This study attempts to better understand the recent history of the different strategies adopted by four key regional and world players–China, Russia, the US and the EU–toward the Korean Peninsula. It also uses this analysis to infer trends in these strategies, so that we may get a better idea of what to expect in the near future. Since research shows that in the absence of some form of diplomatic and strategic common ground between international actors stability is not likely to be achieved, the research pays particular attention to levels of “trust” between the different parties. The methodology used involves a qualitative examination of the strategic and geopolitical context in which each actor was embedded in from 2006 to 2012, in order to identify what circumstances contributed to better relations and what circumstances did not. In addition, the study’s methodology focuses on events that unfolded in the arena of the UN Security Council (since all four players considered here are represented there) and on UN Security Council resolutions that relate to the security problem of a divided Korea and the issue of weapons proliferation. The study comes to the following conclusion. Every time a Security Council resolutions responded to the long-term strategic interests of the larger regional players, periods of relative calm and trust ensued. In particular, any arrangement that (a) allowed China to further its role as a major stakeholder in the region or (b) allowed the US to advance the case for its continued military presence in Japan and South Korea would, quite interestingly, increase the level of mutual trust between the different players. We find therefore that arrangements (a) and (b) are not necessarily in contradiction to each other.