Recent events have raised issues concerning North Korea’s threat to the United States. In addition, North Korea’s missile launch has raised alarm on the country’s nuclear threat. Of great concern is its ability to cause a collapse of United State’s infrastructure through electromagnetic pulse attack.
Recent observations place North Korea as a threat to United States’ electric grid as well as other infrastructures which are controlled by electricity and communication network.
Moreover, the country has capability of arming its missiles with nuclear warheads which can also reach the United States. In essence, North Korea poses a big threat to United States’ infrastructure through EMP attack from the south pole which is not protected.
Therefore, even though United States is more powerful than North Korea, the former should be concerned about potential threats posed by the latter on its infrastructure (Martinez, 2013, p. 1).
Thomas Schelling’s ideas on the threat
According to Thomas Schelling, a country can only deal rationally with threat through its foreign policy. In this regard, he argues that game theory best fits such as situation.
For instance, he comes up with four steps in his theory that would best assist the United States in defending itself against potential nuclear threat from North Korea.
The first step he talks about is Nuclear deterrence. He believes that this would help United States to prevent North Korea from launching its missiles because the latter knows the consequences of such a mission.
This could be true to some extent although it is necessary to understand that some leaders are usually deluded by their military strength that they tend to believe they could win any war. A good example is former Iraq president who knew he couldn’t fight the United States but kept trying.
Therefore, based on the nature of leadership shown by North Korean presidents, such delusions are certain to occur. Nonetheless, nuclear deterrence has worked to contain North Korea for sometime even though they are slowly bridging the military gap by testing nuclear missiles.
The next step Schelling talks about is Coercion. However, this has not worked effectively as it could since North Korea has continued to show their might through testing of missiles.
This has forced United States to use the United Nations to bar North Korea from continuing with its missile launching activities.
However, this has also failed. In fact, according to James Woolsey, a former CIA director, North Korea is least concerned with sanctions because this has existed for decades.
Moreover, recent missile launches have prompted South Korea to convene negotiations with North Korea over security concerns. This shows the level of concern North Korea brings to these countries (Woolsey & Pry, 2013, p. 1).
Schelling’s third step has been utilized severally by the United States, even though it has not worked in North Korea. Bargaining and intimidation has been utilized prominently yet it has yielded nothing of essence.
The last step concerns brinkmanship which pits both leaders against each other until one of them stops. Actually, United States has utilized all mechanisms, especially those pointed out by Schelling.
While others are proposing an attack from the United States to end this war, others are opting for negotiation and intimidation.
The former would best fit the current situation since North Korea has refused to back down. Moreover, as Woolsey suggest, it would be imperative that the United States attack North Korea’s nuclear facilities as well as protect their power grid from EMP attack (Yoon & Park, 2013, p. 1).
The current issue interfering with the American national security is the North Korea nuclear program. The US is not currently able to estimate the actual danger of the program. In the last five years, several sanctions have been placed by the US and they seem not to work (Kim and Cohen 34). Specifically, the current threat is the North Korea’s supposed successful testing of a Hydrogen bomb.
Competing Solutions to the Problem
The two main remedies to safeguard the US national security through denuclearization of North Korea would be direct military intervention and diplomatic negotiations (Kim and Cohen 34). In the last few years, North Korea has issued threats to the United States of a nuclear attack at the slightest provocation (Kim 22). Specifically, the Kim Jong-Un’s administration has made it clear that they are capable of causing maximum damage to any enemy with their modernized hydrogen bombs. Should North Korea execute this threat, it is likely to destroy the US power grid and eventually compromise the national security (Kim and Cohen 28). In addition, it may weaken the current defense mechanisms in place to fight external terror.
Preferable Solution
The preferred solution is diplomatic negotiation since it would avoid direct confrontation, which may be very costly to either of the parties (Kim and Cohen 45). In the recent past, the North Korean administration has displayed a good will to meet with the current US administration in May. Effective involvement of diplomats during this upcoming meeting would guarantee a middle ground deal that could denuclearize North Korea (Kim and Cohen 48).
Responsibilities of Each Level of Government (Federal, State, and Local)
As part of the federal government, the congress can make relevant laws on foreign policy to deal with the North Korean problem. The legislative arm should ascent to these laws and be proactive in its approach to optimize the outcome of the May meeting with the North Korean administration. The judicial arm should then endorse these laws as part of the goodwill (Wilson et al. 33). The states in the US could contribute to the negotiation table through the nomination of different diplomatic experts. The local level of government could endorse the activities of federal and state levels to ensure that there is maximum public support of the negotiation initiative. For instance, the local government could introduce public participation meetings for the citizens of the US to endorse the negotiation process (Wilson et al. 35).
Responsibilities of the three Branches of Federal Government
The three arms of the federal government are the legislative, executive, and judicial. In the proposed diplomatic negotiation to end the stalemate with North Korea, the congress may amend the current laws or create new relevant legislations as part of the US foreign policy on national security (Wilson et al. 18). The executive branch has the responsibility of assenting to such laws and appointing relevant personnel to spearhead negotiations (Wilson et al. 19). In the current situation, the POTUS will be actively involved in direct negotiation with the North Korean administration. Lastly, the judicial arm of the federal government is mandated with the duty of endorsing the laws as constitutional to give the proposed policy a public approval. This means that the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, should declare the laws governing the negations with North Korea as constitutional (Wilson et al. 21).
Works Cited
Kim, Jina. The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Crisis: The Nuclear Taboo Revisited? Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
Kim, Sung, and Michael Cohen, editors. North Korea and Nuclear Weapons: Entering the New Era of Deterrence. Georgetown University Press, 2017.
Wilson, James, et al. American Government: Institutions and Policies. 16th ed., Cengage Learning, 2018.
Within the past few months it has been evident that North Korea has put the North East Asian and South East Asian regions on edge due to its threat of attacking South Korea, turning Seoul into what it has described as a sea of fire and launching a nuclear strike on either nearby U.S. bases or on the United States itself.
The country has pursued a distinctly anti-U.S. stance and has reportedly developed a weapons program that is meant to discourage any attacks on its soil creating a situation where war is a distinct possibility within the next few weeks.
Despite the considerable level of tension in the region, this paper assumes that war is not imminent given that North Korea’s actions are meant not to attack any foreign entity such as South Korea, the U.S. or any of the bases of the U.S. in Asia but to ensure the continued survival of the state in the form of the authoritarian regime that is currently in power.
It is based on this assumption that this paper will examine the domestic agenda of North Korea, its foreign policy agenda and the foreign policy of its closest ally, China. Such an examination will reveal that tensions within the region are nothing more than rhetoric and that it is unlikely that China would support its ally given its current foreign policy.
Reason behind North Korea’s Domestic Policy Agenda
From a trade and international relations perspective, it is at times assumed that North Korea’s apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons and its bellicose rhetoric aimed at the U.S. seemingly reflects a regime that does not abide by logic and rationality as the cornerstones of its foreign relations policy. However, it should be noted that under the theory of realism one of the primary concerns of the state is survival.
While it may seem that North Korea’s actions are apparently detrimental towards the state’s continued survival, this is actually far from the truth. What this section will show is how North Korea’s bellicose rhetoric, combined with its pursuit for nuclear weapons, is in fact a method that has been intentionally implemented to control its population rather than as an actual means of aggression against other states.
In his analysis of North Korea, Moore (2006) explains that its political structure, governing bodies and various councils are heavily steeped in the policies that were put into practice by North Korea’s founder Kim Il Sung.
Many of those in power are conservative traditionalists who view the concept of “liberal change” as detrimental towards the continued survival of a state that utilizes “independence from outside influence” as the cornerstone of its governance (Moore 2006, p.1).
Moore (2006) even goes so far to say that North Korea’s political government espouses a form of “ultra conservatism” wherein the concept of change, that is not conducive towards the promotion of the values and principles of Kim Il Sung or mandated by the government, is viewed as detrimental towards the continued survival of the state.
As a result, this has given rise to preventive measures within the country in the form of considerable control on internet connectivity (i.e. only a handful of approved government officials are allowed to have access to the internet), communication (while the country has a mobile phone network, calls made to locations outside of the country cannot be made), merchandise that enters into the country as well as the types of activities that local citizens are allowed to participate in (meaning that there are severe restrictions on personal freedoms wherein people are not allowed to actively question the activities of the state).
In fact, such a level of control has impacted the news media within North Korea, which is heavily censored by the government, to the point that only pro-government news stories are allowed to be televised.
For the article “Change in North Korea” (2013), control over the news network is essential for the North Korean government since this allows them to create a state of affairs where fear of possible invasion keeps the local population docile and dependent on the government for protection in what they perceive to be considerable outside threats to their safety (Change in North Korea 2013, 1).
The article “Government and Politics” (2013) explains this by stating that survival for North Korea’s government is not perceived primarily as the state continuing to prosper economically or that its people are not placed in danger, rather, survival is viewed as preserving the current status quo within the country (Government and Politics 2013, pp. 29-33).
The government actively attempts to prevent ‘liberal ideas” from western methods of governance and society from seeping into the country so as to prevent the local population from being “corrupted”. This is to ensure that “jutche” (self reliance) principles and the leaders that espouse them continue to remain at the forefront of North Korea’s existence.
Another way of viewing this issue is from the point of view of the article “Cutting Off the Kim Family Cash” (2013) who explains that control and enforced ignorance (in the form of media and information control) helps to ensure that the North Korean population does not orient itself towards the development of more democratic ideals (Cutting Off the Kim Family Cash 2013, 1).
Studies such as those seen in the article “Fallout” (2013) explain that North Korea’s current behavior is a classic example of an authoritarian state whose government is attempting to remain in power no matter what (Fallout 2013, p. 41).
What must be understood is that this predilection to remain in power through whatever means possible is explained by Fackler (2013) as being due to historical evidence showing how government officials from authoritarian regimes were often convicted and sentenced to jail once democratic systems of governance were put in place resulting in them being held accountable for the various restrictions on freedoms and atrocities that they had committed while in power.
Fackler (2013) explains that it is the concept of accountability that encourages these regimes to continue along a path of governance that attempts to curb “dangerous changes” since this endangers those who are in power (Fackler 2013, 1).
This has given rise to a foreign policy agenda which focuses on preventing “liberalist notions” from arising within the local population to the extent that North Korea and its leaders have been accused numerous times by the United Nations and several other states of human rights abuses.
Such accusations further discourages the country from allowing foreign influences from affecting its local population since the leaders of the country know that once they let a democratic foothold establish itself within the country their positions and very lives would be in danger.
North Korea’s Foreign Policy Agenda
The work of Hoislag (2010) explains that despite what amounts to erratic action and decisions, states are actually rational decision makers and pursue a policy that they believe would result in a better and more advantageous position for the state (Hoislag, 2010, p. 641).
However, the study of Nikitin(2013) shows that sometimes this pursuit of a more advantageous position is in part influenced by those in power who pursue what they believe is the most advantageous position yet such an orientation may not be the best path for the general citizenry (Nikitin 2013, pp. 13-16).
What this means in the case of North Korean, when taking the section on domestic policy into consideration, is that its leadership is pursuing a path that focuses on what they believe would be best in their eyes and not necessarily what would be best for the people.
In the study “North Korea” (2012), it can be seen that North Korea’s foreign policy agenda of developing nuclear arms is meant as a deterrent towards undue or even forceful interference from outside parties in North Korea’s domestic affairs (North Korea 2012, pp. 1-23).
Weitz (2013) states that developing nuclear arms is a way in which North Korea’s leaders ensure that its authoritarian government continues to remain in power through the suppression of rights and liberties within the country (Weitz 2013, p. 2).
In fact, studies such as those by Stone (2013) point to the fact that since states are rational actors North Korea would know that any nuclear attack on the U.S. or its allies would result in the country being turned into a nuclear wasteland as a direct result of a retaliatory strike from the U.S. Its rhetoric and various claims are meant to discourage direct interference in its domestic affairs and nothing more (Stone 2013, pp. 893-894).
In fact, it should be noted that this is not the first time that such a strategy has been utilized in present day international affairs.
The case of Iran for instance, who is also developing their own weapons program, has been stated by studies such as those by the article “With fresh sanctions looming, Pyongyang threatens to end armistice” (2013) as being a deterrence towards outside influence in the country’s internal affairs (With fresh sanctions looming, Pyongyang threatens to end armistice 2013, pp. 6-9).
For researchers such as Browne (2013), the actions of North Korea and Iran in the development of nuclear arms while having a decidedly aggressive stance against their neighbors and the U.S. is due to their hesitance in being incorporated into the current international system and all that comes with it.
This encompasses the development of liberal ideas, the influx of foreign news media and the development of the realization among members of the North Korean population that they have been abused and suppressed by their government in comparison to the rest of the world.
It is due to this that advocates such as Browne (2013) explain that North Korea’s aggression and threats to go to war are merely a means of preventing further interference in its domestic policy (Browne 2013, 1). Browne (2013) explains that the North Korean government is attempting to make Kim Jong Un look like a hardliner that will take any stance necessary in order to prevent the interference of either the U.N or the U.S. in its domestic affairs.
It is based on this that the next section will examine China’s foreign policy agenda to further cement the assumption of this paper that war is unlikely in the Korean peninsula due to China’s foreign policy objective of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states.
Examining China’s Foreign Policy
To understand China foreign policy regarding regional security issues, an examination of its 2002 position paper on security issues was conducted.
This position paper which was released by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs details that China views nuclear proliferation and terrorist activities as detrimental towards continued regional and economic stability and, as such, must be dealt with in order to ensure peace (China Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2002: 1).
Based on such a stance, the position paper explains that China advocates the use of institutions as a means of promoting regional or international cooperation in order to mitigate the problems of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
Such actions though, as explained by China, should be tempered by an attitude of non-interference in the internal affairs of states given China’s history of adverse consequences coming about as a result of foreign interference in its domestic affairs (China Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2002: 1).
Such a case can be seen when examining the manner in which China chose to side with the United Nations in imposing additional sanctions on North Korea (Luzyanin 2010, p. 14).
While it may be true that China and North Korea are economic, military and diplomatic partners, the fact remains that the distinct shift in the way in which North Korea has chosen to act internationally has caused severe concern on the part of China and, as a result, has changed its views regarding the manner in which North Korea must be treated (Aris 2009, pp. 451-467).
The reason behind this is quite simple, North Korea is endangering not only China’s economic activities with South Korea which is a major trading partner but has created significant regional tensions to the extent that it may find itself being drawn into a conflict that it wants no part of (Aris 2009, pp. 451-467).
To better understand the position of China in regards to regional security and cooperation, the following points need to be taken into consideration:
China places a considerable emphasis on respect for sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs given its history with various foreign powers (Boyko, Dylevsky, Komov&Korotkov 2010, pp. 34-43)
It advocates the use of international institutions as mediums for cooperation due to its focus on creating a level playing field for all the states concerned (Grogan 2009, p. 685).
Security cooperation for China is based on concepts related to mutual benefit, mutual trust as well as shared action when it comes to regional security (Bader 2009, pp. 1-16).
Taking such factors into consideration, it is likely that in the case of North Korea, China would side with the United Nations in order to prevent North Korea’s actions from escalating to a point that regional conflict is inevitable.
Security Concept of Mutual Benefit, Action, Trust, Equality and Coordination
Further investigation into the issue of regional security issues reveals that China believes that regional security issues needs to be dealt with utilizing trans-national cooperation. As a result, they believe that U.N. lead initiatives or those done through regional institutions such as the ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum) are positive practices that should be espoused in order to deal with issues affecting specific regions.
Thus, for China, mutual cooperation is key in problems related to regional security and as a result it is likely that China would agree to the formation of a cooperative regional security arrangement that focuses on ensuring peace in the region (Rajiv 2011, p. 1).
Before proceeding, it should be noted that one of the views of China is that the origin of the conflict between North and South Korea is connected to the gap in development between the two and, as such, should be resolved in order to create peace in the region (Huhua 2010, pp. 965-982).
Conclusion
When taking into consideration the various studies on North Korea’s domestic agenda with the studies on its foreign policy objectives, it thus becomes clear that in the case of North Korea, China and the Korean peninsula, war is not imminent given that its actions are meant not to attack any foreign entity but to ensure the continued survival of the state in the form of the authoritarian regime that is currently in power.
This study has shown that North Korea, a rational actor in international relations, knows full well that it cannot match the military might of the U.S. and it had no plans to do so from the very beginning. The country is merely trying to deter other countries from implementing any form of “aggressive democratization” that would endanger the current authoritarian regime.
Thus, despite the continued aggressive rhetoric against the U.S. and its focus on developing a nuclear program, such actions are merely there as a “hands off sign” for other countries such as the U.S. that would attempt to democratize the society of North Korea.
Preventing Regional Conflict in North East Asia. The Asian Cooperative Association Proposal
Mission Statement
It is the belief of this organization that international institutions can, and often do, serve a vital role in international affairs through their capacity to instil cooperation, collaboration and information sharing in order to deal with regional or global problems.
With the various problems in the Asian region brought about through conflict and regional aggression, it becomes more important than ever to establish long lasting ties of cooperation in terms of information sharing and joint diplomatic practices in order to ensure continued peace and stability within Asia.
Through such an effort, it is expected that a system will arise that would enable various countries that are a part of the institution to address regional security concerns in a collaborative manner that they otherwise would not have been capable of addressing on their own.
It is based on this that the Asian Cooperative Association (A.C.A) will focuses on developing regional linkages in developing better security cooperation and the establishment of treaties of regional assistance.
It will attempt to ensure stability and reduce regional threats through diplomatic and security efforts encompassing mutual assistance and cooperation in order to handle internal and external threats to peace. Its end goal is to ensure that the Asian region develops along a path of peace and stability thereby ensuring progressive economic activity and mutual assistance between states.
Scope
The scope of this institution focuses first on the concept of non-interference in order to create a peaceful method of co-existence between states. What this means is that members of the institution will respect the domestic affairs of individual states and will not actively nor subversively attempt to interfere in them. The reasoning behind this approach is connected to the necessity of incorporating China into the institution.
Based on historical and recent accounts of China’s domestic and foreign policy, it can be seen that China prefers to manage its own internal affairs and not have outsiders influence them. This is due to a long history of outside interference resulting in adverse consequences within the country.
It is based on this that when establishing an institution that requires China to be a major member, it is necessary to establish mutual non-interference in the internal affairs of states as one of the primary tenets of the organization. Interference in the form of multilateral action is only done should a state present a valid threat to regional security and stability that could adversely impact member states of the institution.
Once a valid threat has been identified, the institute will take diplomatic steps as a primary method of resolving the conflict and will exhaust all other possible remedies with direct military intervention being the last action that will be considered.
Thus, this institution will focus primarily on cooperative regional security arrangements, resource and intelligence sharing, adherence to regional conflict prevention and joint diplomatic efforts in ensuring regional stability.
The following encompasses the distinct views that will be adhered to by the institution:
Regional security and stability is of paramount importance and, as such, is the primary concern of the institution with all its members adhering to the outlined actions regarding cooperation in order to mitigate any regional security concerns
That it views unilateral interventions in any country as fueling tensions in the area thus contributing to the problem of nuclear proliferation and regional instability. Thus, the institution will utilize only multilateral action when regional security concerns have been identified, however, if none have been identified the institution will not take any active effort to interfere in a country’s domestic or foreign policy initiatives.
This institution believes that regional security can only be obtained through concerted actions via institutions as mediums for intervention.
This can help to resolve issues related to nuclear proliferation and regional instability. Not only that, it is the believe of the institution that poverty, hardship and a lack of sufficient cooperative agreements is the main reason behind regional conflicts and, as a result, a concerted effort must be focused on resolving these particular “evils” in order to prevent any future conflict.
The last view of the institution encompasses its belief that unilateral armed intervention, especially in the case of the U.S., would not resolve any regional security dilemmas or would actually resolve the issue of regional conflict. Instead, the institute believes that such actions would actually contribute to regional tensions and, as a result, multilateral action is perceived as the best method of resolving regional conflict.
Membership
Due to the necessity of having China be the main participating member in this organization, China would be hesitant if not outright unwilling to enter into a cooperative arrangement/agreement if a single state were to become the leader in such an endeavour. The reason behind this hesitance is connected to its neoliberalist stance and the fact that it has preferred to utilize institutions as a means of fostering cooperation and agreements between states.
As such, in order to have China which would act as the linchpin in this institution, it would be necessary to have an institution firmly in the control of a non-partisan party that would not hijack it for their own ends.
This comes in the form of the United Nations who could help in establishing the necessary guidance and leadership structure to enable the institution to function without any fear of “hijacking” taking place. Thus, membership for this endeavor will encompass China and various state actors in Asia such as Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Indonesia etc.
However, the leadership of this institution shall originate from the U.N. in the form of a regularly assigned (i.e. once every 5 years) chairman who shall help to guide the institution and ensure that cooperative initiatives occur.
It should also be noted that the representatives of each country within the institution must be composed of a high ranking individual within their respective department of foreign affairs in order to ensure that a competent individual represents the interests of the individual members.
Funding
Funding for this organization will originate from the member states that are part of the institution with each member contributing a certain amount per year for the institutions annual operational budget.
Aside from this, the institution will also be open to receiving donations from private individuals or from states that are not a part of the institution. However, such donations are dependent on the provision that it does not coincide with any attempt at bribing the institution from coming to a decision regarding a particular regional dilemma.
Proposed Activities
For the institution, its activities will focus on the mitigating the following specific activities:
Regional instability
Regional Aggression
International Terrorism
These intended activities will be done under the framework of ensuring that a country’s territories are not used in actions that result in adverse consequences for their neighbours within the Asian region. Various forms of cooperative agreements, intelligence sharing and assistance will also be implemented to ensure safety and security within the region.
When it comes to ensuring peace and stability in the region, member states of the institution will focus on creating annual joint military exercises in order to foster a sense of camaraderie among their respective armed forces. By doing so, this ensures that when situations arise where joint military action is required, the joint forces can easily cooperate in order to tackle the apparent regional security threat.
The last activity of the organization will take the form of creating a “watchdog” subsidiary whose express purpose is monitor areas of potential conflict and make recommendations based on their observations.
By having a secondary subsidiary organization monitor various “hotspots” within North East Asia, this would enable the various countries that are part of the organization to immediately determine what actions need to be implemented in order to mitigate conflict and ensure regional stability.
Not only that, a watchdog organization can help to determine where potential problems may occur before they happen and recommend preventive measures be implemented before they get out of hand.
Reference List
Aris, S 2009, ‘A new model of Asian regionalism: does the Shanghai Cooperation Organization have more potential than ASEAN?’, Cambridge Review Of International Affairs, vol. 22,no. 3, pp. 451-467
Bader, J 2009, ‘Understanding China’s foreign policy – A political economy perspective’, Conference Papers — International Studies Association, pp. 1-16.
Browne, A 2013, ‘U.S. Expects Chinese Banks Will Help Isolate North Korea’, Wall Street Journal – EasternEdition, MasterFILE Premier.
Boyko, S, Dylevsky, I, Komov, S, &Korotkov, S 2010, ‘Military-Political Aspects of Ensuring Information Security in the Area of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’, Military Thought, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 34-43.
China Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2002. China’s Position Paper on Enhanced Cooperation in the Field of Non-Traditional Security Issues. Web.
‘Change in North Korea’, 2013, Economist, MasterFILE Premier.
‘Cutting Off the Kim Family Cash’, 2013, Wall Street Journal – Eastern Edition, MasterFILE Premier.
Fackler, M 2013, ‘As North Korea Blusters, South Flirts With Talk of Nuclear Arms. (cover story)’, New York Times, MasterFILE Premier.
‘Government and Politics’ 2013, Political Intelligence Briefing, pp. 29-33, International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center.
Grogan, S 2009, ‘China, Nuclear Security and Terrorism: Implications for the United States’, Orbis, vol. 53, no. 4, p. 685.
Hoislag, J 2010, ‘China’s Roads to Influence’, Asian Survey, vol. 50, no. 4, p. 641.
Huhua, C 2010, ‘Urban-rural income disparity and urbanization: What Is the role of spatial distribution of ethnic groups? A case study of Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region in western China’, Regional Studies, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 965-982
Luzyanin, S 2010, ‘China and Its “Close Surroundings”: Regional and Bilateral Relations’, Far Eastern Affairs, vol. 38, no. 3, p. 14.
Moore, TG 2006, ‘Cooperating to Compete: East Asian regionalism in Chinese foreign policy’, Conference Papers — American Political Science Association, p. 1.
Nikitin, M 2013, ‘Nuclear Testing’, Congressional Research Service: Report, pp. 13-16, International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center.
‘North Korea’ 2012, Country Report. North Korea, vol. 1, pp. 1-23, Business Source Premier.
Rajiv R 2011, ‘China and the concept of non-interference’. Web.
Stone, R 2013, ‘North Korea’s Blast Poses Riddles and Challenges’, Science, vol. 339, no. 6122, pp. 893-894, Academic Search Premier.
Weitz, R 2013, ‘Parsing China’s North Korea Policy’, World Politics Review (19446284), p. 2, International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center.
‘With fresh sanctions looming, Pyongyang threatens to end armistice’ 2013, Political Intelligence Briefing, pp. 6-9, International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center.
The aggressive and illegal development of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons makes North Korea the greatest threat to the United States. Moreover, the diplomatic tension between these nations is not helping the already escalated situation. A potential nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack by North Korea would spell a doomsday scenario in the US. According to the United States of America Department of the Army (2014), North Korea might be able to develop or acquire an EMP enabled nuke and attack the US.1 Moreover, its side effects could last for at least three years. This weapon also has the capability of shutting down the US power grid. Thus, a successfully launched EMP nuke by North Korea into the US would rewind the American time machine to the eighteenth century in a matter of milliseconds.
In the last three years, North Korea has tested a series of intercontinental ballistic missiles and a miniaturized hydrogen bomb. If this weapon was successfully launched into the US, especially in a high altitude region, it would destroy most of the technological networks and cause an imaginable crisis. For instance, a complete shutdown of power, communication, and the Internet for an unknown period of time would make America lose its current strategic position as the world peace leader.2 This means that the daily activities of Americans would stop as supplies and communication would be cut. In addition, direct and indirect impacts could actually affect up to 80% of the US population.
The current BMD systems of the US are not programmed to be effective in defending even a small ICBM approaching the border from the Southern Polar region. Unfortunately, North Korea’s trial weapons and satellites are launched in this direction. Although the US communication systems are EMP-hardened, it will not be sufficient to detect and intercept a hydrogen bomb launched from the southern region.3 For instance, if North Korea attacks the US with blackout bombs, which work by dispersing graphite filaments that are carbon treated over a power grid, it will weaken America’s strategic security position.
The North Korea’s cyber power is a threat to the US financial systems and internet security. The increasing cyber-attacks by trained and government-backed hackers from North Korea present real threats of unknown proportion. Over the years, Pyongyang’s administration has been aggressive in developing a secret cyber program that is believed to be capable of unleashing global havoc and hit America the most. For instance, if North Korea succeeds in developing a program that could intercept the US communication systems, it could release classified information on sensitive security operations and arsenal.4 A potential cyber-attack from North Korea could hold for ransom large swathes of private and state-owned communication and financial infrastructures in the US. At present, any major cyber-attack in the US territory is a grave technical exposure that it might not quickly recover from since most systems are wired to the Internet.
In summary, the excessive focus on development of nuclear, hydrogen, black bombs and other ballistic warheads by North Korea is a threat to the strategic US security leadership position. Moreover, Pyongyang’s secret cyber program has a potential of a high magnitude cyber-attack of the US’s financial power and other infrastructures. These attacks would seriously compromise the US homeland security.
Bibliography
The Air University. “Student Text 22-2: Writing and Speaking Skills for Leaders at the Organizational Level”. The Air University.org, Web.
United States Government US Army. Training Circular TC 7-100 Hybrid Threat November 2010. Washington: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012.
United States of America Department of the Army. “Win in a Complex World”. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, Web.
US Army. “FM 3-0 Operations (October 2017).” US Army.org, 2017. Web.
Footnotes
United States of America Department of the Army, “Win in a Complex World”, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, Web.
The Air University, “Student Text 22-2: Writing and Speaking Skills for Leaders at the Organizational Level,” The Air University.org, Web.
United States Government US Army, Training Circular TC 7-100 Hybrid Threat November 2010 (Washington: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012), 45.
US Army, “FM 3-0 Operations (October 2017),” US Army.org, Web.
The war between North and South Korea was mainly viewed as a silent tussle between capitalism, represented by the US and Communism, represented by the then Soviet Union and The people’s republic of China. The war which began in June 1950 lasted only 3 years and left in its wake an estimated 3,000,000 people dead, most of them civilians. Historians put a number of suggestions as to why the US, under President Harry Truman entered the war. These are: the growing concern over communism occasioned by the cold war, the Soviet intervention in some European countries such as Turkey and Greece and also the fact that they weren’t the only nation that possessed the atomic bomb anymore. (The Soviet Union had successfully experimented with it in 1949).As a result of the 3 year war, the whole of the Korean peninsula was completely bombarded. The country became even more divided along ideological lines as the Southerners became increasingly anticommunists, and the Northerners Choosing to let China play a major role in their rebuilding after the war, still supported communism.
Scenarios of Possible Outcomes
In 2002 the Bush administration leveled accusations against North Korea accusing Pyongyang of secretly having a highly enriched-uranium programme. From then till early 2003, Washington and Pyongyang were engaged in an exchange of words before China initiated calls for a diplomatic mediation to try and resolve the stalemate. The underlying issues that necessitated the mediation process can well be explained with an insight into one of the major players in the six party talks, China.
Mediation
It is easy to deduce that the Chinese really don’t want the situation to escalate into military violence as this would spell doom for the economic gains in Northeastern Asia and especially China. Also it is evident that the US would not hesitate to explore military options as in the case of Iraq, especially after the former US president labeled Kim Jong Il a tyrant. Strong mediation tactics as seen from China might in the long run succeed in making North Korea cede ground and provide concessions for a peaceful end to the crisis. Bearing in mind that North Korea is positioned in one of the most under institutionalized regions of the world, any mediator that engages the US and North Korea in direct bilateral talks is faced with a daunting task (Samuel, 2006). This might have had a more clear approach if North Korea had in place a constitution that reflected the will of the people and not that of the leadership (H5).
Military confrontation
However if at any rate the mediation process fails to address fully US concerns for North Korea to abandon its nuclear enrichment, military confrontation is very likely bearing in mind that North Korea would retaliate in a bid to ensure regime survival(H1). This would in turn pull other players (UK and China) who might be reluctant into the ensuing war (H2).Countries that have fragmented and individual civil societies are not likely to take sides as their political leadership fears suffering possible defeats in elections as a result of these civil societies sensitization of what is real to the people. This perhaps explains why the UK has cold feet over North Korea.
Conclusion
Both the US and North Korea have accused each other of not honoring key elements for the implementation of the joint statement. News reports suggest very little has been achieved of late. With the odds being virtually against the mediation process due to the stands taken by the US and North Korea, it is impossible for the crisis not to generate into an armed conflict. This however can be countered by the fact that there was a political shift in the US occasioned by the 2008 general elections, and the current administration might be interested to prolong the mediation process. Military confrontation with North Korea will result in the birth of insurgency as is the case in Iraq (H7). Accelerated acts of terrorism might be witnessed bearing in mind the biggest looser would be North Korea. The war will thus succeed in making North Korea a failed state.
Works Cited
Samuel Kim, 2006. The two Koreas and the greater powers. Cambridge University Press. Web.
The separation of North Korea and South Korea occurred after the end of the World War II (Ahn 43). Before the creation of the two states, Japan had colonized Korea for 35 years. The Korean independence pact was signed in the year 1943. The agreement was overseen by the US, Britain, and China. At the beginning of the year 1945, the UN initiated a plan to form two autonomous states (Ahn 44). In the year 1946, Korea was divided into two military zones. Initially, the separation was meant to be temporary. However, the Cold War’s politics resulted in the creation of two different countries. Ever since then, the two countries have had a number of differences that have resulted in conflicts. Illustrated below is a map of the two states.
A picture of a map showing South and North Korea.
Korean unification implies to the possible future recombination of North Korea and South Korea. The initiative was launched in the year 2000 (Coghlan 43). The initiative was named North-South Joint Declaration. In the pact, the two countries vowed to remove barriers that have prevented the unification in the past. Notably, the process of unification has experienced a number of issues. The issues have resulted in endless tensions between the two states.
The cost of reunification is the major issue expected to be experienced during the process. Huge cost will be incurred in uplifting the living standards of the North Koreans to match with that of the South Koreans (Koh 480). North Korea, unlike the South Korea, is still considered a developing country. The country has higher levels of unemployment and its per capita incomes are lower. If the two states unify, it will be very expensive to match their living standards. Economists have argued that more than $500 billion will be required for a period of twenty years (Wolf & Kamil 23). Based on these statistics, it is apparent that unification will come at a cost.
Dangers associated with transition are also viewed as the major issues affecting the unification process. Given that the past talks and agreements aimed at unifying the two states have not been successful, many scholars have argued that unification will be realized after the fall of the North Korean administration. The downfall of North Korea will be realized after a regional war, power tussle between leaders in the region, or an economic collapse. In such situations, South Korea will be required to send in troops to the region to offer humanitarian services (Wolf & Kamil 23). The services will be essential in preventing further instability. For unification to be successful, during such times, the North Korean people are expected to cooperate with the South Korean administration. If the North Korean people resists, more troops will be needed to manage the situation. Based on the above illustrations, it is apparent that Korean unification is expected to face tremendous issues.
Other issues expected during unification are challenges of decommissioning and destroying North Korea’s enormous armed forces. If unification becomes successful in the future, North Koreas’ weapons of mass destruction should be destroyed to ascertain stability in the region. The process of identifying, sorting, and decommissioning the weapons will be very costly and would take years.
The above issues will delay the economic dividends expected because of unification. However, in the long-term the unification will benefit the two countries and the region (Wolf & Kamil 23). As such, the unification would result in the long awaited peace dividend for Korean people. Through this, the living standards of North Koreans will be enhanced. Similarly, the North Koreans will be able to enjoy their democratic and civil rights because unification will result in the abolition of cruel, dictatorial regime.
In this regard, dialogues focusing on the costs and benefits of reunion ought to acknowledge the tremendous issues about the transition phase, dangers of transition, and the time required to decommission and destroy North Korea’s enormous armed forces. The above issues could have momentous effects for the government strength and economic potential of a united Korea.
The probability of South Korea and North Korea unification is high. According to some scholars, the unification may be attained sooner than expected (Koh 480). With the current dictatorial regime in North Korea, the citizens are likely to act against those in administration in the near future. The Arab spring witnessed in North Africa and the Middle East revealed that no dictatorial regime is immune to revolution from the citizens. In the occurrence of a revolution, South Korea will take control of North Korea to provide the essential humanitarian services.
Equally, the reunion may occur through a negotiated agreement. In the future, the leaders of the two governments may come to an agreement on how to unite the warring states without causing anarchy. In such a situation, the two states will benefit because cost required in maintaining order during conflicts will be directed towards development projects.
Works Cited
Ahn, Byung‐Joon. “Managing Reunification in the Korean Peninsula.” The Adelphi Papers 2.4 (2012): 83-93. Print.
Coghlan, David. Prospects from Korean Reunification. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2008. Print.
Koh, Ban. “Dilemmas of Korean Reunification.” Asian Survey (1971): 475-95. Print.
Wolf, Charles, & Kamil Akramov. North Korean Paradoxes Circumstances, Costs, and Consequences of Korean Unification. Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2005. Print.
The unification of North and South Korea is one of the topics that are being actively discussed by modern scientists. It needs to be said that some issues that are related to this process are currently present and need to be addressed. Korea was divided as a result of World War II in 1945, and it has led to significant tension between the states (Helgesen 41). They are located in East Asia (see map. 1).
Map. 1. North and South Korea.
The most important aspect that should be considered is that the cost of reunification is expected to be enormous (“Korea Opportunities” par. 1). The difference between economies of these regions is dramatic, and the level of development is approximately forty times higher in South Korea. It is extremely likely that it will lead to tremendous growth in the long run, but GDP is expected to be decreased. Such process cannot be viewed as beneficial to the state at the moment, and may lead to severe political and economic complications. One of the reports suggests that both regions may be unified peacefully in the next 25-35 years (Liston par. 12). However, numerous internal and external factors should be considered in this case. It is extremely likely that the current situation is going to change in the nearest future, and such estimation will no longer be accurate. It was also criticized because it lacked any real data, and most are also skeptic about the policy (Liston par. 14).
Another significant issue that needs to be discussed is that the barriers that are currently related to this process are enormous and should be taken into account. One of the most important aspects is that North Korea has refused to discuss the issues that are related to nuclear weapons, and some other communication problems are also present. Is evident that both sides are determined to make sure that it happens on their terms, but their objectives are different at the moment. It needs to be said that numerous threats from the side of North Korea are significant factors that should not be disregarded (Winsor par. 4). Also, it is imperative to say that one of the primary issues is that populations of these states view each other as enemies, and the percentage of those who think that reunification is of utmost importance is getting lower each year (Liston par. 23).
It is entirely possible that any provocation may result in an enormous conflict that will be hard to resolve in a peaceful manner. It is imperative to say that it is not an easy task to actualize unification because dissimilarity between the cultures and traditions of these states is dramatic. It is imperative to say that a collapse of the form of government in North Korea is expected, and it is important to take necessary measures to be prepared for the process because it may be viewed as a significant opportunity for development.
In conclusion, it is extremely likely that unification will happen in the nearest future. North Korea is a global threat that should not be disregarded, and consequences of this process are expected to be quite significant. Overall, it is paramount to say that probability of this issue being resolved peacefully is incredibly small at the moment, and international intervention may be necessary to limit possible risks.
Works Cited
Helgesen, Geir. Democracy and Authority in Korea. 1998. London, UK: Routledge. Print.
“Korea Opportunities.” The Economist. The Economist. Web. 2015.
North Korea and Korea as a whole have a very complex relationship with Japan. The majority of their modern history has been shaped by the annexation of Korea that took place in 1910. Although both South and North Korea gained independence in 1945, the Korean War led to the almost complete alienation of North Korea from the rest of the world. North Korea was able to establish relationships with China and the Soviet Union, to which Japan had no official diplomatic response until 1965.
The reasons for this are tied to the cultural identity of North Korea, as the story of North Korean independence is closely tied to the Japanese occupation and the idea that the country of Japan is an enemy of North Korea. The North Korean Communist revolution was based on the overthrow of the Japanese regime that had tormented Koreans. These accusations are not without merit, as the actions of the Japanese Empire in the region were reprehensible and caused issues not only between North Korea and Japan but also between Japan and South Korea. For example, the issue of Japan using Korean women as “comfort women” during the Second World War was not admitted by Japan until recently (Kazue 620). After the war, South Korea also imposed a number of sanctions against trade with Japan and often freely disregarded international copyright law. However, in the modern era, South Korea and Japan have a moderately positive relationship. However, North Korea and Japan have been influenced by a number of events that have changed their dynamics.
Main body
In 1955, the General Association of Korean Residents was established, which assisted Koreans who lived in Japanese territory and supported North Korea. It led almost 60,000 Korean residents to move back to North Korea over the course of five years. By 1965, the first treaty opening official relations between Japan and North Korea was created. While this was initially criticized, it allowed for further cooperation between the countries in the early 1970s. South and North Korea began to be seen equivalently in the eyes of Japanese politicians, and no action that would oppose or support one side or the other was taken. These relationships shifted as new prime ministers took different approaches to the politics of the region.
Nevertheless, open hostility changed to an uneasy and yet partially positive relationship. Korean residents in Japan were allowed to be educated based on North Korean educational programs, and overall they were able to continue practicing their culture without much interest or opposition from Japanese citizens (Han et al. 167). All of this changed when a series of abductions occurred between 1977 and 1983. An unknown number of Japanese citizens were abducted by the North Korean government for a variety of purposes. Only 17 people were officially recognized as abducted. They included eight men and nine women. These abductions were denied by North Korea until 2002, and even then only 13 abductions were confirmed officially. The reasons for the abductions ranged from the need for a teacher for Korean spies to women being stolen to be wives (Hagström and Hanssen 71).
This incident caused a great rift between Japan and North Korea. Koreans were persecuted by Japanese nationalists, and communications became strained once more. This situation was exacerbated by the start of North Korean ballistic missile testing at the end of the 1990s. On multiple occasions, North Korean missiles flew over Japanese territory and landed in its waters. These tests became a constant point of tension between the two nations.
There was almost no contact between Japan and North Korea in recent years. However, the recent diplomatic initiatives of the North Korean leader may lead to a new period of positive relationships. In 2017, the situation reached a critical mass when North Korea gained nuclear weapons capability. Even the lowest range North Korean missiles are capable of reaching Japan, and the increased frequency of testing was a serious concern for Japanese citizens. On March 17, 2017, one such test caused the first evacuation drill in Japan. This event increased tensions in the region and perhaps led to North Korea’s current attempts at diplomacy (Anderson 153).
The proposed meeting between Kim Jong Un and Shinzo Abe may seem surprising to people who look only at the recent history between these countries. However, since the end of the Korean War, Japan has had multiple periods of relatively positive relationships with North Korea. Even during periods of antagonistic relationships, attempts to improve them were undertaken on the Japanese side. Perhaps the most interesting example of such an attempt was organized by Antonio Inoki, the owner of New Japan Wrestling and a member of the Japanese House of Councilors. By partnering with Muhammad Ali and members of the American company World Championship Wrestling, he managed to organize the Pyongyang International Sports and Culture Festival for Peace in 1995. Inoki was trained by a North Korean wrestler known as Rikidozan, whose work is highly respected in both Japan and North Korea. Because of this association, he was given approval by the North Korean government. The event was attended by 355,000 people, which is a record audience for a professional wrestling event. However, all of the attendees were allegedly forced to attend the event (Guthrie-Shimizu 365). Despite this massive undertaking, the event did not improve the relationship between the countries, and the ballistic missile tests that occurred soon after this event exacerbated the tension.
Conclusion
Nevertheless, the lack of surprise over the proposed meeting between the leaders of the two countries does not mean the meeting should not be taken seriously. The long period of silence and the dramatic change in international opinion that North Korea is attempting to achieve may bring benefits for both countries. Kim Jong Un has already stated that the country is starting to shift its focus away from developing a nuclear arsenal and he appears to be seeking peaceful cohabitation with other countries in the region. His statements may be false, but diplomacy is a choice always worth considering.
Works Cited
Anderson, Nicholas D. “America’s North Korean Nuclear Trilemma.” The Washington Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 4, 2017, pp. 153–164.
Guthrie-Shimizu, Sayuri. “Tokyo 2020: Opportunity for Regional Reconciliation or Protracted Antagonism?” Japanese Imperialism: Politics and Sport in East Asia, Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, 2018, pp. 365–388.
Hagström, Linus, and Ulv Hanssen. “The North Korean Abduction Issue: Emotions, Securitisation and the Reconstruction of Japanese Identity from ‘Aggressor’ to ‘Victim’ and from ‘Pacifist’ to ‘Normal.’” The Pacific Review, vol. 28, no. 1, Jan. 2015, pp. 71–93.
Han, Sang-Jin, et al. Divided Nations and Transitional Justice: What Germany, Japan and South Korea Can Teach the World. Routledge, 2015.
Kazue, Muta. “The ‘Comfort Women’ Issue and the Embedded Culture of Sexual Violence in Contemporary Japan.” Current Sociology, vol. 64, no. 4, 2016, pp. 620–636.
The once united nation of Korea broke into two conflicting sides that have been a wound to many citizens in the region. As one approaches the gated boarder strip that separates the North and South Korea, you can feel the military presence in the area. However, the natives have a very different perception of the events that took place before the establishment of this boarder line. The rising tensions between the two sides have been the center of the unification process (Liston par. 13). Currently, it is very difficult to tell the willingness of either of the two countries to unite.
Both countries are covered by a cloud of paranoia and distrust to a point where it is almost impossible to reach to a consensus. Although there is a possible futuristic unification possibility, the process has taken too long to star. The unification process began in 15, June 2000 (Branigan par.14). This was the first time that the two countries had a meeting and decided to work towards achieving and restoring peace between them. The agreement was followed by months and years of diplomatic consensus aimed at reaching g a common ground for the two to coexist.
However, this process has always been derailed by the political and economic differences between the two countries (Kim par. 20). The six decades of separation have been very difficult for the two countries hence the heavy military presence at the border where they are both separated. However, there is a seemingly positive gesture considering the Post-Korean war. The two countries though their governments have initiated fresh plan to reconcile the two nations and form a unified notation. According to the governments in both sides, the only goal that they have is to have Korea unified as a single state in the near future.
The two countries have made it clear that they were committed to the unification process and this has been backed by several guidelines aimed at ensuring that the process is purely Korean. One of the conditions that is very important in order for the process to move forward is that it has to be purely a Korean initiative without any external interference or influence (Kelly 18). Among the conditions and guidelines, the two countries agreed on a peaceful unification process (Kelly 20). This process according to the guidelines must not be coercive or may not involve any form of forceful aggression to agree to any terms.
All forms of slander and defaming each other have been cited as one of the most demoralizing factors in the process of unification. Therefore, the two sides have agreed to avoid any kind of bad mouthing in order to foster and enhance trust among the two nations. However, the Korean peninsula faces great challenges even with the clearly laid down procedure to achieve unity between the two countries. Critics are skeptical as to whether a middle ground will be reached especially after the recent North Korea’s rhetoric and military threats against the south.
It is still too early to tell the direction that this place will take in the near future considering that the process has been a long journey that has not bare any fruits yet. Nonetheless, we cannot rule out the possibility that the two countries can be united and form a single country in the near future. This is a possibility that the entire world will be watching and monitoring every closely.
Kelly, Robert E. “Chinas Interests in Korean Unification: How Much Longer is the.” The Korean Journal of Security Affairs (KJSA) 19.2 (2014): 4-21. Web.
The United States should not interfere with North Korea’s nuclear weapon research and development in any way. North Korea is justified to explore into the nuclear weaponry due to its past experiences. Given the early partnership between the U.S and South Korea on International capital, this ended up hindering the growth and development of this nation. Hence, North Korea as a nation figure that it had a powerful nation for an enemy and just as any other nation went ahead to establish security strategies ( Thiroux, 2009, p.3).
In addition to this, North Korea until 1991 was a communist country. Thus with the fall of the Berlin wall, this particular nation could not produce enough goods for its own people. Therefore, a good majority of the supplies were imported from the neighboring countries: from agricultural inputs to manufactured goods. This clearly drained the economy and therefore the just like any other nation that would do anything for its economic survival, so did North Korea through investing in nuclear weaponry (Nikisch, 2002, p. 8)
In addition to this, North Korea hasn’t had much to be proud of as a nation. Be it its history or resources. Therefore, the development of the nuclear weaponry does not necessarily mean that they are preparing for war. It is probably the sense of innovation that is driving them.
At least with the supply of nuclear gas, the nation has been able to manufacture this weaponry. This has also made the nation very popular as its relations with the United States gets sour day out. Therefore, it is probably going against the rules that the nation can gather enough attention. Therefore, the United States has no business dictating what North Korea should do otherwise there would be no improvements on the already sour relations.
The U.S- North Korean relations
The U.S has always wanted to be the only world super power given that it also has some of the most sophisticated weapons. Therefore, this clearly illustrates that it will definitely stand at nothing to foresee that no nation surpasses it. ( Thiroux, 2009, p. 1).They have therefore done this by claiming that North Korea is preparing itself to go to war, which is most certainly not true. However, this powerful nation has been able to brainwash all other nations for support in stopping the development of these weaponry.
Some political scholars have also mentioned that North Korea could be preparing itself for the third world war. These are probably the American based scholars who for sure do not understand why North Korea is doing what it is currently doing in terms of technological advancement. Surely, North Korea could be doing this with the sole aim of quenching their thirst for knowledge and innovation. So clearly the United States assumes that it is the only nation that should to do this worldwide.
The human rights concern
In addition to this, the United States has that bad habit of poking its nose in matters that does not even concern it. This shows that it is very insecure of losing its position as the global hegemon. Therefore, it has gone ahead to establish spy networks across the world which are normally very expensive to maintain.
Therefore they end up using the taxpayers’ money on very irrelevant issues. This in itself is an abuse of human rights principles because the Americans end up being taxed so highly for very irrelevant missions in these hard economic times (Habib, 2009, p.6).
More on matters regarding human rights, North Korea has not done anything so far to signify that it is abusing human rights principles. As a matter of fact, a good number of North Koreans have been able to provide for their families through these programs. Science and technology has also become an integral part of the North Korean community.
In a couple of decades, the nation will be as far much ahead as China is in economics and this seems to depress the United States so much. Given the quick rise of China from nothing to something the global arena, the U.S just cannot stand any more competition, especially from the East.
Future international relations
Despite the fact that the United States has made North Korea look like the guilty party, the future international relations between North Korea and other nations seems to be picking up very fast in a positive direction. For example China has been for a while a good source foreign assistance towards North Korea for quite some time now.
This has definitely made the U.S lose its mind given that China is an emerging economic super power. The aid from China is furthermore very appealing given that it rarely comes along with some strings attached and in addition to this, the goods are normally very affordable to North Korea.
In a nutshell, the United States should accept that the global trends are changing really fast. Instead of focusing on matters that hinders other nation’s growth and development it should channel the resources to the improvement of its so badly damaged economy due the recession. It should be focusing on important issues within its boundaries and let North Korea do what it has to do because clearly there is no sign that it is ready to stop at any given point.
References
Habib, B.(2009) North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program: The futility of Denuclearization negotiation. Web.
Nikisch, L. ( 2002) North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program. Web.
Thiroux, T. & Krasema.J. (2009) Theory and Practice (10th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson publishers.