Kamala Harris vs. Kim Jong Un: Will Her Approach to North Korea Make or Break Her Foreign Policy?

The international community is focusing on Vice President Kamala Harris’s foreign policy direction as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. Depending on the November election results, this can impact U.S. and world affairs.

On August 22 (local time), Harris delivered her acceptance speech as the presidential nominee, showcasing her diplomatic and global perspectives. Her remarks garnered significant attention both domestically and internationally. She pledged, “And America, we must also be steadfast in advancing our security and values abroad,” and declared, “As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”

She emphasized, “And as president, I will never waver in defense of America’s security and ideals because, in the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand and where the United States belongs.”

In her speech, Harris emphasized her commitment to building the strongest military as Commander-in-Chief and defending democracy against tyranny as President. This aligns with the Democratic Party’s platform, which seeks to bolster American leadership on the global stage. However, her address did not provide a detailed vision for engaging with hostile nations or strategic competitors.

Instead, the Democratic Party’s platform and Harris’s speech echo the neoconservative approach that defined foreign policy during George W. Bush’s administration. This perspective frames international relations as a binary good-versus-evil dynamic and prioritizes military power over diplomacy. As a result, the Democratic Party’s shift in foreign policy direction seems to be setting a new standard.

Harris said, “I will not cozy up to tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong Un who are rooting for Trump,” openly expressing her disdain for the North Korean leader. Her comment counters Donald Trump’s Republican promise to improve U.S.-North Korea relations by showcasing his friendship with Kim Jong Un.

However, this approach raises significant concerns about potential setbacks if Harris ascends to the White House. The more she vilifies the Kim regime, the more limited the United States diplomatic options and flexibility become, heightening strategic anxieties.

These concerns are underscored by the Biden administration’s struggles with North Korea policy, which have fallen short in three critical areas. Notably, the Biden administration could become the first since the U.S.-North Korea dialogue began in the early 1990s to have made no progress in talks with North Korea.

While North Korea’s reluctance to engage is a significant factor, the Biden administration’s continued emphasis on moral condemnation, sanctions, and deterrence—coupled with joint military exercises with South Korea and Japan—has also contributed. It seems Harris may be inclined to perpetuate Biden’s approach to North Korea.

Secondly, the Biden administration has made no headway toward its goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. In fact, North Korea’s nuclear capabilities have grown so robust that the U.S. has been forced to reassess its nuclear strategy.

According to a New York Times report on August 20, President Biden approved updates to the Nuclear Employment Guidance in March. The Biden administration estimates that North Korea now possesses over 60 nuclear weapons and the material to produce many more—almost double its arsenal in just three years.

The report also highlights concerns about the limitations of the U.S. missile defense system (MD). Historically, the U.S. was confident that its MD could counter North Korea’s relatively small nuclear arsenal. However, with North Korea’s expanding nuclear capabilities and potential collaboration with China and Russia, the U.S. response strategy is undergoing significant revisions.

Acknowledging the limitations of its current missile defense and nuclear capabilities, the U.S. is considering bolstering its atomic arsenal—contradicting the Biden administration’s commitment to reducing reliance on nuclear weapons.

As Harris’s security stance focuses on strengthening alliances, deterrence, and missile defense—continuing Biden’s policies—the concern is that North Korea’s nuclear advancements might escalate further under a Harris administration.

Third, North Korea’s strategic position has grown stronger during the Biden administration. North Korea’s provision of weapons to Russia, its restored alliance with Russia, and its deepening ties with China have become major strategic concerns for the U.S. This situation underscores the shortcomings of Biden’s North Korea policy, alongside broader issues such as intense competition with China, challenges in managing the prolonged war in Ukraine, and efforts to bolster NATO and Indo-Pacific strategies.

In summary, North Korea has become a more formidable challenge after four years under the Biden administration. This suggests the U.S. must reassess its approach and policy toward North Korea. To move forward, it is crucial to avoid relying on rhetoric rooted in neoconservative principles. Persistent provocative statements could ultimately undermine diplomatic efforts, particularly when needed.