New Delhi’s decision to reengage with North Korea reflects pragmatism, but the road ahead is strewn with geopolitical landmines.
India’s decision to reopen its embassy in Pyongyang after a three-year hiatus has sparked considerable debate. This move, ostensibly aimed at maintaining diplomatic ties, carries strategic undertones to monitor North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and safeguard India’s security interests. As with all engagements involving the enigmatic Kim Jong Un regime, the path forward is fraught with challenges and the unpredictability of a volatile actor.
India’s first hurdle will be managing its obligations under United Nations sanctions, imposed due to North Korea’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities. These sanctions sharply limit economic and trade relations, curbing India’s ability to build leverage over the North Korean regime. Moreover, India’s strategic partnerships with the United States and other Western allies further constrain flexibility. Any deviation from the carefully crafted rules risks diplomatic friction, particularly with nations prioritizing a hardline stance against Pyongyang.
Then again, India’s strong trade and cultural links with South Korea risk becoming collateral damage should its outreach to Pyongyang be perceived as undermining Seoul’s interests.
China’s outsized influence on North Korea presents another significant obstacle. Beijing remains Pyongyang’s principal economic lifeline and strategic ally, a relationship that places India at a disadvantage in the region. Despite historical ties forged during the Cold War (when North Korea was a member of the Non-Aligned Movement), India’s influence in Pyongyang is negligible compared to China’s dominance.
India’s attempts to engage with North Korea will also be closely monitored by Beijing, which views the Korean Peninsula as part of its geopolitical backyard. Any significant success by India could provoke countermeasures from China, ranging from economic coercion to diplomatic isolation.
North Korea’s governance under Kim Jong Un compounds the complexity of engagement. The regime operates with a level of opacity and unpredictability that unnerves even seasoned diplomats. Kim’s track record of erratic behaviour and extreme cruelty has made Pyongyang a diplomatic pariah. Its aggressive nuclear tests and missile launches further destabilize the region and keep the world guessing.
Internally, North Korea’s humanitarian situation is dire. Chronic poverty, a crumbling infrastructure, and an almost complete lack of basic freedoms paint a grim picture. Yet, the regime’s survival instinct ensures it leverages these hardships to extract aid and concessions, playing a cynical game of brinkmanship on the global stage.
India’s relationship with the Korean Peninsula has roots in the Cold War era. North Korea’s membership in the Non-Aligned Movement, championed by India, provided a diplomatic bridge during a time of stark geopolitical divisions. The Korean Peninsula’s division at the end of World War II created a flashpoint for Cold War geopolitics. The Korean War (1950–1953) solidified this division, with North Korea falling under the sway of the Soviet Union and China, while South Korea aligned with the U.S. and its allies. General Douglas MacArthur’s controversial plan to use nuclear weapons along the China-Korea border during the war (ultimately shelved due to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s intervention) underscores how dangerously high the stakes have always been in this region.
While the armistice left relatives separated and borders sealed, India played a modest but notable role in diffusing tensions through its non-aligned stance.
Today, New Delhi’s re-engagement with Pyongyang seeks to build on that historical link. However, the dynamics have shifted dramatically. North Korea now relies heavily on China and Russia for survival, with Beijing providing economic lifelines and Moscow reportedly receiving offers of North Korean soldiers for its war in Ukraine. In return, Pyongyang may gain oil, missile technology or other resources—transactions likely shrouded in secrecy.
India’s renewed outreach to North Korea reflects its broader ambition to remain relevant in key geopolitical theaters. By reopening its embassy, India signals that it seeks a role in shaping the future of the Korean Peninsula, however modest that role may be. This aligns with New Delhi’s strategy of cautious engagement, a hallmark of its foreign policy in recent years.
One counterfactual scenario that has always loomed is the possibility of Korean reunification. If the Kim regime collapses—whether due to internal dissent or external pressure—it could trigger a rapid and chaotic integration of the two Koreas. The historical parallel of Germany’s reunification serves as both an inspiration and a cautionary tale. While the unification of East and West Germany in 1990 was peaceful, it was also economically and politically arduous.
In this wishful scenario, India, as the world’s largest democracy and an emerging economic powerhouse, could play a constructive role in aiding a reunified Korea.
Critics may question India’s decision to engage with a regime as repressive and isolated as North Korea. But in a world where realpolitik often trumps idealism, New Delhi’s approach reflects pragmatism. By maintaining a diplomatic presence in Pyongyang, India keeps its foot in the door, ensuring it has a channel to influence, however limited, in one of the most volatile regions in the world.
India’s approach also signals that it is unwilling to cede the diplomatic field entirely to China and the U.S. Like Germany, which has maintained a measured engagement with North Korea, India understands the importance of being a stakeholder in regional stability, even when tangible outcomes are elusive.
Comments