Advanced tanks will be critical to any summer offensive.
Tokyo wants to double its military budget within five years.
The West’s urge to counter China shouldn’t mean ignoring democratic erosion among its own coalition members.
After joining NATO, all eyes are on the Nordic country. Here’s what makes it unique.
Shadow Government: The U.S. Needs Real Diplomacy to Counter North Korea in Africa
Create an FP account to save articles to read later and in the FP mobile app.
Sign Up
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN
In the face of North Korea’s repeated provocations, the United States is taking up a familiar refrain: soliciting tougher international action to tighten the sanctions noose. To its credit, the Trump administration has scored successive victories at the United Nations to squeeze the regime. To its detriment, however, the administration is undermining American relationships around the world — especially in Africa — and, as a result, providing North Korea with an avenue to evade sanctions.
In the face of North Korea’s repeated provocations, the United States is taking up a familiar refrain: soliciting tougher international action to tighten the sanctions noose. To its credit, the Trump administration has scored successive victories at the United Nations to squeeze the regime. To its detriment, however, the administration is undermining American relationships around the world — especially in Africa — and, as a result, providing North Korea with an avenue to evade sanctions.
The theory of sanctions is simple: Stifle the funding for North Korea’s weapons programs and eliminate the regime’s political cover. In practice, however, it’s up to U.N. members to thoroughly heed the sanctions in order to build enough economic pressure to bring North Korea to the negotiating table. Notably, despite eight rounds of increasingly tough U.N. resolutions, North Korea “is flouting sanctions through trade in prohibited goods, with evasion techniques that are increasing in scale, scope and sophistication,” according to a U.N. report.
The biggest question is always whether China — North Korea’s primary economic lifeline — will comply with sanctions. But North Korea is nothing if not creative, and the regime is constantly seeking alternative destinations for its exports, which include military supplies and training, seafood, and counterfeit goods. Sanctions enforcement is the proverbial chain that is only as strong as its weakest link. While China is by far the biggest factor, North Korea’s relations with other countries can also make a material difference.
Unfortunately, African countries are playing a significant role in North Korea’s ability to find scarce hard currency to fund its weapons programs. A recent U.N. monitoring report cites ongoing investigations of seven African countries, as well as Syria, on suspicion of arms embargo violations. Evidently, North Korea’s dual strategy of providing material benefits (like cheap weapons) and building political alliances has been paying dividends. Between 2007 and 2015, trade between North Korea and African nations averaged $216.5 million a year and, at that time, involved some 30 African countries.
North Korea is able to maintain these relationships with African governments thanks, in part, to decades of bilateral cooperation. Though Namibia has pledged to cut commercial ties, the practical reality is less clear. Just earlier this year, high-level officials extolled North Korea’s “unparalleled” help in developing infrastructure, and spoke of “warm diplomatic relations.” Similarly, Uganda’s president has at various times praised North Korean friendship over the years (and did again last month) and, despite taking recent steps to sever military ties, is currently under investigation by the U.N.
The Trump administration seems to take seriously the possibility that, even under a desirable scenario in which China and others step up the pressure, North Korea could increase its engagement with African countries to access cash and build political support. In a rare diplomatic foray, President Donald Trump hosted a lunch with various African leaders in New York in September and called on them to “stand together and be accountable” in implementing sanctions.
However, convincing African and other countries to truly isolate North Korea would require diplomatic prowess that the United States currently lacks. Not only has the Trump administration paid scant attention to Africa, but its proposed budget sought to slash diplomacy, assistance, and commercial tools (and was wisely rejected by Congress as what Sen. Lindsey Graham termed a “retreat from the world”). Meanwhile, many U.S. embassies, particularly in Africa, are idling as they await the appointment of leadership positions and clarity on Washington’s policy priorities.
All of this may lead countries in Africa and elsewhere to conclude that the United States cannot be depended upon. This, in turn, could mean less willingness to cut ties with North Korea, less vigorous enforcement of sanctions (and other U.S. national security goals), and less sharing of intelligence. North Korea was already successfully employing a diplomatic long game and selling cheap weapons during times of much greater U.S. engagement with Africa — just imagine how much easier it will be for the regime if this administration continues to ignore the region.
What would be a better strategy? To begin with, the United States needs to maintain strong and consistent relationships with African governments. This doesn’t mean throwing money at the continent. Rather, this is about increasing trade and investment, deepening military cooperation, and expanding cultural ties. It means the roll-up-your-sleeves kind of relationship building that is rooted in mutual respect and time-tested collaboration. This is not new territory: The United States has strong links across Africa, as well as a history of bipartisan support for partnering with African governments. But any relationship takes work, and will fade if neglected.
Sadly, the task of rallying the global community to enforce sanctions may simply be beyond the Trump administration’s capability. Transactional and erratic diplomacy is no substitute for the real thing, and a nation that does not see the United States as sharing its interests or being a reliable partner will be less inclined to cast aside historical relationships with North Korea, or forgo its cheap military weapons. By misunderstanding the importance of deep bilateral relationships, Trump is unwittingly limiting his options and making a military outcome against North Korea all the more likely.
Photo credit: STRINGER/AFP/Getty Images
Sign up for Editors' Picks
You’re on the list! More ways to stay updated on global news:
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
Editors’ Picks
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for World Brief
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
Your guide to the most important world stories of the day.
Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent. Delivered Wednesday.
One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture. Delivered Friday.
The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week. Delivered Wednesday.
Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors. Delivered Thursday.
Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy. Delivered Thursday.
A curated selection of our very best long reads. Delivered Wednesday & Sunday.
Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day. Delivered Monday-Saturday.
A monthly digest of the top articles read by FP subscribers.
By signing up, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to occasionally receive special offers from Foreign Policy.
Registered
Only FP subscribers can submit questions for FP Live interviews.
Subscribe
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN
Only FP subscribers can submit questions for FP Live interviews.
Subscribe
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN
Will the world tip into a recession in 2023? Inflation remains high, central banks continue to reverse out of an era of easy liquidity, and financial markets seem worryingly fragile. Devel…Show more
By signing up, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to occasionally receive special offers from Foreign Policy.
Registered
Only FP subscribers can submit questions for FP Live interviews.
Subscribe
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN
Only FP subscribers can submit questions for FP Live interviews.
Subscribe
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN
The Biden administration has faced a range of national security challenges in the last two years, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the growing challenge represented by China. How does …Show more
By signing up, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to occasionally receive special offers from Foreign Policy.
Registered
Only FP subscribers can submit questions for FP Live interviews.
Subscribe
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN
Only FP subscribers can submit questions for FP Live interviews.
Subscribe
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN
The Biden administration has introduced landmark legislation to cut carbon emissions, but can it get the rest of the world to come on board fast enough? Does Washington still have an open li…Show more
Hopes to slash emissions using nuclear energy are being dashed by U.S. regulators.
Advanced tanks will be critical to any summer offensive.
Ad hoc, one-off decisions and lagging implementation are undermining the strategic effects of U.S. military assistance.
The kingdom’s transformation has huge implications for the United States and Middle East.