North Korean Foreign Policy

  • James E. Hoare
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series


This essay attempts to show the factors which have made the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) or North Korea as it is more widely known — behave as it does internationally. It starts from the premise that North Korea and her leaders are not mad or illogical, as is sometimes claimed, but are the product of a particular set of circumstances and experiences which lead them to act as they do. In that there may be some lessons on how small isolated states need to be handled.


Korean Peninsula Nuclear Weapon Special Economic Zone Diplomatic Relation Korean State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The most easily accessible account of the effect of the division and the question of reunification is Hakjoon Kim, Unification Policies of South and North Korea: A Comparative Study (Seoul: Seoul National University Press, Third edition, enlarged and revised, 1992).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Contrast the accounts of the events of 1945 as described in Foreign Languages Publishing House (FLPH), Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Pyongyang: FLPH, 1958) pp. 76–7 and pp. 400–1, andGoogle Scholar
  3. FLPH, Facts about Korea (Pyongyang: FLPH, 1962) pp. 32 and 48, which admit the Soviet and Chinese role in the end of the war, in the liberation of Korea and in the Korean War, andGoogle Scholar
  4. FLPH, History of the Revolutionary Activities of the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung (Pyongyang: FLPH 1983) pp. 181–4, which decidedly does not.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    See Home News Library of the Xinhua News Agency (compilers), China’s Foreign Relations: A Chronology of Events 1949–88 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1989) pp. 149–50.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    See Dae-sook Suh, Korean Communism 1945–1980: A Reference Guide to the Political System (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1981) pp. 33–89, for details of Kim’s major writings between 1946 and the end of 1950.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    John Chay, ‘North Korea: Relations with the Third World’ in Jae-kyu Park and Jung-nam Kim (eds), The Politics of North Korea (Seoul: Institute for Far Eastern Studies, Kyungnam University, 1979) pp. 263–5.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    See Joy C. Turner, How Communists Negotiate (New York: Macmillan 1955) on the truce negotiations and for more recent talks, viewed with a very jaundiced South Korean eye, Kim Do-tae, North Korea’s Consistent Negotiating Style in Vantage Point 19 (April 1995) pp. 31–40.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    Some of this is partly based on personal observation and conversations with other diplomats and foreign students in Beijing in 1988–91. For an account of dealings with North Korean diplomats on their home ground in the mid 1970s, see Adrian Buzo, ‘North Korea — Yesterday and Today’ in Transactions of the Korea Branch Royal Asiatic Society, 56 (1981) pp. 1–28. Buzo was one of the diplomats who opened the short-lived Australian embassy in Pyongyang.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See Glenn D. Paige, The Korean People’s Democratic Republic (Stanford CA: Hoover Institute, 1966) pp. 42–3, for details of aid.Google Scholar
  11. See also Aidan Foster-Carter, ‘North Korea: Development and Self-Reliance: A Critical Appraisal’ in Gavan McCormack and Mark Selden (eds), Korea North and South (New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 1978) pp. 121–2;Google Scholar
  12. Frank Rudiger, ‘The Hamhung Project and the Development of GDR-DPRK Relations in the 1950s’ in Abstracts of the 17th. Conference of the Association for Korean Studies in Europe (AKSE) (Prague: AKSE, 1995) pp. 64–7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tables in Sang-seek Park, Korean Foreign Policy, Korea and World Affairs 10 (February 1986) pp. 478–83.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joo-hong Nam, America’s Commitment to South Korea: The First Decade of the Nixon Doctrine (London and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986) pp. 87–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Office of the North-South Dialogue, National Unification Board (Seoul), South-North Dialogue in Korea 54 (May 1992) p. 140–3;Google Scholar
  16. S. Bearman, (ed.) Strategic Survey 1991–92 (London: Brasseys for the International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1992) p. 197.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    David Albright, ‘A Proliferation Primer’ in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (June 1993) p. 15.Google Scholar
  18. See also R. Jeffrey Smith, ‘North Korea and the Bomb: High-Tech Hide-and-Seek’ in Washington Post (27 April 1993).Google Scholar
  19. In the South Korean case, it was concern that the US nuclear umbrella would be removed from the ROK which led the then president, Park Chung Hee, to begin work on the possible development of an ROK nuclear weapon — see David Albright and Mark Hibbs, ‘North Korea’s Plutonium Puzzle’ in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (November 1992) p. 40.Google Scholar
  20. 16.
    Helen-Louise Hunter, ‘North Korea and the Myth of Equidistance’ in Tae-hwan Kwak et al. (eds), The Two Koreas in World Politics (Seoul: Institute for Far Eastern Studies, Kyungnam University, 1983) pp. 195–209.Google Scholar
  21. A better assessment of the effect of the Sino-Soviet dispute on North Korea is to be found in Dae-Sook Suh, Kim Il Sung: The North Korean Leader (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988) pp. 176–208.Google Scholar
  22. 17.
    Chin O. Chung, ‘The Government and Power Structure in North Korea’ in Se-jin Kim and Chang-hyun Cho (eds), Korea: A Divided Nation (Silver Spring, MD: The Research Institute on Korean Affairs, 1976) pp. 151–3.Google Scholar
  23. 18.
    Hao Jia and Qubing Zhuang, ‘China’s Policy towards the Korean Peninsula’ in Asian Survey, 32 (December 1992) pp. 1137–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 22.
    See Eui-gak Hwang, The Korean Economies: A Comparison of North and South (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1993) especially pp. 121–2.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    Kyongsoo Lho, ‘The Military Balance in the Korean Peninsula’ in Asian Affairs, 19, Pt 1, (February 1988) pp. 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Michael R. Gordon, ‘North Korea Joins Pact to Prevent the Spread of Nuclear Weapons’ in New York Times (27 December 1985).Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    See, for example, James Cotton, ‘Patriarchs and Politics: Prospects for the Korean Peninsula’ in Third World Quarterly, 10 (January 1988) pp. 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. This lists much of the available writing on him. A collection of international comment published in Seoul some years earlier is also of interest: see Institute for North Korean Studies, The Son also Rises (Seoul: Institute for North Korean Studies, 1980).Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    For both Koreas and the Olympics, including the 1988 Olympics, see Christopher R. Hill, Olympic Politics (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1992) pp. 189–217.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    James Cotton, ‘Sino-Soviet Relations and Korea’ in Pacific Revieiw, 1 No. 3 (1988) pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  31. See, for example, Eugene Bazhanov and Natasha Bazhanov, ‘The Evolution of Russian-Korean Relations’ in Asian Survey, 34 (September 1994) pp. 789–98; andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. For a semi-official Chinese explanation of what happened and why, see Bingwei Tao, ‘The Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia: Towards a New Era’ in Korea and World Affairs, 16 (Winter 1992) pp. 685–94.Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    Sungwoo Kim, ‘Foreign Trade of North Korea: Analysis by Partners and Sectors’ in Pts 1 and 2 of Vantage Point, 15 (April and May 1992).Google Scholar
  34. 33.
    Frederick Nixson and Paul Collins, The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: The Reluctant Reformer. Unpublished paper (London 1993).Google Scholar
  35. 34.
    For background on the Tumen River project, see Andrew Marton, Terry McGee and Donald Paterson, ‘Northeast Asian economic Cooperation and The Tumen River Development Project’ in Pacific Affairs, 68 (Spring 1995) pp. 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. The Rotterdam analogy comes from Li Haibo, ‘Tumen River Delta: Far East’s Future Rotterdam’ in Beijing Review (20–26 April 1992).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Andrew Mack, ‘Address the North’s Security Concerns’ in International Herald Tribune (IHT) (4 March 1993).Google Scholar
  38. Professor Mack later somewhat shifted his ground: see Andrew Mack, ‘North Korea Isn’t Playing Games, It Wants the Bomb’ in IHT (3 June 1994).Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    Katsumi Sato, ‘Japan: Stop Funding Kim Il Sung’ in Far Eastern Economic Review (29 July 1993).Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    Akio Watanabe, ‘Japanese Public Opinion and Foreign Affairs: 1964–1973’ in Robert A. Scalapino (ed.), The Foreign Policy of Modern Japan (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1977), pp. 124–5.Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    Brian Bridges, fapan and Korea in the 1990s: From Antagonism to Adjustment (Aldershot, England and Brookfield VT: Edward Elgar 1993) pp. 143–63.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nick Rufford, ‘Shell Plans N. Korea Plant’ in Sunday Times (2 July 1995).Google Scholar
  43. 44.
    Two interesting articles arguing this point are Michael J. Mazarr, ‘Lessons of the North Korean Crisis’ in Arms Control Today, 23 (July– August 1993) pp. 8–12 andGoogle Scholar
  44. Yong-hui Ri, ‘New Effort at N-S Reconciliation Urged’ in Mal (October 1993) in FBIS-EAS-93-233 (7 December 1993).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    James Cotton, ‘North Korea’s Nuclear Ambitions’ in Adelphi Paper 275: Asia’s International Role in the Post-Cold War Era, Pt I (London: Brasseys for International Institute of Strategic Studies, 1993) pp. 94–106;Google Scholar
  46. Paul Bracken, Nuclear Weapons and State Survival in North Korea in Survival, 35 (Autumn 1993) pp. 137–53;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Brian Bridges, North Korea after Kim Il-sung in The World Today (June 1995) pp. 103–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • James E. Hoare

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations