a military threat and enduring North-South reconciliation is achieved. These changes are feasible and affordable and would maintain stability and the balance of power in Northeast Asia. Before they are implemented, however, Washington and Seoul must first agree on the purpose of their alliance if it is no longer needed to deter aggression by a hostile North Korea. Reaching a consensus on this question will not be easy.
1 This report is adapted from a previous article by the author and Daniel R. DePetris published on 38 North on November 15, 2018, entitled, “Imagining a New US-South Korean Security Architecture.”
About the Author
Richard Sokolsky
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Richard Sokolsky is a nonresident senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program. His work focuses on U.S. policy toward Russia in the wake of the Ukraine crisis.
- Russia’s National Security Narrative: All Quiet on the Eastern Front
- Putin’s War Against Ukraine and the Balance of Power in EuropeCommentary
Eugene Rumer, Richard Sokolsky
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is InsaneCommentary
The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.
Michael Young
- Corrupted by Absolute PowerCommentary
In an interview, Marc Lynch discusses his new book decrying the post-1990 U.S.-dominated order in the Middle East.
Michael Young
- Why Does the Middle East Suffer “Forever Wars”?Commentary
Because perpetual conflict enhances control, offers economic benefits, and allows leaders to ignore popular preferences.
Angie Omar
- Where is the Groundwork for Lebanon’s Negotiations With Israel?Commentary
A prerequisite of serious talks is that the country’s leadership consolidates majority national support for such a process.
Michael Young
- A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With IranCommentary
In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers.
Michael Young
