South Korean President Lee Jae Myung proposed a phased approach to addressing North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs during his keynote speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, outlining a long-term plan aimed at eventual denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Lee called for a step-by-step process beginning with halting North Korea's advancement of nuclear and missile capabilities, followed by a gradual reduction over the medium term. He also emphasized the need to establish a peace protocol involving both Koreas, as well as the United States and China.
Lee urged the international community to move beyond decades of conflict, highlighting the importance of ending the Korean War formally and creating a lasting peace framework. “The most critical task is to bring an end to this decades-old war on the peninsula and establish a lasting peace regime,” he said.
The plan reflects the current geopolitical realities, as North Korea has already entrenched its nuclear status in its 2023 constitution and developed substantial nuclear capabilities. Experts described Lee’s proposal as pragmatic but expressed skepticism about its likelihood of success, given Pyongyang’s firm stance against denuclearization.
Cho Han-bum, a senior fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU), characterized the proposal as a realistic response but noted the challenge posed by the lack of resumed dialogue between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and former U.S. President Donald Trump, who had announced plans to meet again later this year though no meeting has yet occurred. Lim Eul-chul, a professor at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies, cautioned that North Korea may reject any offer to halt nuclear development, potentially responding with hostility.
Other analysts pointed out that to North Korea, halting nuclear activities and denuclearization are essentially synonymous, making the proposal difficult to accept. Hong Min, also of KINU, suggested that because Lee’s plan is grounded in denuclearization, Pyongyang is unlikely to respond favorably.
Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies, emphasized the need for an initial commitment from North Korea to stop further advancement of its nuclear capabilities, underscoring the priority of preventing escalation before pursuing reductions. He also noted that Pyongyang might counter Lee’s blueprint by framing the situation as one involving two hostile states rather than engaging cooperatively.
Lee acknowledged U.S. efforts in reaching out to North Korea and stressed South Korea’s commitment to sustaining dialogue paths. Analysts remarked that his explicit call for China’s involvement introduces a complicating factor, as the United States remains wary of Beijing’s role in negotiations. Yang noted that persuading Washington on this point could be challenging.
Critics of loosening sanctions without demanding denuclearization argue that such a move would effectively reward North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and legitimize its status as a nuclear power. Yang Uk of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies warned that easing sanctions without conditions undermines the leverage countries have sought to apply on Pyongyang.
Conversely, Yu Ji-hoon from the Korea Institute for Defence Analyses framed Lee’s proposal not as abandoning denuclearization, but as a strategic, stepwise plan aimed at first freezing North Korea’s nuclear advances before moving toward reductions and eventual denuclearization.
The divided assessments underline the continued complexity of engaging North Korea on its nuclear program and the challenges of designing a strategy acceptable to all key parties in a rapidly shifting geopolitical environment.