Strategic Patience or Back to Engagement? Obama's Dilemma on North Korea

The Obama administration has been pursuing a policy of "strategic patience" on North Korea, essentially a dual-track policy that keeps engagement open for its good behavior while seeking to impose sanctions for its bad behavior. The strategic patience policy is a clear break with the former Bush administration's robust engagement policy in that it first and foremost demands North Korea's change in behavior before any serious talks or negotiation. But a series of North Korea's provocations since the Obama administration took office in 2009 questioned the validity and effectiveness of the strategic patience policy. It has failed to contain North Korea's increasing nuclear arsenal. In particular, North Korea's intentional disclosure of its uranium enriched program (UEP) and the nation's unusual emphasis on the fallacy of Libya's nuclear abandonment on the heels of the Western allies' recent attack deals a devastating blow to the sustainability of the two-year-old policy, serving as a telling reminder that North Korea has no intention of giving up its nuclear program.(1) This article examines the balance sheet of the strategic patience policy and seeks to present a feasible and realistic solution.