South Korean Marines in an amphibious assault vehicle (KAAV) conduct a landing drill in Pohang, South Korea in September. The United States and South Korea held the Ssangyong amphibious assault exercise amid growing threats from North Korea. File Photo by Thomas Maresca/UPI | License Photo
Anticipated changes to North Korea’s constitution mark a pivotal shift in the strategic landscape of the Korean Peninsula, presenting a unique opportunity for the Republic of Korea (ROK)-U.S. alliance.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s decision to remove the idea of peaceful unification from the country’s constitution not only exposes the true intentions of the regime but also opens new avenues for the alliance to pressure Kim and empower the Korean people in the North. Advertisement
By taking away the hope of peaceful unification, Kim has further alienated the people, giving the ROK-U.S. alliance an opportunity to capitalize on this disillusionment through a strategic information campaign, a human rights-centric approach, and reinforced military deterrence, while pursuing a free and unified Korea.
Understanding the significance of Kim Jong Un’s constitutional changes Advertisement
Kim Jong Un’s likely constitutional revision, which he outlined in a recent speech, reportedly removes peaceful unification from North Korea’s guiding principles and states that South Korea is an enemy state. This is not merely rhetorical. It serves as a strategic narrative to convince the Korean people in the North that the ROK and the ROK-U.S. alliance pose a direct threat to their survival. This is a tactic to justify the continued suffering and sacrifices required for the regime’s nuclear ambitions. By framing the ROK as an existential threat, Kim seeks to externalize the internal failures of his policies, particularly the inability to deliver on promises of peace and prosperity through nuclear development.
Exploiting the disillusionment: Information campaign and human rights
One of the most effective ways the ROK-U.S. alliance can exploit this situation is through an intensified information campaign. Information has always been a critical vulnerability for the Kim regime, as access to uncensored knowledge could undermine the regime’s control. The alliance should focus on delivering messages that expose the regime’s failures, particularly the broken promises of economic prosperity and security through nuclear weapons. Highlighting the regime’s extravagant spending on military capabilities while the populace suffers from economic hardships could foster further disillusionment. Advertisement
The ROK-U.S. alliance should also promote a narrative centered on human rights and the right to self-determination. By emphasizing the fundamental rights that Korean people in the North are denied, the alliance can build a compelling contrast between the freedoms enjoyed in the South and the oppression in the North. This approach could empower Koreans in the North with the knowledge that their suffering is a result of deliberate policy choices by the Kim family regime, not due to external threats.
Leveraging the regime’s fear of internal threats
Kim Jong Un’s proposed constitutional changes reveal a profound fear of the Korean people. He understands that the true threat to his regime lies not in a military invasion by the ROK-U.S. alliance, but in the potential for internal resistance fueled by exposure to outside information and the desire for a better life. This fear presents a strategic opportunity for the alliance to apply pressure through a human rights up front approach.
The ROK-U.S. alliance should focus on highlighting the regime’s human rights abuses and the contrast between the North’s repressive system and the South’s democratic values. This can be a powerful tool in delegitimizing the Kim regime in the eyes of its citizens and the international community. The alliance must ensure that every diplomatic engagement with North Korea emphasizes the regime’s responsibility for the suffering of its people and links the continuation of sanctions and international pressure to improvements in human rights. Advertisement
Strengthening military deterrence while promoting a vision for unification
While information and human rights approaches are crucial, maintaining strong military deterrence remains a key pillar of the alliance’s strategy. Kim’s constitutional changes and aggressive posture require the ROK-U.S. alliance to demonstrate that any military adventurism will be met with overwhelming force. The United States should continue its commitment to the defense of South Korea through joint military exercises and modernized defense capabilities. Such actions not only deter North Korean aggression but also reassure the Korean people in the South and prepare for the worst case should Kim Jong Un miscalculate and attack the South.
At the same time, the ROK-U.S. alliance must offer a vision for a unified Korea based on the 8.15 Unification Doctrine that is fundamentally different from the Kim regime’s narrative. This vision should emphasize the potential for economic integration, the establishment of rule of law, and the creation of opportunities for the Korean people in the North. By doing so, the alliance can contrast its peaceful intentions with the Kim regime’s focus on domination.
Here is a guide for the ROK-U.S. alliance way forward:
1. Expose the regime’s true intentions: The alliance must consistently highlight that it is the Kim family regime that maintains a hostile policy toward the South, seeking domination rather than peaceful unification or coexistence. Advertisement
2. Amplify the message of hope: The alliance should intensify efforts to communicate with the Korean people in the North, emphasizing that the South remains committed to peaceful unification and a better future for all Koreans.
3. Strengthen information campaigns: Expand programs from Voice of America and Radio Free Asia and support escapee non-governmental organizations to penetrate North Korea with facts and truth and the benefits of a free society.
4. Focus on human rights: Frame the issue as both a moral imperative and a national security concern. Emphasize self-determination of government as a fundamental human right.
5. Enhance deterrence: While maintaining a strong military posture, emphasize that this is defensive in nature and aimed at preserving peace, not threatening North Korea.
6. Prepare for contingencies: While working towards peaceful unification, the alliance must be prepared for various scenarios, including potential instability in North Korea.
7. Support Korean escapees and defectors: Enhance programs to support and empower escapees, as they can be powerful voices for change and sources of information about the regime.
Conclusion: Seizing the strategic inflection point
Kim Jong Un’s expected constitutional changes mark a strategic inflection point for the ROK-U.S. alliance. By abandoning the pretense of peaceful unification, Kim has exposed his regime’s true intentions and alienated his own people. The ROK-U.S. alliance can exploit this shift by combining an aggressive information campaign with a focus on human rights and robust military deterrence. This approach not only puts pressure on the regime but also offers the Korean people a vision of a better future in a unified Korea. Advertisement
Through careful coordination and a clear strategic vision, the ROK-U.S. alliance can turn this moment into an opportunity to move closer to the long-term goal of a free and unified Korean Peninsula, which may someday be known as the United Republic of Korea (UROK).
David Maxwell is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces Colonel who has spent more than 30 years in the Asia Pacific region. He specializes in Northeast Asian security affairs and unconventional and political warfare. He is Vice President of the Center for Asia Pacific Strategy and a Senior Fellow at the Global Peace Foundation. Following retirement, he was Associate Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. He is on the board of directors of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and the OSS Society, and is a contributing editor to Small Wars Journal. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
