A letter from Kim Jong Un to Donald Trump, penned by two top US experts
By Robert L. Carlin, Siegfried S. Hecker | January 24, 2025
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, (center, in sunglasses) walks in front of what the North Korean government says is a Hwasong-17 ICBM on its launcher, at an undisclosed location on March 24 of 2022. Image: North Korean government / Korean Central News Agency (KCNA)
Editor’s note: This article appeared originally in 38 North.
A year ago, we warned that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had made a “strategic decision to go to war.” Many interpreted this to mean that we were predicting an imminent attack and since over the past year no war has broken out, they argue that the warning we sounded was mistaken. We disagree. A strategic decision to go to war is not the same as a war plan, nor does it necessarily imply imminence of hostilities. Rather, we viewed it as a decision for patient, calculated preparations in three main areas: building up military strength; lulling, distracting, and befuddling the enemy; and bolstering the patriotic fervor of the civilian population for eventual sacrifice.
To list only a few developments which could be seen in one of the above:
- Kim’s emphasis on defense industries.
- His calls for “war preparations.”
- His appearances at both a uranium enrichment facility and strategic missile bases.
- Further development, testing, and deployment of new tactical and strategic systems—often with Kim in attendance.
- Declaring the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea or DPRK) a separate state.
- Dispatching DPRK troops to Ukraine, likely at Kim’s initiative.
Each of these by itself might not be so alarming but seen together they suggest a strategy—a coherent plan rather than mere episodic efforts to “gain attention.” If Kim offered sending North Korean troops to Ukraine rather than responding to a request from Russia’s President Putin, that fits with a long-term effort to prepare his army for hostilities. In declaring the DPRK a separate state apart from South Korea (the Republic of Korea or ROK), Kim explicitly laid the groundwork for justifying the use of force against the ROK.
All of this could be seen as a worst-case scenario, but at this point, it is certainly no less likely than the alternatives. Ultimately it will be up to governments to decide and prepare—or not. The greatest danger is still, as we asserted a year ago, that Washington and Seoul cling to the belief their alliance backed by “ironclad” deterrence will stop Kim from military action, and that he would never attack for fear of being destroyed.
Potentially, a development that could be interpreted as Kim stepping back from his frequent calls for war preparations is his stated goal for massively redeveloping provincial and local economies. On the surface, this would seem to be incompatible with war preparations, certainly in the short-term. In our view, if this new push on local economic development goes hand-in-hand with a clear diminution of emphasis on the military—which we have yet to see—and a revival of the internal debate over military spending (evidence for which will be hard to read in any case) these might signal new decisions in Pyongyang.
The Trump factor. There is considerable speculation about how President Trump will deal with Kim a second time around—and how Kim may respond. On the campaign trail, Trump said, “Kim Jong-un [is] very smart, very tough, but he liked me, and I got along really well with him, and we were safe.”
Trump and his team must realize, however, that if Kim keeps the door to engagement with the US a crack open, it leads to a very different room from where things were in February 2019. Kim’s goals have changed, his sense of North Korea’s place in the world has changed, and his view of the long-term weakness of the US has changed. We agree that re-engagement could be a serious effort on Kim’s behalf, but it could also be a deception to buy more time for war preparations.
Kim may preempt Trump by resuming his letter writing to make sure Trump understands that it’s a new room he is about to enter. We pen such a hypothetical Kim-to-Trump letter based on our understanding of the situation on the Korean Peninsula.
***
| January 20, 2025
Dear Mr. President: I write to you after a long silence. Much has happened over the years since we last met, and it will be good to explore what that means before we consider whether it is useful to begin anew serious contact. I know you will agree that if we are to engage with any hope of fruitful results, this will have to start from an entirely new place. The past is past. Let us not be burdened by it but look ahead. To be frank, the chasm between our countries has widened and deepened. I fear there is nothing to be done to bridge the gap anymore. If you think otherwise, I will of course listen to your views. Let me lay out what I see. For a long time, we in the DPRK knew the world to be a dangerous place, with untrustworthy neighbors prepared to squeeze us to death. In such a situation, the logical course was to pursue relations with the United States which, at the time of the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern bloc, was the preeminent force on the world stage. We are a practical people; we see reality for what it is. What we see today and what we saw then are worlds apart. The United States is no longer preeminent. And after so many years of effort, in which we sacrificed much and compromised often, we have become convinced those years were wasted. The United States thought we were gullible, that we would sacrifice our honor for a handful of candy, and that once weakened it could smash us apart, wipe us off the face of the earth as it has done time after time to other countries. But we did not yield. And we will not. Though it would cost us dearly, we are prepared for an inevitable, final struggle. I hope it will not come to that, but we will not turn away if it does. You will note that I have declared the DPRK a separate, sovereign state totally apart from the ROK. This was a painful decision but not as strange as it might first seem. Although we are one people, for centuries we were divided into separate kingdoms. Eventually, the strongest of them conquered the others. I’m sure recent events in South Korea have been very troubling to you. To speak honestly about our previous exchange of correspondence, it accomplished little. Though they contained serious ideas, my letters were mocked and belittled in your media. One message I sought to reinforce to you over and over was that I cannot simply give, give, give. I must have something concrete to show my people. You must as well. On that basis, we should have been able to make progress. It did not come to pass. There were consequences from failure. We have formed a strategic alliance with Russia, and we are much stronger today in every respect than we were then. And we will become stronger still, of that you can be assured. To be clear, we are both the leaders of nuclear-weapons states. We are not friends, though we can respect each other and, perhaps, work together to solve pressing regional and global problems. I give you fair warning—we cannot be brow beaten; we are not dogs who can be trained to heel. As you treat us, so we will treat you. I look forward to your views. |
***
Such a letter would allow Kim to let Trump know that he is still interested in talking, but the ball is now in Trump’s court, and the court itself has changed.
Together, we make the world safer.
The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent nonprofit organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important. In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.
Keywords: Kim Jong-un, North Korea, letter to Donald Trump
Topics: Analysis, Nuclear Risk
Get alerts about this thread
0 Comments
Oldest
Robert L. Carlin
Robert L. Carlin is a nonresident scholar at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey and a former chief of the Northeast... Read More
Siegfried S. Hecker
Siegfried S. Hecker is a professor of practice at the Monterey Institute of International Studies at Monterey and at the Department of Nuclear... Read More
