[Lee Kyong-hee] Peace treaty should be the entry point

As 2025 draws to a close, South Korea finds itself gripped by a level of security anxiety rarely experienced in recent history. The year-end of 2024 was chaotic, triggered by former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s sudden declaration of martial law. In retrospect, that turmoil was largely internal and ultimately manageable. One year on, however, the nation faces mounting geopolitical dangers that threaten to spiral beyond control and engulf the entire Northeast Asian region.

Recent news from North Korea has heightened these concerns. Pyongyang has unveiled what it claims to be the completed hull of an “8,700-ton nuclear-powered strategic guided missile submarine.” State media released photographs of Kim Jong-un inspecting the vessel at an undisclosed shipyard, describing it as capable of carrying ballistic and cruise missiles as well as torpedoes, potentially armed with nuclear warheads.

The timing is no coincidence. Seoul has been moving briskly toward building its own nuclear-powered submarines since receiving approval from US President Donald Trump in October. South Korea has also secured Washington’s long-sought consent to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel for civilian use — a technical threshold many in the country see as edging closer to an eventual nuclear weapons capability.

Pyongyang has reacted angrily. Kim Jong-un condemned South Korea’s submarine project as an “offensive act” and a grave threat to North Korea’s security, using it to justify the modernization and nuclearization of his country’s naval forces. On the same day, the North denounced the port call in Busan by the USS Greenville, a nuclear-powered attack submarine, calling it a destabilizing provocation that escalates military tensions.

As the two Koreas accelerate an underwater arms race, Japan has signaled its own interest in developing nuclear-powered submarines. The ripple effects are unmistakable. A region already fraught with maritime disputes and strategic mistrust now faces the specter of a nuclear domino effect.

What is especially unsettling is that North Korea is no longer the sole driver pushing its neighbors toward nuclear options. The Trump administration itself is, perhaps unintentionally, nudging South Korea and Japan in that direction.

The US National Security Strategy released in November makes this shift explicit. Anchored in an “America First” doctrine, it declares that “the days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over.” The document suggests a retreat from Washington’s long-standing role as the primary guarantor of global security and from its democracy-promotion agenda.

In a world where the United States is either absent or sharply focused on short-term national interests, its allies cannot help but question the reliability of American security commitments. The strategy document, described as a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, is also riddled with paradoxical language and rhetorical gymnastics. It portrays Trump’s foreign policy as “pragmatic without being ‘pragmatist,’ realistic without being ‘realist,’ principled without being ‘idealistic,’ muscular without being ‘hawkish,’ and restrained without being ‘dovish.’”

For South Korea, the document is a sobering wake-up call. Most striking is its complete omission of North Korea and denuclearization — a baffling departure from decades of US policy. Equally significant is its emphasis on deterring China and protecting the “First Island Chain,” coupled with a blunt exhortation that South Korea and Japan must “step up and spend — and do — much more” for collective defense.

The absence of any reference to denuclearizing North Korea is particularly disturbing for Seoul, which has been hoping for a revival of Trump’s personal diplomacy with Kim Jong-un to break the deadlock in inter-Korean relations. Both leaders have hinted at renewed talks, with Kim reportedly conditioning his participation on Washington abandoning its “hollow obsession” with denuclearization. Against this backdrop, speculation is growing about a possible Trump-Kim summit around the time of Trump’s planned visit to China in April.

Trump may see engagement with North Korea as an opportunity for a high-profile diplomatic success ahead of the US midterm elections in November, or even as a stepping stone toward a Nobel Peace Prize. Yet any such dialogue risks repeating past failures unless it adheres to commitments already made.

Trump would do well to recall the pledge he reaffirmed during his October meeting with President Lee. The joint fact sheet from that summit — despite its heavy focus on arbitrary tariffs and investment demands — states that both leaders “reiterated their commitment to the complete denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and to peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula,” and agreed to implement the 2018 US-DPRK Singapore Joint Statement.

That Singapore statement is unequivocal. Trump committed to providing security guarantees to North Korea, while Kim reaffirmed his “firm and unwavering commitment” to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. They also pledged joint efforts to establish a lasting and stable peace regime.

These documents point to a clear path forward. If past failures have taught any lesson, it is that denuclearization cannot precede peace. A peace treaty ending the Korean War would be the most credible form of security guarantee Washington could offer — and the most realistic entry point for persuading North Korea, over time, to abandon its nuclear arsenal.

Without such a framework, arms races will deepen, mistrust will harden, and Northeast Asia will drift ever closer to a nuclearized future that no one truly wants.

Lee Kyong-hee

Lee Kyong-hee is a former editor-in-chief of The Korea Herald. The views expressed here are the writer's own. — Ed.