Category: North Korea

Introduction

The unification of North and South Koreas has often been discussed by the political leaders. The main obstacle is that these countries differ dramatically in terms of culture, work ethics, attitudes toward the state, and many other aspects that prevent these states from establishing diplomatic or economic relations. Furthermore, many South Koreans object to this integration because they believe that the unification will be a time-consuming process requiring significant costs (Branigan unpaged).

On the whole, they are afraid of the absorption of North Korea can lead to such difficulties as the increased economic burden on South Korean taxpayers, the need to reconcile two dramatically different cultures, and possible political instability. This is the main thesis that should be discussed more closely. Each of these obstacles can pose a significant burden on South Korea.

The opinions of South Koreans

It should be noted that the opinions of South Koreans has changed dramatically since the early nineties. For instance, in 1994, approximately 94 percent of South Koreans believed that the unification of two countries was necessary (Branigan unpaged). In their opinion, this task was feasible, even though it was rather challenging.

Nevertheless, 13 years later only 64 percent people of insisted on the unification of the two Koreas (Branigan unpaged). Furthermore, many people in this country believe that the absorption of North Korea is not a realistic task. To some degree, this change can be attributed to the growing inequalities and discrepancies between these countries. One of their most important concerns of these people is that the unification of these states can lead to organized crime (Branigan unpaged).

To a great extent, it will be the consequence of unemployment in the unified state. Furthermore, one should take into account that the economy of South Korea has also been affected by the global recession. Therefore, it may be difficult for the country to bear the costs of unification. Certainly, one can argue that these countries have common cultural heritage or language; however, they do not seem to be sufficient for the integration of these countries. One should examine these challenges in greater detail.

Economic difficulties

In order to understand the differences between the two countries, one should mention that the economy of North Korea is almost entirely state-controlled. Furthermore, the political leaders of the country focus only on the military development of the state, while other needs of the population can be ignored.

In particular, approximately 30 percent of the GDP can be spent on the army while other areas such as education, infrastructure, or medicine remain underdeveloped (Kihl and Kim 118). Additionally, the income level in this country is much lower than in South Korea (Kihl and Kim 118).

Furthermore, it is critical to remember that private businesses are illegal in this country. This is one of the reasons why many of the most essential goods are not available to North Koreans (Kihl and Kim 118). Despite the fact that approximately 35 percent of the country’s population is employed in agriculture, North Korea continuously struggles with food shortages (Central Intelligence Agency unpaged).

To a great extent, these difficulties can be attributed to the inefficiencies of many collective farms. Apart from that, the economic sustainability of this state depends on the economic assistance provided by China (Kihl and Kim 118). These examples are important since they suggest that South Korea cannot easily integrate North Korea. It is possible to argue that the burden of South Korean taxpayers will increase, and they may be unwilling to cope with this difficulty. This is why they object to the unification of the two countries.

There are other issues that are closely related to economics. First of all, one should speak about labor force. The economy of North Korea strongly relies on forced labor of soldiers or prisoners (Kihl and Kim 118). Some of people are denied the access to education only because their parents were accused of disloyalty to the state. This book Escape from Camp 14 written by Blaine Harden throws light on this problem. In particular, it explores the experiences of a child who has lived in a prison camp since childhood (Harden 10).

The main problem is that South Korea will need to provide financial assistance to these people who cannot easily integrate into the economy which is based on the principle of free trade and capitalism. It should be kept in mind South Korea may find it difficult to do it because at present, the country has to cope with its own economic problems. This is one of the main challenges that should not be overlooked by political leaders.

Furthermore, there are other important limitations of North Korean economy. The technologies adopted at the state-controlled enterprises in this country have long become obsolete (Schwekendiek 27). The productivity of these organizations is significantly lower in comparison with their South Korean counterparts (Schwekendiek 27).

Therefore, they cannot significantly contribute to the GDP of the unified country provided that this unification does take place. This barrier is also important for understanding the pitfalls of integrating these two states. Therefore, one should remember that the economic integration of these states will be a very time-consuming process. Moreover, one cannot say to what extent this task is feasible. This is the main argument that can be put forward.

Cultural differences

Furthermore, it is critical to remember that the culture of North Korea cannot be easily reconciled with the values of South Koreans. One should keep in mind that the main purpose of the official propaganda in this state is to enforce complete loyalty of a person to the government. This is the goal that North Korean officials want to achieve at any cost.

Furthermore, every individual, who is suspected of disloyalty, can be imprisoned, tortured, or executed (Schwekendiek 27). These practices are reported by many North Korean defectors who flee to western countries. For instance, it is possible to mention the experiences of Shin Dong-hyuk whose life is described in the book Escape from Camp 14. The recollection of this person indicates that North Koreans are denied any access to the knowledge about the outside world (Harden 20).

Moreover, it should be kept in mind that there are various internment camps in which people can be detained for a great period of time without any justification (Harden 10). In some cases, even children can be imprisoned only because their parents can viewed as the enemies of the government. The main issue is that many North Koreans take this totalitarian control for granted.

Additionally, South Korea is portrayed by the propaganda as the most dangerous enemy of North Korea (Schwekendiek 27). It is critical to remember that at present, the two countries are continuously on the verge of a military conflict. At this point, one cannot accurately determine how exactly this conflict can be resolved.

The urgency problem was highlighted by the recent allegations of North Korean leaders who emphasized the idea that South Korea could only be the enemy. Therefore, one should not forget the diplomatic barriers to unification. This is another aspect that should not be disregarded because diplomatic hostility can undermine the process of unification.

On the whole, the values of many North Korean people have been transformed dramatically. In contrast, South Koreans have become accustomed to living in a multicultural environment in which such things as individuality, independent initiative, or openness are valued. In turn, many North Korean defectors cannot easily assimilate into a new culture. Therefore, cultural aspects of this issue should not be overlooked by political leaders.

Political instability

The concerns of many South Koreans can be related to the possibility that the unification of two countries can undermine the political stability in the country. This is another issue that should be overlooked. At present, political leaders cannot develop the methods through which the two states can be unified.

In particular, it is necessary to design a system of checks and balances that can prevent the state from becoming totalitarian. For instance, at present North Korea does not legal framework that can protect the human rights of citizens. Furthermore, the work of law-enforcement agencies is not regulated in any way.

Therefore, these institutions also must be reformed; otherwise, they can pose a threat to citizens. So, if South Korea absorbs its northern neighbors, the government will have to take several precautions which can ensure political stability in the country. This issue should be disregarded because South Korea should make sure that the legacies of autocratic regime do not affect the privileges of citizens.

Additionally, it will be necessary to develop legislation that will needed for the effective functioning of the unified country. In particular, one has to adopt laws that can effectively support business activities. However, this effort requires both time and capital. This obstacle is also of great concern to South Korean policy-makers who do not know whether this goal can be fully achieved.

Therefore, it is critical to bear in mind that legislators will have to work on the development of the legislation for North Korea. South Koreans may be reluctant to absorb North Korea because this process can create a significant number of challenges for their country.

Conclusion

These examples suggest that South Korea cannot easily absorb North Korea. This difficult can be attributed to several factors. One should pay attention to such aspects as economic development of the future state, its culture, and political stability. This is why many North Koreans can be unwilling to absorb North Korea.

They are not sure whether they can bear the burden of unification. To a great extent, their concerns can be justified because the integration of these states will require considerable costs, reconciliation of different cultures, and changes in the legislation. These are some of the most important issues that should not be disregarded by people who attempt to achieve the unification of these countries.

Works Cited

Branigan, Tania. “Korean unification: dreams of unity fade into past for young South Koreans.” The Guardian 27 May, 2013. Web.

Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook; North Korea. Central Intelligence Agency. 2013. Web.

Harden, Blaine. Escape from Camp 14: One Man’s Remarkable Odyssey from North Korea to Freedom in the West, New York: Penguin Books, 2013. Print.

Kihl, Young, and Hong Kim. North Korea: The Politics of Regime Survival, Boston: M.E. Sharpe, 2006. Print.

Schwekendiek, Daniel. A Socioeconomic History of North Korea, New York: McFarland, 2011. Print.

In June 2009, the regime in North Korea declared that it would transform its plutonium stockpiles into nuclear weapons in response to the latest round of sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council to punish Pyongyang for going ahead with its nuclear testing programmes (MacAskill para. 1). Although analysts perceive the nuclear issue as an artificial crisis developed by North Korea for the objective of blackmailing the West, all indicators point to the fact that Pyongyang’s nuclear threat is real.

The regime is believed to be in possession of sufficient plutonium for at least six deadly nuclear bombs. Also, the regime is believed to be in possession of an estimated 8,000 spent fuel rods that could facilitate the harvesting of 6-8kgs of plutonium if they are reprocessed (MacAskill para. 10).

According to nuclear analysts, this quantity is enough to manufacture one nuclear bomb. This paper purposes to discuss the threats posed by North Korea’s nuclear material, the basis of a rational settlement between the US and the regime, and the role of Japan and China in the whole process.

A possible Nuclearization of North Korea will have a negative consequence on the whole of Asia. The prospects of nuclear armed North Korea will definitely pose a major hazard to South Korea, in addition to offering the regime a chance to enhance its policy of communizing the south (Evans para. 31).

Allowing North Korea to arm itself with nuclear weapons may indeed occasion a nuclear domino outcome in the whole of Northeast Asia as other countries within the region may also want to arm themselves with nuclear weapons to counter or neutralize Pyongyang’s nuclear capacity. Such an arrangement will inarguably threaten world peace, in addition to putting the entire Asian region in the whirlpool of a nuclear arms race.

This would definitely lead to a nuclear proliferation cascade in the region due to the fact that countries such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will be offered the incentives to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Given the nature and temperament of leaders in the regime, a nuclear armed North Korea will definitely occasion aggressive activities, further destabilizing the Northeast region in particular and the whole world in general (Barry 41).

Finally, if the regime in North Korea disintegrates or is toppled when in possession of nuclear arsenal, the world peace will be undeniably threatened by the loose nuclear weapons which may find their way into renowned terrorist networks such as the Taliban and alQaeda.

Many Analysts believe that a suitable settlement between the US and North Korea on the nuclear issue cannot be achieved by taking hard-line stances or branding the regime in North Korea ‘an axis of evil’ as former US president George Bush once said during his State of The Union address (Evans para. 42).

Also, a peaceful solution to the issue cannot be realized by criminalizing North Korea’s nuclear activities, and thereby seeking for blanket punishment. One of the most viable options in the quest of finding a long-lasting solution to the nuclear issue is the use of dialogue and diplomacy. Bilateral consultations between the US and the defiant North Korea as well as multilateral consultations between the US and North Korea’s neighbours in Northeast Asia will definitely bring results (Sang-Jin 12).

Some critics may want to point out that such talks have been tried before and failed. Comprehensive research reveals that these bilateral and multilateral talks fail since stakeholders, especially the US, goes into the talks with a predetermined course of action (Barry 41). This should be discouraged since the talks must be flexible and appealing to both sides.

To secure the world peace, the nuclear issue pitying the US and North Korea should be solved through a give-and-take framework (Barry 41). Incentives and disincentives should be used rather than threats of military intervention to ensure the North Korean regime stops its nuclear ambitions.

The role of China and Japan in the peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue is both critical and urgent. China, for instance, has more communication conduits with the North Korean regime than any other country as it supplies it with food and fuel (Evans para. 50).

As such, China can be influential in convincing the regime to surrender its nuclear ambitions in exchange of incentives such as financial and technological aid. Beijing’s proactive diplomacy can be constructively used to resolve the impending destructive crisis (NTI para. 4). This is because China has played the role of an arbiter to the crisis, and is averagely respected by the generals in Pyongyang.

During times when the nuclear issue seems to get out of control, China has always found a way of appealing to both the US and Pyongyang to exercise restraint and flexibility, not mentioning the fact that it has been at the forefront in arranging tripartite meetings between the US, North Korea and Beijing to discuss the issue.

Japan’s role in the whole process cannot be underestimated. Although Japan has a direct interest in the whole issue due to its captured people during the cold war (Parry para. 3), it has continued to normalize its relationship in ways that would contribute to the wellbeing, peace and stability of the region. Japan has indeed hosted several bilateral and multilateral meetings while pursuing active diplomacy instead of blatant threats to ensure that an amicable solution is found.

Works Cited

Barry, M.P. North Korea Requires Long-Term Strategic Relationship with the US. International Journal on World Peace, 24:37-41.

Evans, L. Two Panels Debate U.S. – North Korea Nuclear Options. UCLA Asia Institute. 2003. Web.

MacAskill, E. North Korea Declares all-Out Push for Nuclear Weapons. The Guardian. 2009. Web.

NTI. China and the North Korean Nuclear Issue. 2003. Web.

Parry, R.L. North Korea’s Nuclear Deal Leaves Japan Feeling Nervous. Times Online. 2005. Web.

Sang-Jin, S. Chinese role in solving the DPRK’s Nuclear Programme: A Korean Perspective. 2004. Web.

Introduction

Nuclearisation has in reality become a significant political matter in the world for the past ten years. This has concurrently been marked by the nuclearisation of North Korea, United States, South Asia, Iran, India, Libya and many other states.

North Korea’s interest in nuclear weapons capacity has long aggravated heated arguments between policy makers and researchers. Such arguments are mostly about the reasons for engagement and repeated dissatisfaction in attempts to confer to Korean denuclearization.

These debates widely reveal divergent opinions of the North Korean government and its sustainability as an independent political, financial and martial system.

They also reflect the likely consequences of prolonged nuclear development in this secluded and highly eccentric state (Sidney, 2007). Efforts to hold back North Korea’s interest in nuclear weapons is among the topmost running and least victorious sagas in global security.

It is however highly unfortunate that North Korea keeps on deceiving the international community through its open attitudes and mischief. This is in contrast to the advancement in international nuclear disbarment and non- proliferation.

The subject of North Korean nuclearisation has been deteriorating over time. This essay will assess North Korea’s venerable quest for nuclear weapons and its potential insinuations for national security. It will establish whether North Korea is a responsible nuclear weapon state in comparison with other states.

Discussion

North Korea is not a responsible nuclear weapons state. Its irresponsibility is seen especially when US and Russia, which are the largest nuclear powers globally put their signature on the New Start Treaty promising to lower the number of planned nuclear warheads.

Consequently, the Nuclear Security Summit met to build up a shared agreement on the gravity of the menace of nuclear terrorism. North Korea’s irresponsibility in this case is seen when it continues working against international laws and requirements while at the same time declining to abandon its nuclear drives.

Not only did it not take part in these encouraging developments but also acted as a key impediment to the global community’s efforts to create a world that is nuclear weapons free.

North Korea’s irresponsibility as a nuclear weapons state is also seen when it goes against the individual rights of people. It is one of the countries whose people are mistreated by denying the citizens rights to choose their own ways of living.

Although North Korea claims that their nuclear weapons are not instruments for assaulting and threatening others, they use them to offset aggression and attacks from the other countries. For instance, North Korea states that their nuclear deterrents can in no way be abandoned and should further be made stronger.

United States further asserts that it would at no point recognize North Korea as a nuclear weapon country. It argues that North Korea present path is a “dead end “. It has developed nuclear weapons for its own benefits, safeguarding its sovereignty and existence rights.

The irresponsibility of North Korea as a nuclear weapons state has further been confirmed. It is irresponsible and ethically repugnant for any nation to produce and own weapons for arbitrarily killing billions of people.

For instance, on March 2010, North Koreas torpedo led to the sinking of the ROK naval craft Cheonan. This assailment claimed 46 blameless lives (Nathan & Daniel, 2009).

India is the most responsible nuclear weapons state compared to North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and other nuclear weapons. It has taken significant efforts to establish the export legislations for nuclear weapons.

This has been taken as unexpected progress to lessen war threats in these country something North Korea has not even thought of. North Korea keeps proclaiming that it would make reliable efforts for denuclearization which has so far remained doubtful among other states.

Conclusion

The Possession of nuclear weapons by North Korea has augmented the stakes in disagreements. It has also threatened victims on an incredible scale. North Korea should thus discard its nuclear weapons programme and pursue the example of other countries such as India and Libya.

The present trends in worldwide politics towards conflicts and wars must be abandoned in preference for dialogue and conformity with international law.

Engaging in dialogue just for the sake is North Korea’s long preferred approach for holding up denuclerisation.This must not be contemplated any longer. North Korea must demonstrate honesty of its words by taking actual and irreversible steps towards denuclearization.

The Korean government is however taking some approaches to minimize the use of nuclear weapons. These approaches include a no nuclear North Korea, two track approach and the approach of grand bargain.

The two track approach emphasizes that North Korea should not be simply rewarded for going back to dialogue after performing provocative deeds. It first needs to demonstrate a strong commitment to denuclearization and take tangible steps regarding that end (Alagappa, 2009).

In the grand bargain approach, The North Korean government is seeking a broad and elemental resolution to the North Korean nuclear weapon matter.

This aims to take in all the steps associated with North Koreas irrevocable denuclearization. It is therefore clear that while the accountability for nuclear security lies with individual states, international attempts are required to sustain national standards at an acceptable level.

References

Alagappa, M. (2009). The long shadow: nuclear weapons and security in 21st century. DC: US Press.

Nathan, E.B & Daniel, J. (2009). Combating weapons of mass destruction: the future of international nonproliferation policy. Georgia: University of Georgia Press.

Sidney, D.D. (2007). Nuclear weapons, scientists, and the post-Cold War challenge. NY: World Scientific Press.

Introduction

The policy previously adopted by Australia towards North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or DPRK) has more or less been the same one the US has in place (McCormack 39-50).

The results aimed at convincing the DPRK to adopt the trends the rest of the world adheres to, have not been forthcoming. The Koreas (both North and South) have been in existence as separate states since 1948.

The conflict that sparked between the two nations arising from ideological confrontation and manifest as the civil war has continued, even up to this day, to influence inter-Korean politics.

Whereas the South is seen as being a more democratic state, hence liberal, the north is projected as being communistic and therefore more closed.

Australia has been actively involved in the politics on the Korean Peninsula and has cultivated a very close relationship between it and South Korea and even fought on its side during the Korean War that occurred between 1950 to1953.

Today, South Korea is the third largest trading partner with Australia. On the contrary, Australia and the DPRK have had a very odd relationship. In 1947, when the UN formed a temporary commission for Korea that oversaw the successful creation of the two states, Australia was actively involved. Relationships were cozy for the two countries around mid-1970s but eventually broke off.

There was another brief stint of cooperation in 2000, however, the nuclear crisis took place and relationships continued to sour, further strained by a drug-smuggling incident in Victoria.

Australia continues to have formal diplomatic relationships with the DPRK, albeit very minimal, evidenced when it refused to open its embassy in Pyongyang and opted to having its ambassador to China double up as the North Korean envoy.

The DPRK is associated with its insistence on having a nuclear program that manufactures weapons which is against the treaties and agreements contained in the UN charter.

Due to this reason therefore, the country is continually in strained relationships with many other nation around the world. Australia in particular has had numerous trade barriers imposed on it that have halted trade and denied the countries the benefits that accrue from it. Trade has been at a minimum however with Australia ranking the DPRK at number 125 among its trade partners.

In this debate, we are going to discuss how the relationship between the two countries can be beneficial to both of them and also analyze what negative impacts arise from this open policy that Australia has adopted towards the DPRK.

In order to do this, we are going to analyze the cultural gains and losses expected from this relationship and also analyze the political and economic implications associated with an alliance between them.

What influence will cultural interchange between Australia and DPRK have?

The two countries are richly endowed with diverse cultures and would greatly benefit from an interchange of these cultures. For other countries to understand the DPRK, there must be a complete shift in policy that dictates their relationships.

The DPRK has one of the most unique systems of government in the world and its role in influencing the rest of the world cannot be overlooked.

There are a number of pros and cons that are associated with this cultural exchange that will reflect on both the political and economic systems of these countries.

Pros

• Both countries will gain knowledge about their different cultures and can learn from the positive ones.
• As a result, there will be increased trade between the two countries dealing with the exchange of cultural artifacts and related materials.
• Korea will gain since its citizens will acquire Australian visas and can be exposed to conditions outside their own country.
• Australia will gain in that it will exercise a greater impetus over the DPRK in a bid to improving its image.

Both countries will have to learn the each other’s language and with it their attitudes, beliefs and morals. These will assist in building a trust between them and creating an interchange which will involve the movement of people from either country in a bid to being exposed to the other’s culture firsthand.

There is a lot of good that can come from this and if this exchange is cultivated, it will tighten the relationships, placing the countries in a better position to further their interests with each other.

With increased cultural exchange comes the movement of those aspects that define culture and make it unique. For starters, movement of teachers of either language into the other country will be accompanied by the movement of teaching aides and books which will increase the trade between the two.

There is also the fact that increased cultural exchange will lead to holding of cultural events that may include exhibitions (Brain 354) and other joint initiatives thus increasing trade.

Magazines, newspapers, fashion and other arts that compose culture will also be interchanged. This will cause the growth of associated industries and increases trade in them.

North Koreans have over time been more or less stationed in their own country; as there have been numerous travel advisories against them. The political landscape of the world has secluded the DPRK, straining its development as it does not relate to the rest of the world hence does not learn from it.

However, the open policy developed by Australia opens a new avenue for Koreans to be exposed to a world outside of their own and can thus further their knowledge and in turn their ambitions.

For Australia opening its policy towards the DPRK, it will exercise more power resulting from the trust they build. The exchange of culture would mean a building of a stronger relationship based on mutual understanding of each others background.

This kind of mutual understanding has a greater chance of finding a long lasting solution to the crisis in the DPRK as it would have been solved out of trust and from the perspective of the DPRK. Understanding the north would also go a long way in persuading it to soften its stand on the south and attempt to make amends.

This new policy, adopted by Australia could have a better chance of success where the rest of the world has failed, putting Australia in a better position in the world and becoming a better trade partner with the DPRK; which has large untapped resources resulting from its seclusion.

Cons

Inter cultural exchange can have some negative effects on both countries and it is paramount to understand the implications of these effects in order to be extensively involved while having all the facts at hand.

• Interchange of culture will mean the inevitable influence of a culture over the other which may involve the influence by more negative aspects of culture.
• Australians are at threat of being isolated by the rest of the world if seen to be supporting what has constantly been opposed.

Earlier, we discussed why both these countries have had an on and off relationship. One of the reasons was because there was a drug trafficking case in Victoria that involved the DPRK.

There have been numerous accusations brought against it by its opponents, that there are gross human rights abuses in the DPRK and a whole hoard of other negative trends. If the allegations were true, it would mean that drugs are readily available in the DPRK which would thus open a supply source for those people looking to profit from drugs in Australia. All the negative aspects of the Korean culture would ultimately find themselves engrained in the Australian culture.

Australian culture also greatly resembles that which is called the western culture. This culture is liberal and it gives the individual great autonomy to exercise his rights.

It is a capitalistic culture and considered inappropriate in most of the other closed cultures. The DPRK being a communist country is composed of a culture that is more controlled along the doctrines of communism.

There is therefore going to be a crisis if the cultural interchange is successful. It will mean that the negative aspects of a capitalistic culture will find themselves engrained into that of a communistic culture which could be a major source of confrontation.

With the continued development and testing of nuclear weapons, the DPRK remains a threat to the stability of the world. The United Nations has already expressed its opposition to the DPRK’s continued insistence on having a nuclear program specifically aimed at manufacturing weapons.

A problem arises since the weapons could find themselves into Australia which is a gateway of the rest of the world. Continued relations with the DPRK could be detrimental to the relationships Australia enjoys with the rest of the world.

What are the ramifications of improved political involvements between the DPRK and Australia?

In the past, Australian policy towards the DPRK has been more of what America’s policy was. However, Australia has always had an interest in improving the relationships as was evident in the numerous number of attempts made.

Every time the government of Australia seemed to be taking a step towards the improvement of relations with the DPRK, American policy would be seen to step in and thwart the effort.

The Australian policy has been three fold. First, there is the tendency to have warm relations with America, believing this to be in its best interest.

Second, is the internationalism ideal which considers the ideals brought forth by the international organizations and third is a more liberal policy that advocates for close relations with Asia, their closest neighbours in an attempt to forming an Asia-Pacific alliance.

A close political alliance could have numerous opportunities associated with it as well as threats. It is therefore in the best interests of both countries to be aware of these factors in order to avoid a crisis.

Opportunities

• Improved infrastructure and systems in North Korea with help from Australia.
• A chance of peace between the north and south assisted by Australia’s presence.
• Increased trade between the countries.
• A chance at forming a beneficial union.

The DPRK is impoverished. Their industries have been hard hit in the past years due to floods. The worst affected was the agricultural sector where most crops were washed away and land considered uncultivable.

This projects a very desperate picture for the DPRK as its continued isolation does not attract food aid from other countries. In order to deal with the recurring threat by natural disasters, Australia’s open policy towards it will open a political association that will make it possible for the DPRK to receive the assistance it needs.

The relationship stems from a mutual understanding as Australia is itself prone to natural disasters especially fires. Therefore, in a bid at helping the DPRK, Australia may find a solution for its own problems.

A political understanding between Australia and the DPRK would go a long way at attempting to review the crisis between it and the ROK (Republic Of Korea) and making recommendations.

This attempt would be founded on the mutual understanding that in order for Australia to actively and continuously help at rebuilding the DPRK, then the DPRK has to also offer something to Australia in return and this may manifest itself as peace or abandonment of the controversial nuclear program.

This political power that Australia may have over the DPRK will largely be assisted by the cultural exchanges and can not succeed on its own as is evidenced by past failed attempts.

Political alliances usually entail the discussions about interests that countries may harbour in others. The DPRK is aiming at opening up its mines which have great potential and have largely been underutilized due to its isolation.

Australia, which has numerous resources, could benefit enormously from investing in these mines and also in other industries in the country. Australia would also be in a position to increase its exports especially chemicals to the DPRK which are used in its manufacturing industry. Trade in chemicals is already ongoing, however, at a very minimal level.

Already, there are talks between South Korea and Australia about the formation of a free trade area. This would open up markets for each other and presents a very good avenue for increased trade without any tariffs in place. The DPRK would also benefit if it joined this arrangement. It would be a first stage towards regional integration leading to the formation of a larger more sustainable union like the European Union.

Threats

There are a number of threats that may be accompanied by the political relationship between Australia and the DPRK.

• Strained relations with the US.
• Increased crime.
• Increased number of refugees.

The US has for a long time considered the DPRK, Iran and Iraq “as an axis of evil” (Petrov 10). This strong sentiment advanced by President George W. Bush has not been dispelled until today (Mazarr 3) and seems to form the basis of American policy towards these three countries.

Already, there was military action in Iraq that was largely sponsored by the US and this has since been largely condemned by Australians and majority of other nations worldwide.

Continued political relations between the DPRK and Australia may be seen as anti-American hence straining relations (Ayson andTaylor 263-279).

There a number of negative attributes associated with countries that have a large population of poor people in it. Crimes and drug abuse seem as some of the most common and improved relations between the DPRK and Australia could open up an avenue for criminals and drug dealers to cross into either country with negative effects.

The dire living conditions in the DPRK have continued to strain the lives of a large number of its population. If the political environment between the two countries was to improve, the boundaries between both countries will be open to each other and this may cause a massive number of North Koreans migrating into Australia in a bid to searching for better living conditions and jobs.

This may, in the long run, affect the stability of both countries and put a strain on the economy of Australia.

Conclusion

For there to be true development in the world, as we look forward to being a global village, all nations must move in one general direction. Australia has the biggest stake in the development and integration of the DPRK into the global village. Obviously, it also has more to gain economically, politically and socially in its relationship with the DPRK.

A lot is pegged on the opening up of diplomatic ties between the two countries boosted by the adoption of an open policy by Australia towards the DPRK.

The continued crisis between the DPRK and the ROK could be solved if the relationship blossomed. The continued isolation of the DPRK could also be addressed if Australia was to successfully convince it to abandon the nuclear program that has been the major reason for the isolation.

In this discussion, its is possible to conclude that this open policy could have both negative and positive outcomes, obviously, the good traits outweigh the bad and the policy should be lauded as it promises to intervene in one of the world’s longest tussles. If the DPRK was to change to a better global citizen, the winners would not only be the Australians but the world in general.

Works Cited

Ayson, Robert and Taylor, Brendan, ‘Attacking North Korea: Why War Might be Preferred’, Comparative Strategy, 23 (2004): 263-279.

Brain, Steven. “Peaks and Troughs: Australian-DPRK Relations in the 21st Century”, Korea Observer, Vol.38, No.2 (2007): 354.

Mazarr, Michael. The long Road to Pyongyang. Foreign affairs vol.86, no.5 (2007). Web.

McCormack, Gavan. Cold War Hot War. An Australian Perspective on the Korean War. Sydney: Hale & Iremonger, 1983.

Petrov, A. Leonid.” Australia and the DPRK: The Sixty Years of Relationship.” Policy Forum Online 08-09A. (2008). Web.

The nuclear program in North Korea has left its neighbors and the whole world in general concerned about the North Korea’s intentions. The program has led to a lot of controversy with many people wondering whether the nuclear weapons are for defensive purposes or are majorly instruments of coercion (Pollack, 2010).

A lot of questions have been asked to establish the real intention of North Korea’s nuclear program with no clear answers being found. This paper will try to unravel the mystery behind North Korea’s nuclear program.

There has been a lot of pressure from the international community to stop North Korea from going ahead with its nuclear program but the efforts have not borne any fruits for almost two and a half decades (Pollack, 2010).

North Korea claims to possess plutonium that is popular for making nuclear weapons and uranium that the country claims to be an alternative source of reactor fuel. According to North Korea, the United States is a threat to its security and the nuclear program is a strategy to counter the threats.

The U.S and North Korea have engaged in diplomatic talks since the year 2009 but the engagement has proved futile to this far. The U.S mission is to see North Korea become a completely non-nuclear state. North Korea insists that it will continue to retain its nuclear programs and weapons as long other nations in the world continue to do the same (Pollack, 2010).

North Korea clearly demonstrated their defiance in May 2009 by conducting its second nuclear test. It is believed that North Korea went ahead to officially announce its new status as a nuclear weapons state. These actions have completely stopped diplomatic engagements in recent times. North Korea has also lost the political support it used to enjoy after its latest actions.

The South Korean president has completely changed nuclear program policies and the engagement between the North and the South is very cautionary with the South completely resisting the influence from the North. The attempts to restrain North Korea have been reversible making the whole process frustrating (Pollack, 2010).

North Korea has constantly disrupted all the efforts made by allies and adversaries to make it comply with non-proliferation obligations. International Atomic Energy Agency has terribly failed in trying to make North Korea comply with its regulations. North Korea was the first nation to withdraw from the Nonproliferation Treaty in the year 2003 and it has since then continued to violate its promises to stop the nuclear program.

During the first nuclear test, long-range missile ranges were tested and subsequent tests saw the introduction of new nuclear weapons that North Korea claimed were for defensive purposes. The international community has been putting some measures in place to compel North Korea to stop the nuclear program but these strategies have not been working.

To begin with, the international community and other security agents have been trying to mitigate all the perceived threats by North Korea’s nuclear program. The second strategy was to place both political and economic sanctions against North Korea. The other strategy was to interdict all weapon shipments to and from North Korea and complete isolation (Pollack, 2010).

Illicit technologies were to be interdicted but all these efforts have been in vain since North Korea has never been deterred by all the attempts aimed at frustrating it to stop its nuclear program. North Korea sees the approaches employed by the U.S as coercive in nature and uncooperative.

All the denuclearization efforts by the international community have been failing and any new attempts are bound be skeptical. North Korea has set up unimaginable conditions for it to stop its nuclear program (Pollack, 2010).

The external powers and the current policies have been constantly rejected by North Korea making a non-nuclear future very unrealistic (Fitzpatrick, 2008). Making North Korea to be fully committed to denuclearization has been the greatest test the U.S and the international community has failed to pass.

The conditions and strategies set up by North Korea are aimed at protecting its interest and nuclear weapons development (Cimbala, 2005). The diplomatic talks between North Korea and the U.S under the Obama administration have been associated with mistrust on both sides.

The negotiations have been faced with a lot of obstacles with North Korea going ahead to consolidate its nuclear program and declare itself a nuclear weapons state despite the negotiations that had just been revived in 2009.

North Korea’s possibility of changing its nuclear policies has been greatly hampered by the changes in leadership. Leadership succession process plays a crucial role in the way a state makes major decisions (Cimbala, 2005). North Korea has heavily invested in the nuclear programs for over two decades and dismantling that is actually unimaginable.

Reversing all the nuclear programs in North Korea still remains a mirage. The whole world waits to see the kind of strategy the Obama administration will use to break the deadlock. The North Korean leadership seems to value the nuclear program so much to an extent of it being one of the major focuses of its policies.

The leadership in North Korea claims that its policies are meant to protect its population from external attacks and influences. The nuclear program is one of its strategies of strengthening its military capabilities. The nuclear program is seen as a survival strategy by the current regime.

The regime has continued to develop the program disregarding the economic implications and the diminishing relationships with the Republic of Korea, Japan and the United States. The country has been faced with economic crisis over the years forcing it to entirely rely on external support.

China has been the only source of refuge with South Korea and Japan withdrawing their support because of North Korea’s refusal to change its policies regarding the nuclear program. What surprises many people is North Korea’s refusal to sell or exchange its nuclear weapons for economic aid (Bishop, 2005).

The efforts of nuclear diplomacy by the Republic of Korea have seriously failed since North Korea has never been ready to exchange its nuclear capabilities with anything. In effort to defend its system, the North Korean leadership has continued to develop its nuclear programs and most importantly nuclear weapons.

North Korea has lately shown utmost defiance by declaring that it would do everything possible to boost its self-defense. All the weapon inspectors have been expelled with renewed efforts to strengthen the weapons section.

In conclusion, North Korea has clearly stated that its nuclear weapons are for defense purposes. Efforts of nuclear diplomacy have always failed because of North Koreas refusal to change its nuclear policies (Alagappa, 2009). With past diplomatic efforts having failed, convincing North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program is still unimaginable.

References

Alagappa, M. (2009). The long shadow: Nuclear weapons and security in 21^st century Asia. New York, NY: NUS Press.

Bishop, J. et al. (2005). Dismantling North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. New York, NY: Strategic Studies Institute.

Cimbala, S. J. (2005). Nuclear weapons and strategy: Nuclear policy for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Fitzpatrick, M. T. et al. (2008). Nuclear doctrines and strategies: National policies and international security. New York, NY: IOS Press.

Pollack, J. D. (2010). North Korea’s nuclear weapons development: Implications for future policy. Proliferation Papers, 33, 7-41.

Executive Summary

North Korea is a sovereign country which should be respected by all nations in the world. North Korea’s good relationship with the United States has long been withstanding until the early1990s when the country expanded its nuclear program and the U.S considered bombing the facilities jeopardizing any good relationship that existed between them.

The relationship between the two countries seemed to have found a common ground when Jimmy Carter negotiated peace between the two sides resulting to an Agreed Framework that required North Korea to trade off its nuclear program in exchange of fuel shipments from the U.S.

The agreed framework did not bring the peace that was intended for but instead averted war and since then, the U.S has continued to criticize the country’s sale of advanced nuclear technology to other countries remains a subject for discussions. It was later discovered that North Korea was harboring an underground nuclear facility contrary to the Agreed Framework Agreement.

Both the United States and North Korea are to be blamed for the torn relationships between, and if they both play the supremacy cards, the relationship between the two powers will be antagonistic. Research reveals that the U.S never delivered the promised heavy fuel oil in exchange for freezing the nuclear power house and also failed to lift its economic sanctions. There are two United states government policies that supports the relationship between the two countries.

One is the Clinton administration and CIA and pentagon policies. The Clinton policies limited the U.S engagement in North Korea affairs and sought to analyze the relationship between the two countries while the CIA opposed the arrangements. Since the U.S policies towards North Korea proved impractical, the policy makers in the U.S should address a wide range of bilateral agreements that will strengthen North Korea’s siege mentality.

Context and Importance of the problem

By understanding the extend to which North Korean leaders regard changes in relation to relationship with the outside world will help us understand why restoring peace between the country and the United States proves challenging. North Korea over the past decades has endured dilemma on how it interacts with the outside world in relation to resistance to principles of monitoring, conditionality to be paid in terms of relationship with international cooperation, transparency and reciprocity.

Its therefore important to note that North Korea’s interaction and conformity to internal rules may prove challenging in resolving the fundamental dilemmas posed by the Western countries, precisely the U.S due to the inherent danger that it may carry for survival of its ruling class. The paper will therefore review challenges North Korea faces in managing its nuclear weapons, transparency issues, economic reforms and the looming food crisis.

All these issues are considered as threats to the survival of North Korea’s leadership and its relationship with international communities. Rather than placing all the blame to the North Korea leadership, it’s important to look at what the U.S can do to restore the relations and the country’s sovereignty that permits the launch of satellite and nuclear proliferation.

North Korea over the years has retained several patterns of interactions with international communities as derived fro its philosophical approach that considers it history rather dwelling on the periphery. DPRK themes seem impractical even though they have never been practices since their implementations.

Theme seeks its own interest without considering the international consideration which they consider to reinforce legacy of the country’s regime. The U.S should therefore consider adapting to the North Korean rules without having to impose their own measures that would jeopardize the country’s sovereignty.

A comprehensive agreement package that seeks to honor both countries commitment to end the stale relationships that have existed between them should be implemented. First, the U.S administration should first try and normalize the relationship between the two countries in terms of economic and security relations.

Secondly, humanitarian aid should be send to North Korea to end the agricultural problems that have existed in the country for decades. Thirdly, the United States should consider lifting economic sanctions promised in the Agreement Framework and emphasize on restricting the country’s missile tests while at the same time permitting satellite technology development.

North Korea has already offered a negotiable ground by agreeing to stop nuclear weapon exports in exchange for cash and the U.S should therefore try to meet them halfway by working with other countries to reduce militants and restore confidence and peace among the surrounding regions (Jonathan 54).

The relationship had deteriorated due to claimed abduction of their citizens. Seoul was also one of the nations with whom our relationship was bad, due to the government of Lee Myung-bank. Economic ties with these various nations had deteriorated and the talks could not have succeeded because, they wanted us to fail our endeavors to use our resources effectively.

Many may think we are arming to fight them and with the nuclear weapons, we threaten other countries to our advantage. The launch of the April 2009 missile has led to a lot of criticism by various parties including the United Nations. This interference of our state is a bad blood between Korea and America.

We, as a republic are just asking for consideration that we think is necessary and our right to our sovereignty. The Bush administration was not willing to negotiate with us on how to go about this process. The only had these constant threats to us and even were willing to launch an attack on us and that was unacceptable.

They attacked Iraq and therefore we should, if they think we are a country that cannot implement its wishes, then they are very wrong. The international Atomic Energy Agency search of nuclear in man countries is also not necessary in our country. The non-proliferation treaty is also a treaty made in favor of some countries and, should be checked and corrected to suit everybody in the entire world (Jonathan 160).

The North Korean policy of the nuclear weapons has a lot of implications in our own mode of set up. As we know, North Korea must rely on the international support for development and for its people to survive properly.

America is a superpower and it’s very influential in all aspects of the world’s policies therefore; we have to consider our policies towards America. President Obama is a diplomat and will always listen to us and bilateral talks with him will uphold that sense of dignity in us. Frankly, North Korea has a bad economy and society.

As you are well aware of it, many citizens here depend on marketalization from below; barter trade, private economic exchange and some related activities unhandled by the state. Even with emphasis of industrial development and other economic activities, U.S remains an economically strong country and by 2012 North Korea will still be undeveloped. Our nuclear proliferations are also keeping our neighbors in fear and thus, regional trade remains an issue.

China is an emerging superpower, and North Korea as a neighboring country should consider involvement of more trade activities as its history requires it to be. Barrack

Obama is also considering a number of options in including Asia in trade activities. Recently, he visited Asia on APEC meeting and they discussed a lot of trade and issue of global climate changes. These are some of the things that North Korea needs by now and without the support of the American, we will remain backwards forever.

Change of polices towards international relationships is something that is inevitable if we want to develop. This policy of nuclear weapons in our midst could also lead to an attack upon our territory by more than one nation. The leniency with Obama should be an advantage to us. Money, food and other development items should be acquired from other nations so as to stabilize our country before we get to process the weapons

Critique of the policy

North Korea as a county has various options to undertake and live peacefully with other nations. Some of these issues include honoring of the NPT and adhering to the policies of the United Nations Security Council. This will ensure that affairs of North Korea are not interfered with. Development of other areas of the country will occur. This will lead to proper international relationships and trade within the Asian regions will be improved, positive implications on a country’s development (Victor 124).

Another option is the all inclusive dialogue between the involved parties or bilateral talks with the United States. This will ensure that trust among the nations is back to us and many will be willing to work with North Korea.

In these talks, you as the president should raise the issue you have with the United States and give justifiable reasons for your actions. Mostly, regarding the weapons you should ask for rewritten agreement as it was done with India. Then, ask America to honor your ambitions an show just enough to them that you abide by the rules of non-aggression even if you get the weapons.

Since you need United States for the development purposes, respect them and use President Obama to have your ambitions achieved. President Obama does not want to be involved in any war and therefore, his leniency can offer you an advantage as you can talk to him. These will ensure there are no sanctions on your country and, other systems of the government will be running accordingly.

These are some of the options that are needed so that you do not fail in your ambitions and other sectors of the government. Let your country emerge as powerful nation with the help America because, if you make America your enemy you will not succeed.

The proposal system of not respecting the treaties and arrogance towards the United Nations will cost us a lot. America is going to recommend various economic sanctions, and this will have major impact in our economy. Other nations will be urged not to relate with us, especially from our region since most of our neighbors are friends of the United States.

Trade in our region will be a failure and our people will live in poverty. Furthermore, capitalism is the essence in the world and those countries that have embraced it have developed, and we need to have money to have this country develop. Most of our international polices will become a failure to us if we do not take care.

North Korea has always been an antagonistic of the United States since the era of Clinton after the cold war. These have always worked against us because, in terms of development America has grown, but we have continued to suffer economically. The current proposal is certainly failing because, we have never moved ahead into making these weapons since we decided to go ahead with our mission.

It is true that we have had several missile tests but, we are very far from accomplishing our dream. Every time we are doing it, there is interference from other countries led by America. We must change for the better, and make the relationship with other countries especially the United States better for us to develop Mazarr 78).

Obama administration has implemented new policy that pledged to work with North Korea in achieving denuclearization of clear weapons in the country through the Six-Party Process. This policy will give countries right to harbor peaceful nuclear energy and those who continue to oppose international obligations will not be receive any economic or political favor with the country in future.

Obama is willing to listen to us, give him a chance and we can strive a deal and our relationships will improve and retrieve benefits at the end. The way this country handles the situation now, should a least give a chance to President Obama. He is not the same as President Bush who could not think of anything but war.

The president of United States is lenient on international polices and I hope you as the president of this nation will consider that chance. The policies of North Korea may seem biased but, as your advisor I support you fully. Nuclear proliferation is something the country cannot run away from. In some years to come, many countries with be advancing and arming will be done in order to cope with threats like terrorism.

As the president of this nation, you should consider various issues like the agreement between India and the United States on the proliferation treaty. These are some of the misunderstandings North Korea has with the United States. As your political advisor, I have shed some light on these issues and their pros and cons. The policies you uphold against the United States are good but, they will make the country poorer.

With these chances, you should first improve the livelihoods of the people of North Korea but, do not erode the aim if nuclear weapon proliferation. Since development of your country will highly depend on other countries good relationships, United States will help you achieve that. President Obama can agree on a deal that will not require full denuclearization but, simply the reduction of nuclear arming. These will help you grow as a nation economically and also be armed.

China as an emerging superpower should also be considered in the country’s change of policies. If, as the President you find it difficult to work with the United States be a closer friend to China and she will help in mending the relationship with the United States.

Policy recommendations

According to the issues at hand, various practical steps should be taken to save this deteriorating relationship with the United States. North Korea should make move towards a round table talk with China regarding the nuclear proliferation and convince them of the threat they pose to America as an emerging super power. This will obviously encourage China to facilitate a dialogue with the United States, and also be in full support of your country’s ambitions.

North Korea should also resume the Six-Party talks and allow the other nations to listen to her views on this issue. Since the United States is the most influential state in the world, bilateral talks should be encouraged to foster the two countries personal relationships. I am always emphasizing on the leniency of President Obama as an advantage to you whereby, the country can reach an agreement on partial denuclearization (Victor 123).

Internal policies in North Korea have not argued well with the issue affecting the nation. Economically, the country is not doing that well and since we are enemies with many nations we will not develop. Poor infrastructure, failed agriculture and lack of proper trade should be our priorities for now.

These are the only things that will ensure growth of our nation and also the ambition of proper utilization of resources like uranium will come into force.

United States sees North Korea as a failed State that is why it is interfering in our aim of having these weapons. This economic status should leas us into weighing our options against the United States. Whether as country decide to ignore this relationship, suffering will still continue in our nation.

Another step taken by North Korea is that of non-proliferation issue although talks are underway to renegotiate the arrangements. The renegotiated treat should also consider Pakistan and India as they are also suspected to be harboring these dangerous weapons.

If these issues are not dealt in efficiently, these countries could the same as Islamabad. Weapon proliferation has made neighboring countries to be hostile to the two countries due to the testing of missile whenever the country feels appropriate. If they continue weapon testing, controversies will be steamed all over the world.

Research reveals neighboring countries in North Korea are also concerned with the country’s weapons which may subsequently lead to humanitarian crisis among nations. If the U.S decides to attack us, there are many routes to penetrate our country because countries like South Korea will assist them. Many of the North Korea citizens will die and suffer because most of our neighbors may close the borders.

America may also succeed in ousting you as the president, as they did with Sadam Hussein and Osama therefore, I think these policies of the United States should be urgently considered. This will also be for the sake of the country and its people (Jonathan 157).

United States has closed any relations especially the normal trade relations, and the manufactured goods from our country while entering the United States markets.

These have impacted negatively in our markets and have led to low income. United States is a country that will always be important to us economically, and with our policies of ignorance towards them to we are not going to succeeded. North Korea should also try to honor the Agreed Framework between them and the United States as the country promises to lift sanctions implanted on them.

Companies and banks are all willing to invest in North Korea if sanctions are lifted, and this can only be achieved by improving this relationship. I know many factors that have led to the power relationship but things like Korea war should be forgotten. Kim Dae Jung’s sunshine policy is important in issue in the normalization of relations between US and North Korea.

Japan also, is willing to fund North Korea and usher in a new era of regional cooperation. These are issues that North Korea should consider before deciding to deteriorate its relationship with United States.

With the considerable actions, an impact will surely be observed in North Korea. I am not suggesting that North Korea should submissive to America but, with good relation agreements in place, nuclear powers will never be used by the country since it means the economic sanction and the money for its economic development.

Since the United States and North Korea are constantly fighting on super power supremacy, both countries should consider how such implications would have on humanitarian conditions such as food, life and the economic welfare more that is powers would. The United States should try and relaxed their policy rules and try to commit to them to achieve their goals in restoring peace between the two countries and the neighboring countries.

“I think it’s time we talked about regime change in North Korea, and I do not mean military action, but I do believe that this is a very unstable regime,” Sen. John McCain said. Indeed the question of the regime change in North Korea is an urgent question of the modern international security politics. The international community orients its North Korean policy, believing that North Korea will fail, especially South Korea and the USA.

The problem of the regime change in North Korea is particularly interesting as it can bring considerable changes into the lives of Korean people, international relationships of North Korea with the United States, South Korea, other countries, as well as change the overall political situation in the world. The question of the second regime change emerged after the Kim Jong-Il’s illness:

“Foreign policy challenge of how the United States and its allies can prepare for the possibility that North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il’s illness becomes the source of sudden and destabilizing change in North Korea” (Stares 1).

However, the background for the regime change was the nuclear politics of North Korea and its refusal to abandon production of the nuclear weapon. Politics, as well as political scientist try to predict possible outcomes of the regime change.

The governments of two countries, the USA and South Korea, are extremely interested in the promotion and results of this change, “G. W. Bush laid down an ambitious marker when he declared that the US would not “tolerate” the acquisition of nuclear weapon by Iran and North Korea” (Litwak 1) Thus, in this essay, I am going to analyze possible outcomes of the regime change in North Korea and the role of South Korea during the regime change.

This topic is particularly interested because it presents a perfect “raw material” for the study of the security policy. I would like to analyze this topic because I am familiar with its history and culture of both North and South Koreas. The outcomes of the first regime change from Kim Il Sung to Kim Jung IL were somehow unpredictable: many historians, US believed that North Korea will collapse. But it became even stronger.

Thus, the outcomes of the outcomes of the second regime change can be seen from different angles. It can have as positive as negative results. In particular, it can influence the relationships of North Korea with other countries and improve economical, social and cultural life of the country. On the other hand, it can cause more conflicts and even war.

This topic was selected because the international community aspires to change the regime in North Korea believing in the positive outcomes of this affair. Moreover, there were many researches that predicted possible ways of changing the regime and how it could result for the world.

Thus, doing the research of this topic it would be reasonable to analyze, first of all, the outcomes of the first regime change and how it influenced on different aspects of human life in North Korea. Second, as it has already been mentioned, there were examples when a country survived the change of regime and benefited from it (the division of Germany after the World War II on Federal Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic and its reunion in 1990). Let us take another sample. North Korea often compared with Iraq as it presents the “threat to international security” (Pak and Kim 1). But:

“The Iraq was set an important historical precedent by being the first case in which forcible regime change was the means employed to achieve no-profitable ends. …necessitated regime change because of Saddam Hussein’s unrelenting drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction” (Litwak 1).

Third, analyzing the outcomes of the first regime change in North Korea and the results of the regime change in other countries, we should also analyze how the change can influence on the industrial, agricultural and service sector in the country, as well as on the structure of the government, social, economic life and even the culture of the country. We should also analyze why the regime change in North Korea would be beneficial for such countries as the USA and South Korea.

In 2008, the relationships between South and North Korea took a turn for the worse because Lee Myung-bak became the president of South Korea who took a “sharp” position towards the DPRK.In response, the government of North Korea (North Korea accuses South of deadly spy plots, n. pag.) refused the process of reintegration and accused Lee Myung-bak in attempt on Kim Jung IL’s life.

As a result, in June 2009, the DPRK announced the withdrawal from all peace treaties and in February, it announced the readiness to war with South Korea. However, soon, it renewed the telecommunications with it. Still, the two parts of the county have tense relationships. The government of the South Korea is supported by the USA government. These two countries are the most interested ones in the regime change in North Korea:

“Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed full U.S. support Monday for South Korea’s decision to take tough new steps against North Korea and said Pyongyang’s “belligerence” has created a “highly precarious situation” in the region.” ( McCormack, n. pag).

Before this announcement, the president of South Korea assured that their nation would cease all the trades with the country and most of the investments. Thus, Lee also supports the idea of changes in North Korea (McCormack, n.pag).

What is the point? Why are all the countries so interested in the regime change? The first answer can be rather trivial, and the most obvious one, in fact. The international community tries to preserve piece in the society and improve the lives of people of the North Korea who lived under the “the staying power of North Korean totalitarianism, which has resisted decades of sanctions and isolation” (Hirsh, n. pag).

However, can we judge from what is said to us by means of media and in political speeches? Who knows the real situation? Indeed, it would be too far-fetched to estimate that North Korea is a “monster” which wants to seize the power in the world. Hardly can it be true. Perhaps, all the actions are just an attempt to preserve the independency and unitary of the state.

To prove this position it should be mentioned that once “North Korean Foreign Minister Nam Sun told Weldon, “If the U.S. would sign a nonaggression pact, we would give up nuclear programs and weapons.” (Kaplan, n. pag). At any rate, the intentions of both opposed sides are their own business and in the spotlight of my essay are the possible outcomes of the regime change.

The predictions of the regime change have been made by many political scientists. According to Paul B. Stares, there are:

“Three potential succession scenarios: managed succession, in which the top leadership transitions smoothly; contested succession, in which government officials and factions vie for power after Kim’s demise; and failed succession, in which a new government is unable to achieve legitimacy, possibly resulting in the collapse of North Korea” (1).

The results of the regime change depend on the actions of both sides the ability to find a compromise. According to Bruce Bennett and Nina Hachigian:

“Ideally, regime change in North Korea would mean a neat handover of power from Kim Jong Il to a cooperative, benign leader that the United States and its allies can work with. Or, it could lead to a quick and peaceful unification with South Korea, as happened in Germany” (4).

Indeed, in such case, the US would be able to control the government of the country, guarantee stability and prevent the danger of nuclear weapon. The country will be united. Such an outcome can greatly improve the prosperity of the country, “the economic prosperity has something to do with political stability” (“Modeling Regime Change” n. pag.) and the change can lead to the “revolutionary upheaval, in a likelihood implying the North’s collapse and its absorption into the rival Southern state” (“Political Change in North Korea” n. pag).

Jin Pak and Michael Kim also suggest four scenarios for the regime changes in North Korea. According to them, it is the USA who has to arrange positive changes, “scenario 1 depicts a global environment in which the United States is successful in Iraq and Kim Jong IL obtains stability in his regime” (4). There are four scenarios and each of them depicts the picture when the USA changes the regime in North Korea. However, the DPRK’s main purpose, as well as the other countries, is not to be submitted to other governments.

Thus, if the North Korean’s independence and safety will not be preserved, the outcomes of the regime change can be negative. The worst thing that can happen is the war as the North Korea can take military actions to prevent the collapse of the country and use its nuclear weapon. Or there can even appear the worst regime.

Thus, the outcomes of the regime change can be different. Most international communities may hope that the North Korea will fail, however, it can even become stronger. Its current regime and the experience of previous historical events show that the regime will not change, but the government will only change its strategy.

Works Cited

Bennett, B. and Hachigian, N. “A Different Axis: Don’t Try Regime Change in North Korea”. The New York Times. 2004. Web.

Hirsh, Michael. “McCain Calls for ‘Regime Change’ in North Korea”. National Security. 2010. Web.

Kaplan, Fred. “Regime Change in North Korea?” 2003. Web.

Litwak, Robert S. “Non-Proliferation and the Dilemmas of Regime Change”. Web.

McCormack, J. “Obama Supports Regime Change in North Korea?” 2010 Web.

“Modeling Regime Change”. Web.

North Korea accuses South of deadly spy plots. — Reuters, 18.12.2008 “Political Change in North Korea.” Web.

Pak, J. and Kim, M. “Implications for Scenario Planning on the question, “Should the US pursue Regime Change in North Korea?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii. Web.

Stares, Paul B., and Joel S. Wit. Center for Preventive Action. Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea. Council on Foreign Relations, 2009.

Power: It is the ability to achieve a desired outcome. Power encompasses but not limited to the ability of oneself to do something or the capability of a government to grow the economy. On a political scale, power is thought as the ability to make someone involuntarily do something. Power can be political, personal, and economic.

The young North Korea leader, Kim Jong Un has got power over his people. He commands his forces to be ready for an attack on South Korea and United States of America (USA). The Koreans heed to his call and turn out for the rally. On the other hand, South Korea and the USA have got economic power. South Korea funds the joint factory park in North Korea. It also provides work force to the factory. Both countries have sophisticated war equipment including planes and nuclear weapons.

Sovereignty: Sovereignty means absolute and unlimited power within some geographical scope. It can be legal or political. Legal sovereignty is the total independence of the law making organs. Political sovereignty is the independence to entirely control, an area with no external interference.

Kim says that, the government, political parties, and organizations in North Korea held a joint statement. In the statement, they warn South Korea and (USA) of a possible attack without any prior notice if they are provoked. They promise to deal with the southerners according to “wartime regulations”. South Korean down plays the Northerners’ threats, claiming they are not new. The southerners say it is a routine military drill between the USA and South Korea. No country is ready to let its sovereignty threatened or undermined.

Government: A government is an institution that makes and enforces public policies for and on a society. Governments have three arms; legislature, judiciary and the executive that work jointly for a smooth running of a country.

Three governments are involved in the conflict; USA, South Korea and North Korea governments. Together with his generals, Kim Jong Un makes decisions for the country including going into war. The South Korean government collaborates with the USA government for military drills in the country. Analysts also argue that North Korean government is only using threats to draw the USA government into talks.

Authority: Authority is often used to mean the same as power. On the contrary, we do have a difference between these two terms. While power means having influence on someone to do something involuntarily, authority looks at the justification of exercising power. It looks at the legitimacy of one’s influence on people. We can refer to authority as institutionalized power.

The North Korean government, under the stewardship of its leader Kim Jong Un and his generals, exercises its authority to protect its borders. The North Korean government, political parties, and organizations also make a joint statement about the same. Given that the 1950-53 war between North Korea and South Korea ended in a cease-fire and not a peace treaty, North Korea had all the reasons to be cautious when USA carries out joint military drills with the South.

On its part, South Korea is also keen on the operations of their rivals. The government spokesman uses his authority to issue statement concerning the government’s position on North Korea’s threats. Exercising of authority is also seen when the UN exerts sanctions due to Pyongyang’s nuclear test. The UN serves to maintain peace and ensuring that human rights are kept by nations.

Works Cited

Gaus, Gerald F. Political Concepts and Political Theories. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press, 2000. Print.

Gerson, Jen. “New Harper Appointment To Senate Advocates Term Limits, Reform.” National Post. National Post, n.d. Web.

Jonas , George. “Why Everyone in The Middle East Can’t Just Get Along.” National Post. National Post, 26 Mar. 2013. Web.

Kim, Sam. “North Korea in ‘State Of War’ With South Korea As Analysts Worry Misjudgment Could Lead To a Clash.” National Post. National Post, 26 2013. Web.

Stefan, Meister. “The Cyprus Crisis Reveals Much About German-Russian Relations.” The Guardian. The Guardian, 26 Mar. 2013. Web.

In the following work peculiarities of Inter-Korean relations are analyzed. Main aspects of existing crisis in relations between North Korea and South Korea are outlined and analyzed. Great attention is given to description of North Koreas Nuclear Program. Its main threats are investigated. Reaction of official Seoul to development of this program is given.

This work analyses peculiarities of policy of the ROK. Prior directions of development of external policy are also taken into account. In the end of the work possible scenarios of the end of nuclear crisis are given. Eastern region of our planet has always been a place of a great interest for different countries. This fact was determined by a number of different reasons.

First of all, this region remained unstable for a long period of its history. Constant civil wars, wars for independence and some inner conflicts drew attention of people to this region. As a result of one of these wars, China lost its influence there. Japan became the owner of this land however, not for a long time. WWII influenced greatly state of affairs in this region.

With the end of the war “Japanese colonial rule also came to an end on the Korean Peninsula” (“Inter-Korean Relations” para.1). However, it did not become a unitary state. The USA and the USSR “agreed to a temporary division of the Korean Peninsula at the 38th parallel until a provisional government could be established and independence restored” (“An Overview of Inter-Korean Relations” para. 4).

Unfortunately, it was not a temporary decision as it was supposed. Brutal Korean war destroyed any chances for reunion of the state. There were no contacts between governments of the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) after this war. However, some positive shift happened under the President Roh Tae-Woo.

The states renewed negotiations. This positive tendency continued and there was a period of gradual positive change in relations between two states. Election of Lee Myung Bak as the President announced new approach to Inter-Korean relations which was called pragmatic (“An Overview of Inter-Korean Relations” para. 7). This approach led to deterioration of relations between South and North Koreas.

The skirmish between battleships of these countries only worsened the state of affairs. New President Park Geun Hye promised to improve diplomatic and economic relations with North Korea. However, there is still tension between these two states. North Korean Nuclear crisis promotes further development of this tension. The main point is, that this state has its own nuclear weapons program which is a major concern for the whole world (Sigal para. 3).

“In 2006, 2009 and again in 2013, North Korea announced that it had conducted successful nuclear tests – they all came after the North was sanctioned by the UN for launching rockets” (“How advanced is North Korea’s nuclear programme?” para. 1). With this in mind, it is possible to speak about the Nuclear crisis. Government of this state refuses to abandon this program. Negotiations with the participation of the USA, Russian Federation, China and some other countries were not successful.

Pyongyang refuses to show all materials connected with this question. Moreover, there is no guaranty that it will stop development of this program. It is quite obvious that nuclear threat is used by North Korea as a bargaining chip in order to get some benefits. However, possibility of its existence and usage should not be ignored.

That is why leading countries are worried and try to solve this problem, hoping to avoid new war in this region, which can be even more brutal and catastrophic than the previous one. Taking Nuclear Program of North Korea into account, official Seoul should have special policy in order to react to all threats, created by Pyongyang. Moreover, this policy should try to improve relations between two countries in order to obtain some benefits.

That is why the President should be a strong leader and accept some hard decisions. “Park has already advocated a stronger South Korean military contribution to the U.S.–South Korea alliance, particularly in response to recent North Korean attacks and provocations” (Klingner para. 7). These actions were influenced by great aggression in North Koreas statements.

The DPRK says about the possibility of nuclear attacks on South Korea, Japan, the USA. That is why international community is disturbed by these proclamations. South Korea should do something with respect to these facts as it is the first to suffer from North Koreas aggression. Nowadays, it seems that there is no possible peaceful solution to this problem.

The President of Korea, Park Geun Hye, tries to guarantee security of her state. Her first step is connected with the foreign policy of the country. It is an attempt to obtain a powerful ally in a probable war with North Korea. Diplomatic relations between the USA and the ROK are now as stable and close as they have never been before. The USA acts as a guarantor of South Koreas security. The President tries to obtain more support from the USA.

Troop coordination of these states moved to a new level. Military presence of the USA in the region increased significantly. Preparing for some military conflict, Park Geun Hye also does not forget about possible diplomatic solutions to this situation. It is very difficult to solve this problem under existing conditions. Cooperation of South Korea with the USA irritates Pyongyang.

That is why North Korea refuses to hold a parley with Seoul. That is why peaceful decision of this problem seems to be more and more complicated. However, the ROK preserves its attempts to establish normal relations between these two counties. Within a framework of this policy, South Korea tries to ignore all provocations and military acts which North Korea performs.

The ROK even tries to continue its humanitarian mission, trying to help some vulnerable groups which exist among population of North Korea. The main aim of these measures is to show peaceful character of South Korea and its intentions. However, there are also some firm actions. The May 24 Measures are still observed. Administration of the President of South Korea tries to find some new steps which will be able to improve existing situation.

However, there is also a clear message to North Korea. It states that though the ROK is not interested in war and further escalation of violence, it is ready for any possible development of the situation and will be able to answer to military aggression. Having understood North Koreas main motives in development of its nuclear program, it is possible to cogitate about potential solutions to this problem.

It became clear that official Pyongyang is not going to stop development of its nuclear program. The situation is getting worse day by day whether it is the nation’s nuclear program, advances in missile technology, cyber warfare operations or its horrible human rights record (Soesanto para. 2).

This fact influences greatly further development of the situation. It should be said that this program is taken as a real threat to existing world order, that is why it becomes not only the problem of South Korea. Historically, Russia, China, the USA and Japan were the most active participants of main events which happened at Korea Peninsular and now they try to find solution to this problem.

On the current stage these countries try to use diplomatic means, hoping to find compromise. There is a great number of different guaranties which these countries give. In the first instance, it is connected with safety and security arrangements. Leading countries are ready to become guarantors of North Koreas security if it closes its Nuclear Program. However, negotiations are not very successful.

Being not sure in its own forces and having no trust to these countries, North Korea does not give any distinct answer. Moreover, there is still a question whether it really has nuclear program and weapon. That is why all negotiation parties are very careful in their suggestions. It should also be admitted that Nuclear Program has a very strong ideological influence and meaning.

For years Pyongyang has been stressing necessity of conquering South Korea and unification of the country. Having obtained the remedy for realization of their main purposes, North Korea has no chance to destroy it as it would mean renunciation of official ideology. Having analyzed the data, it is possible to suggest some believable scenarios of further development of actions. The first scenario provides peaceful decision of existing problem.

North Korea can close its Nuclear Program in exchange for security safeguards and help in economic development of the country as current state of affairs is very complicated. Relations with South Korea will also improve and provide better development of the economy of the state.

However, there is one more possible scenario which is not so peaceful. Failed to find compromise, leading states could just decide to solve this problem in a heavy handed way. In this case, possibility of the world war exists. That is why it is very important to find peaceful solution which will satisfy all litigants.

Works Cited

An Overview of Inter-Korean Relations. Web.

Inter-Korean Relations. Web.

“How advanced is North Korea’s nuclear programme?“. The BBC News. 2014. Web.

Klingner, Bruce. The U.S. Should Support New South Korean President’s Approach to North Korea. 2013. Web.

Sigal, Leon. The North Korean Nuclear Crisis: Understanding The Failure of the ‘Crime-and-Punishment’ Strategy. 1997. Web.

Soesanto, Stefan. “The North Korea threat“. The Hill. 2013. Web.

North Korea’s nuclear program started in about 1962. During this time, North Korea (Officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK) “committed itself to what it called ‘all-fortressization,’ which was the beginning of hyper militarized North Korea of today” (Pike, para. 4).

The government established an atomic energy research plant, which the specialists who had studied in the Soviet Union used to train students. Due to the abundance of uranium in North Korea, the country succeeded in its nuclear programs but faced oppositions from other countries (Pak, 133).

In 1991, North Korea and South Korea made an agreement to keep the peninsula free of all sorts of nuclear weapons (Graham and LaVera, 1269). This is what they called the Basic Agreement. In this agreement, the two countries committed to reconciliation, nonaggression, exchange and cooperation between them (Betz, 10).

The two countries then formed four joint commissions to workout the specifics for implementation of the basic agreement. However, North Korea went against this agreement, carried out secret nuclear programs, and denied South Korea access to the country for inspection. In 1993, North Korea pulled out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, an issue that led to its first crisis (Niksch, 18; “Timeline,” para. 3).

Despite sanctions from western counties and the UN, Korea went ahead and produced its nuclear weapons by 1994. During this period of the basic agreement, North Korea had poor relations with other countries but had some relations with China, the Soviet Union and was struggling to form diplomatic ties with South Korea.

In 2002, North Korea faced its second crisis. This county engaged in a gun battle with South Korea in June that killed four of South Korea’s sailors. Japan stopped its food aid an issue that made the UN WHO to cut its food supplies to North Korea.

Korea admitted that it was secretly carrying out nuclear processes and promised to stop if the US signed a non-aggression treaty and it also engaged in ambassadorial overtures. Consequently, it restarted talks with some other countries. Some of these included Japan, the U.S. and South Korea.

North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in October 2006 (Kristensen, para.1). This underground explosion test registered a 4.2 magnitude tremor. Prior to the test, North Korea had announced that it was ready to do the test. They also notified China of the test twenty minutes before they carried it out.

According to Lankov, the test “was aimed at impressing the outside world in order to manipulate it and get what the North Korean leaders wanted to get” (para. 1). During this time, North Korea had poor diplomatic relations with many countries and this test helped it revive its relations. Thereafter, the United States decided to make important special considerations. As a result, assistance to North Korea was started again.

North Korea has a poor history of international relations especially with the western countries. However, the country held a good relationship with the Soviet Union during the early years of its establishment. North Korea’s relation with South Korea and the US was poor but it improved in 1991 when South Korea became a member of UN and strained North Korea’s relation with the Soviet Union.

The signing of the nuclear anti-proliferation agreement between these two counties improved their relationship in 1991. Currently, North Korea has belter international relations with other countries and it is a member of the UN, FAO, UNDP, WHO and many others.

North Korea is very cautious in establishing diplomatic ties with other countries. The country began participating in ASEAN Regional Forum in July 2000 and established diplomatic ties with other countries like Italy, Philippines, Australia, U.K., Germany and others.

In conclusion, North Korea has a history characterized by wars and international crisis (Hagstrom and Soderberg, 2; Bajoria, para. 1).

The country decided to engage in nuclear weapon developments in order to protect itself against its powerful neighbors and to assure it of military self-sufficiency (Cronin and Art, 157). The founders of this project were determined to counter the power of the United States against them and prevent any military takeovers from other countries.

Works Cited

Bajoria, Jayshree. “The Six-Party Talks on North Korea’s Nuclear Program.” CFR. Council on Foreign Relations, 2009. Web.

Betz, Frederick. Executive strategy: strategic management and information technology. New York: J. Wiley, 2001. Print.

Cronin, Patrick M., and Art, Robert J. United States and coercive diplomacy. Washington: United States Inst. of Peace Press, 2003. Print.

Graham, Thomas, and LaVera, Damien. Cornerstones of security: arms control treaties in the nuclear era. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 2003. Print.

Hagstrom, Linus, and Soderberg, Marie. North Korea policy: Japan and the great powers. New York: Routledge. Print.

Kristensen, Hans M. “Nuclear Weapons Program.” FAS. Federation of American Scientists, 2006. Web.

Niksch, Larry A. “North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program.” Congressional Research Service. Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, 2006. Web.

Pak, Chi Y. Korea and the United Nations. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000. Print.

Pike, John. “Nuclear weapons program.” Global Security.org. Global Security, 2005. Web.

Quinones, Kenneth C., and Tragert, Joseph. The complete idiot’s guide to understanding North Korea. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha, 2003. Print.

“Timeline.” Asia Pacific. The New York Times, 2006. Web.

Lancov, Andrei. North Korea conducted nuclear test in 2006. The Korea Times. 2010. Web.