Case Study Of North Korea

Pyongyang and Beijing have been having a rough time especially after China arrested Zhou Yongkang, who was China’s third most powerful politician and when Jang Song-thaek, who was the second powerful man in North Korea, was executed. Since these men were both in charge of relations between Pyongyang and Beijing, North Korea and China were left with no way to calm the rising tensions between them. Now that Russia and China are focusing on their own struggles, they aren’t able to continue protecting Pyongyang. With North Korea fearing attack, there was a need to gain a new political relationship that could help North Korea’s economic recovery and guarantee survival---this being the United States.

In the article, “America needs to Accept Nuclear North Korea”, Malcolm Craig discusses why nuclear weapons are a forces to be reckoned with and that nonproliferation is not the best tactic when trying to combat deadly powers. Malcolm Craig states that non proliferation has been a nightmare in the past and shows three examples through previous POTUS members, Kennedy, Johnson and Cater with how history repeats itself and america should learn from its mistakes.Craig states when addressing President Kennedy's Nonproliferation Treaty, “ In the end… the risks of going to war, outweighed those simply allowing it to become a nuclear state. Strategy became less alarmist and more pragmatic.” President Johnson added to the fire of nonproliferation in his term, but the tactics to combat (China) became more of a hinderance that doing anything to aid. It got to the point of The resources and time we spent on trying to get nonproliferation was just not worth what we had anticipated. Not only did we ‘lose’ the war on nonproliferation the quest was downright a fail. Nonproliferation thoughts ran deep into the thoughts of Jimmy Carter as he assumed office but, as Johnson and Kennedy tried halting actions to beijing's nuclear programs, carter tried to prolong or dismantle the purchasing program “His(Carter)... administration rightly concluded that no amount of, bribery,

The tensions between the US and DPRK have reached a point that the only viable outcomes are either War or Regime change in the DPRK. The policy adopted by the DPRK of nuclear blackmail and bombastic military threats leave little option for anything more. Under Kim Jong-un the DPRK has become emboldened. The DPRK has leveraged its ability to survive sanctions at the expense of its citizen to only in turn use it as a catalyst to secure international aid. There is very little options given a state that behaves as recklessly as the DPRK given its track record throughout

David Dunn argues that this is, when it comes to North Korea, because the administration believes that North Korea is militarily strong enough to deter the USA, but Iraq is not and Iraq has to be stopped before it is, too. (Dunn, 2003: 286) Even if this was true for all the states in the

While explaining the importance of negotiation between the U.S. and North Korea, the two authors effectively portrayed a clear rhetorical situation. The authors intelligibly supply reasons as to why negotiations need to take place in order to prevent the situation from getting worse. The author’s intended audience would be: U.S. citizens, the media, North Korea, and politicians. The circumstances forming this event are also properly discussed, allowing for a clear context to be provided to the reader. Tensions are high and actions needs to be taken. Primarily dealing with the importance of negotiation, the topic of this article discusses how the U.S. needs to begin bartering with the North Korea. The authors standings on the matter is clear. Both support the necessity of negotiation and explain the benefits that will come with it. In order to further

In 2001, shortly after the Bush administration took office, they reviewed the Clinton administrations’ engagement policy toward North Korea in order to halt North Korea’s missile program. Intending to distance itself from his predecessor, the Bush administration pursued hard-line policy. He came up with the reformulated policy, which was the US will lift further sanctions and provide more assistance to North Korea if they agreed to “1) start to take serious, verifiable steps to reduce the conventional weapons threat to the South, 2) undertake “improved implementation” of the 1994 Agreed Framework, and 3) allow verifiable “constraints” on North Korea’s missile exports”. The 1994 Agreed Framework stated that the US commitment to provide economic,

Here's an edited Q & A with analyst Mike Chinoy, a former CNN senior international correspondent and the author of "Meltdown: The inside story of the North Korean nuclear crisis."

Bush designated and pressed North Korea as one of the ‘axis of evil’. Moreover, North Korea admitted that they are enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons and banished inspectors of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2002. Then, North Korea withdrew from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003. After that, there was a strong international consensus that North Korea should come into compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions and abandon its nuclear weapons program. To do this, the first Six-Party Talks (SPT) were held in August 2003 with six participating nations, South Korea, North Korea, the U.S., China, Russia, and Japan. SPT were held seven times irregularly until 2007. In 2005, the U.S. and North Korea were in conflict due to North Korea’s money laundering bank, Banco Delta Asia (BDA), and then SPT had been delayed. In 2005, in the middle of delaying, North Korea conducted their 1st nuclear test which brought international condemnation. Nonetheless, when a ‘2.13 agreement’ was made in 2007, it seemed that they got a clue to the solution of the problem. The agreement was composed of shutting down and disabling nuclear facilities in North Korea. In return, other nations consented to support one million tons of heavy fuel oil to North Korea. However, North Korea rejected the talk since 2009 because of UN Security Council’s

China presents the biggest external challenge to the United States attempts to the denuclearisation of DPRK. Due to the need for China to maintain this failing state, the support and imports of food and aid offers the DPRK a level of protection in their actions. While China does not support the DPRK nuclear program, they do not take significant action to stop it, rather relying on the United States to take the lead. The United States takes a similar approach holding that it is China’s responsibility due to their relationship to enforce the rules of the NPT and impose the United Nations recommended sanctions to stop the DPRK. The United States acknowledges the risks to China of this state failing but rather then offer preventative measures they have developed military and international policies to be implemented should the state fail. From this it can

As Mary Roberts said,” The Cuban Missile Crisis had a sobering impact on its protagonists” (“Cuban Missile Crisis). That is to say, its effects caused the world to take a step back and realize what had just happened. Sure, the Cold War hadn’t ended, however it led the international community to come together to try to prevent similar nuclear crises from occurring. Today, a similar issue presents itself as North Korea tries to assert itself as a nuclear capable nation. During the missile crisis it was ,”...the Soviet Union’s determination to achieve, at least, a nuclear parity with the United States” (“Cuban Missile Crisis”). Today, though not nearly to the same caliber, North Korea has been determined to continue its nuclear missile tests. In January of this year, North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear weapons test, defying international sanctions once again (“North Korea

Professor Cha and Ambassador Gallucci combine their analysis and opinions in the opinion piece, “Stopping North Korea’s Nuclear Threat”, outlining misguided belief of North Korea that nuclear weapons are their only path to safety while listing the actions required by the U.S. and the United Nations to reduce the threat. The article addresses the perceived belief of North Korea, using history of Afghanistan and Libya, that only through the threat of nuclear weapons will North Korea be respected, feared, and the current regime allowed to continue. The reaction of the U.S. and other countries, per Cha and Gallucci, must be based on ‘asymmetric pressure points’ such as freezing of bank accounts, travel bans on officials, indictment of those working

In April, 2012, the North Korea announced that their rocket was ready for launch. As a country have some influence over the North Korea, what was China expected to do at this point? Well, the White House Secretary Jay Carney said that the President had made the attitude of United States on North Korea’s rocket quite clear in South Korea. The President wanted countries like China, which had some influence over North Korea to do whatever it could do to dissuade North Korea from doing that or to change direction of their rocket. The US considered North Korea’s action as a “provocative” one, and also “a violation of two UN Security Council

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has an operating nuclear weapons program and demonstrates the capability of enriching uranium and producing weapons-grade plutonium. The DPRK possesses seven dominant missiles; each has different target ranges and ceaselessly threatens the international community. By conducting nuclear tests periodically, the DPRK’s nuclear program foists as a constant threat to establishing world peace. One prominent example is the DPRK challenging the new leader, President Moon.

North Korea’s nuclear aspirations and capabilities are a major concern for Americans as well as the rest of the World. A concern that is fully supported when looking at the relentless effort North Korea has put into fulfilling its “military first” strategy. Above all else North Korea has made it a point to improve its military at the expense of its economy and its citizens. With the idea of a “military first” system it is hard to imagine that North Korea ever truly wanted nuclear reactors for the sole purpose of energy. More important to understanding this policy, is the history of North Korea. Jonathan Pollack goes into detail about the history and the emergence of Kim Il-Sung following the Korean War, and why Kim felt that “military first” was the best policy for the country. The underlying factor in North Korean policy is that they are fearful; following the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the World saw what a powerful weapon nuclear bombs are and likewise Kim Il-Sung also did.

Assessing the most pressing current national security issues for the United States is difficult following the massive transition in political leadership following the 2016 election. Fundamentally, where we observed “No-Drama” Obama adhere to principles of strategic patience and a philosophy of no doing stupid stuff, President Trump seems willing to disrupt recently accepted equations regarding American involvement in deterring Syria’s Assad regime, dissuading the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) from furthering its nuclear capacity, and presenting a firmer stance against Iranian influence in the Middle East. Fundamentally, this shift has cause the United States to be less of a steadying and stable actor in the international landscape, and more unpredictable. Simply, President Trump appears more willing to leave all options, including, for example, military intervention in North Korea, on the table, where his predecessor was less overt about such possibilities.