By Robert Potter
The sanctions vs. engagement debate is heated, to say the least. But is there a middle ground?
Readers of The Diplomat recently had the opportunity to observe just how brutal the debate over North Korea can get. As escapee Yeonmi Park has risen in prominence, her words have now entered into the broader discussion over the future of the country. So what context can be given to this debate which has now become so personal that people are accusing Park of being a puppet?
Opinions on North Korean policy in the West break down broadly into two camps: those who favor sanctions and those who favor engagement. Each camp, in the broadest possible terms, also represents a very different idea of how North Korea can be changed for the better. Those who favor sanctions are patiently waiting for the collapse of the Kim Dynasty, whereas in the other camp, they see it as reformable or believe that Pyongyang-driven policy is key to changing things for the better. These camps are not necessarily mutually excusive but the constant battle between the two might lead one to think that they are.
What is interesting is what they agree on – that is, the present policy of the United States – which probably does not help things much. Michael Bassett, the analyst and tour guide who assailed Park to the point where she is considering leaving her job, believes that the government must be reformed from within but that as long as sanctions remain, the aggressive position of Pyongyang will never change. Thus, he draws a line between those sanctions and the unchanging status quo. Joshua Stanton, widely considered a hawk, points out that the present U.S. sanctions are not particularly strong. In light of these analyses, if one is looking for consensus, it is that the current U.S. policy is insufficient.
Read the full story at The Diplomat