Addressing the Republican National Convention on July 18, a few days after surviving an assassination attempt, Donald Trump said that “it’s nice to get along with someone who has a lot of nuclear weapons.” He said he got along very well with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. “He’d like to see me back too. I think he misses me, if you want to know the truth.”

Trump’s attempt to reach a breakthrough on North Korea’s nuclear arms failed to yield substantial progress in 2019. If he is reelected and tries again, a “deal” may see the North’s nuclear arms remaining intact but with no additions in return for economic assistance. Complete denuclearization, of course, should be the end game. But that would require protracted negotiations with the cautious North, and Trump is known for being mercurial with a short attention span.

What if Kamala Harris beats Trump? Given the vibe she has been creating on the otherwise drab campaign trail, it would be advisable to start asking “what’s next?” if she wins. Will she continue the Biden administration’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea, which began during the Obama presidency? It seems likely.

In 2022, Harris visited the DMZ and reaffirmed the “goal of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” condemning the North’s provocative nuclear rhetoric and ballistic missile launches.

Under a Harris presidency, there will likely be fewer worrying “what ifs” about her administration’s Korea policy. Still, there is a high probability that the current stalemate will continue. Thus, we might again hear about “strategic patience,” a euphemism for “no real negotiations and no intentional escalation.” In other words, keep the issue on the back burner and hope for no sudden conflict.

The turmoil in the US presidential election adds to the already daunting challenges faced by our nation. It piles on top of the increasing hostilities across the DMZ, the geopolitical tensions and trade frictions between the US and China, the volatile security environment across the Taiwan Strait, and the war in Ukraine, in which the two Koreas are involved through arms supplies directly and indirectly.

Further on the list, the comprehensive strategic partnership treaty signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un last month indicates a raised level of alliance. It can potentially complicate the power balance on the peninsula, let alone disturb the geopolitics across Northeast Asia.

The treaty includes a clause stipulating that “if either party is subject to an armed attack by any state or several states and thus finds itself in a state of war, the other party will immediately provide military and other assistance with all means at its disposal in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter and in accordance with legislation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation.”

The treaty itself is seen by many as a “marriage of convenience” between the two autocrats pressured by urgent pragmatic needs rather than ideology. Chances are slim for Russia or North Korea to be attacked by external parties. Yet, the clause is also a cause for concern as neither country has clarified the idea of an “attack,” leaving the possibility for broad retaliatory acts.

The foreseeable conflict between China and Russia over their respective interests in North Korea aside, the treaty recalls historical events in which foreign powers competed for supremacy in Korea. They include the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, which paved the way for Japan to expand its influence over the waning Joseon Dynasty; the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, which confirmed Japan’s control over Korea and subsequent colonization; and the division of the peninsula by US and Soviet forces after World War II, which led to the Korean War of 1950-1953 and a long armistice and perpetual insecurity.

A painful lesson to be learned from history is that in each incident, we the Korean people failed to be united in coping with a national crisis. We tended to be divided, sapping our strength without realizing we were barreling toward self-destruction.

Again, at this perilous moment, our politicians remain utterly indifferent – or so they appear – to the multiple crises threatening the peace and security of the nation and the region. They are engrossed in relentless partisan conflict and messy power struggles, passing the buck to opponents.

The rival political camps should call a timeout to their petty squabbling and collaborate on ways to resume dialogue with estranged North Korea and build confidence toward a peaceful coexistence pending unification. Instead of disparaging the endeavors of its predecessors to seek a breakthrough as “fake peace,” the Yoon Suk Yeol administration should embark on its own effort to blaze a trail to end hostility and build lasting peace on the peninsula.

The road may be bumpy and at times even deceptive. But that is no excuse for restarting mutual slandering and belligerence when both sides of the military demarcation line should be more mindful than ever of the possibility of a nuclear conflagration.

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.