U.S. and China Drop Korean Denuclearization From Strategies, Prompting Seoul to Accelerate Independent Deterrence
Updated (2 articles)
U.S. National Security Strategy Excludes North Korea The December 5 U.S. National Security Strategy contains no reference to North Korea or its denuclearization, marking a clear policy shift toward broader great‑power competition rather than peninsula‑specific goals [1][2]. The document emphasizes burden‑sharing with allies, urging increased defense spending and new capabilities to protect the “First Island Chain.” Analysts interpret the omission as a signal that Washington will manage the North Korean threat through deterrence rather than diplomatic denuclearization.
China’s Arms‑Control White Paper Mirrors the Omission Beijing’s recent arms‑control white paper also removes the longstanding clause supporting a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, indicating a strategic pivot away from pressuring Pyongyang [1][2]. The paper stresses an “impartial, political process” without committing to disarmament, aligning with its broader focus on countering U.S. influence in the Indo‑Pacific. This parallel move by both major powers deepens uncertainty for Seoul’s diplomatic leverage.
Seoul Must Redesign Its Deterrence Architecture South Korean officials are urged to upgrade defense systems rapidly, including fast‑tracking the nuclear‑powered submarine program approved by the United States [1][2]. President Lee Jae‑Myung’s “self‑reliant” defense doctrine calls for accelerated indigenous capabilities and tighter alliance coordination. The strategy aims to prevent a “Korea bypass” scenario where any U.S.–North Korea deal could marginalize South Korea’s security interests.
Risk of a Korea‑Bypass Deal Heightens Security Concerns Analysts warn that a rapid, transactional summit between Washington and Pyongyang could grant sanctions relief while leaving Seoul exposed to short‑range nuclear threats [2]. The omission of denuclearization from both U.S. and Chinese policy documents raises the prospect of a deal that sidesteps Seoul’s input. Consequently, South Korea faces pressure to bolster independent deterrence to safeguard its national security.
Sources
-
1.
Yonhap: North Korea denuclearization omitted from U.S. NSS prompts Seoul to recalibrate strategy: Highlights the NSS omission, calls for Seoul to upgrade defenses and nuclear submarines, and notes China’s vague stance .
-
2.
Yonhap: Nuclear void: US and China bypass denuclearization on Korea, Seoul urged to rethink deterrence: Emphasizes both U.S. and Chinese white‑paper omissions, warns of a “Korea passing” risk, and stresses the need for Seoul’s self‑reliant deterrence .
Timeline
Dec 2, 2025 – China publishes its first arms‑control white paper in nearly two decades, stripping the long‑standing clause that pledged support for a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. The move signals Beijing’s willingness to let Pyongyang pursue its nuclear program without explicit Chinese pressure and deepens strategic ambiguity in the U.S.–China rivalry[2].
Dec 5, 2025 – The United States releases a new National Security Strategy that contains no mention of North Korea or denuclearization. The document pivots to “burden‑sharing,” urging allies to boost defense spending and field new capabilities to protect the “First Island Chain” (Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines). By omitting denuclearization, the NSS reframes U.S. Korea policy from a forward‑looking diplomatic agenda to a risk‑management posture focused on great‑power competition[1][2].
Dec 9, 2025 – Analysts warn that the dual omissions create a “Korea passing” scenario in which any future U.S.–North Korea deal could sideline Seoul, leaving South Korea exposed to short‑range nuclear threats. Seoul is urged to accelerate its own deterrence, fast‑track the nuclear‑powered submarine program approved by Washington, and adopt a more self‑reliant defense posture under President Lee Jae‑Myung[2]. The NSS’s silence also “creates uncertainty about future U.S.–North Korea and China–North Korea interactions,” prompting Seoul to pursue more active diplomacy despite the ambiguous environment[1].