Don't isolate Pyongyang

Sixty-one years ago, North Korean artillery opened fire along the 38th Parallel, and a war began that claimed the lives of more than 33,000 American soldiers, 100,000 Chinese ‘volunteers' and two million Koreans. Today, the goal of building a lasting peace remains elusive. In fact, the peninsula is more dangerous than ever.

North Korea has twice tested nuclear weapons and is developing missiles to carry them. It has built facilities capable of producing highly enriched uranium for more nuclear weapons. In defiance of a UN arms embargo, it continues to export weapons and sensitive technologies to unsavoury partners such as Myanmar.

And last year, the deadliest since the armistice in 1953, a North Korean torpedo killed 46 South Korean sailors and an artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island killed four more South Koreans.

The US response to all of this has been measured but firm. It has also been inadequate. More than three years have passed since the last round of six-party talks on eliminating North Korea's nuclear weapons, and it's no coincidence that this diplomatic hiatus has been marked by dangerous conduct.

America's current approach of strong sanctions and intense coordination with South Korea and Japan does not provide sufficient leverage to stabilise the situation, much less bring about a change in North Korean behaviour. Left unchecked, Pyongyang will build more nuclear weapons, test them and develop missiles that could directly threaten the US.

What options does the US have? Returning immediately to the six-party talks is not viable. South Korea won't participate unless North Korea atones for its recent bad behaviour. And the North, approaching a leadership succession in 2012, is disinclined to cooperate lest it look weak.

Similarly, there are limits to the pressure that China is willing and able to apply. China exerts the most leverage as North Korea's ally and largest trading partner, but it's not willing to risk the country's collapse. Further, Pyongyang has a habit of stubbornly resisting good advice, even from its patrons in Beijing.

Astute negotiations

The best alternative is for the US to engage North Korea directly. While North Korea may be the "land of lousy options," as one expert puts it, inaction only invites a dangerous situation to get worse. That is why, always in close consultation with its South Korean allies, the US should explore steps that can reduce the threat and return to the path toward a denuclearised peninsula.

Achieving complete denuclearisation will take time, but in the near term the US should try to negotiate an end to the North's enrichment of uranium, a moratorium on nuclear weapons and missile testing, the removal of fresh fuel rods capable of producing fissile material and the final dismantlement of the Yongbyon nuclear reactor.

These are worthy intermediate goals along the path toward complete and verifiable denuclearisation. To be sure, it's unlikely that the US can resume such sensitive talks immediately given the current state of relations. It needs to start more slowly.

A good place to begin would be to open talks with North Korea on resuming recovery operations in North Korea for American servicemen still missing from the war — operations suspended in 2005 by Donald Rumsfeld.

The US should also resume carefully monitored food assistance to hungry North Korean children. North Korean human rights envoy Bob King's recent visit to Pyongyang reflects a long and wise American tradition of separating humanitarian concerns from politics.

After two years of near-silence, reestablishing contact would demonstrate that cooperation is possible, if only on humanitarian issues at first. Then the US can move on to tougher issues.

North Korea is undergoing a leadership transition and increasing exposure to the outside world. If Pyongyang is given a stake in improving its behaviour, the US increases the odds that nuclear engagement will be successful in the coming years. Rebuilding a relationship is essential to unlocking the nuclear puzzle and forging a lasting peace.

Let's get on with it.

— Los Angeles Times

John Kerry, D-Mass, heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.