Japan's Stance on North Korea Nuclear Proliferation - Research Paper Example

? s School Topic Japan`s Stance on North Korean Nuclear Proliferation: Policy Paper North Korea is actively pursuing its Nuclear Proliferation program despite the coercive diplomatic measures pertained by the great powers (Niksch 2001)., and the threat perceptions regarding the nuclear deterrence in context to Asian states has significantly been enhanced after the third nuclear test recently launched by North Korea In this context, it is not viable for Japan to rely on the extended deterrence of its allies (predominantly USA), as North Korea is believed to own middle range Rodong missiles which has intensified the proliferation concerns of Japan to a great extent. Considering this situation, the most feasible solution is conceived to be UN backed efforts for nuclear disarmament in the region, an active advocacy towards the construction of nuclear-free zones and diplomatic efforts via UN forum to pressurize North Korea to back off from its nuclear program. The nuclear program of North Korea dates back to the cold war era when research over nuclear proliferation began in cooperation with Soviet Union and China. However it wasn’t until 1980`s that uranium enrichment reactors were conceived. North Korea became party to the non proliferation treaty in 1985 though it was resistant on allowing IAEA inspections over the fissile materials. Later, in 1991 the Democratic People`s Republic of Korea officially joined the United Nations which reduced the threat perceptions regarding North Korean nuclear proliferation. In 1993, when the international community indicated suspicion regarding nuclear proliferation for military reasons North Korea refused to allow any kind of inspections (Bracken 1993). The suspicion turned into a reality when North Korea appealed to withdraw from the IAEA, which it did the very next year. Also, in May 1993 a UN Security Council resolution was passed to call North Korea to comply by the non-proliferation regimes (Niksch 2001).. The nuclear plant was announced officially by North Korea in 2002, and in 2003 it withdrew itself from the NPT (Kirgis 2003). In 2006, another resolution passed by the UNSC unanimously imposed sanctions on North Korea. Ever since, three nuclear tests have been launched by North Korea, which is a huge issue for many states as DPRK is a failing state given its economy and political conditions (Charnysh 2009). Japan has the most intensive threat from North Korean nuclear weapons and missile technology, second to the South Korea, as it is solely relying on its allies for nuclear deterrence. There are many different factors affecting the threat perception, rather intensifying them. Firstly, Japan has been the only victim of a nuclear attack in the past, thus it realizes the costs of a nuclear war1. Secondly, Japan is obligated not to develop its own nuclear capacity under the three points treaty with the U.S2. Thirdly, its focus is currently driven towards the economy as it doesn’t want to become a part of the strategic prism in the larger context. Lastly, since North Korea perceives U.S to be the most antagonistic state and Japan being the ally would be the first target in any case (Drennan 2003). Considering this situation, many of the Japanese officials are now considering the option of passing an appeal to develop their own nuclear weapons to prevent the threat of a nuclear attack from North Korea. North Korea has been a very aggressive state in the past as it had actively pursued it`s nuclear struggle despite the international pressure, therefore it makes perfect sense for Japan to perceive the nuclear war-heads owned by DPRK as an eminent threat towards their national security and dignity (Drennan 2003). The implications driven by the North Korean nuclear program have fueled various other repercussions for Japan which require instant consideration to prevent further complexities to arise in the region. The coercive diplomatic measures have proved to be of little significance, and the Iran example has further complicated the situation as evident from the recent developments (Charnysh 2009).. In this regard, Japan needs to carve out rational policies considering the national interest in mind along with the other variables which maximize the risks of intensification of the innate conflict if a wrong step is taken. The most viable solution in this context involves UN mediations on a serious level involving the entire international community to resolve the crises at hand. The UN resolution should however be an attempt towards developing a disarmament regime, fabricating nuclear free zones in the region at the same time keeping the North Korean interests in mind too. This implies that instead of going for bilateral agreements, rather sanctions as coercive diplomatic measures, a stronger case shall be built within the international forum to consider the stakes of nuclear plants in North Korea in the light of the internal vulnerabilities within the state. North Korea being a member of the United Nations is subject to compliance of any kinds of resolutions passed in the Security Council. This deems the option of UN mediation as an effective policy measure from the point of view of Japan, as it prefers to de-politicize itself from the strategic world affairs, focusing more on the economic sphere of politics. However, having an alliance with the U.S makes North Korea an important player in the web of politics revolving nuclear deterrence web formed between various actors. National security being the utmost concern for Japan however demands the issue to be addressed actively via a rigorous cost benefit analysis of all the options on the table. Also, the coercive diplomacy measures on Iran seem to go at waste, even the attempt to isolate Iran from the rest of the world failed to cease their nuclear weapons development. Japan is mindful of the situation, and thus both pro`s and con`s of going for UN mediation have to be kept under consideration. The most apparent benefit of choosing UN mediation as a policy measure is the cost effectiveness of this decision. On a state level, Japan won`t have to bear the finances of the policy measures as the issue would rather be dealt at an international level. In contrast, for instance if Japan opts for developing its own nuclear weapons, a lot of resources would be drained including money, human capital and even time which should rather be spent over the economic activities. Along with the short term finances, long terms costs would also be inflicted upon Japan as the program would require constant upgrade and immense research even in the future. Thus, in any case such a policy measure isn’t recommendable. However, if UN is to be addressed in this case the expenses will be borne by the institution itself and if the efforts bear fruits, and nuclear free zones are developed nuclear plants would be a requirement anymore. If UN ensures the preservation of the integrity and national security of Japan, the expected objectives will be fulfilled without bearing the costs of inflicting the decision upon North Korea. This will thus prove to be a win-win situation for Japan. Secondly, choosing UN mediation as the policy measure on the part of Japan will prevent the escalation of conflict between the two states. An effort by UN will tend to keep North Korea pressurized on an international front which is more effective than any pressure on a bilateral level. It is a determined fact in international relations that integrity and national prestige often comes in the way of compromises between two state actors. Considering North Korea in this context, it is irrational to assume that such an aggressive state will tend to be pressurized by the US or Japan for that matter. Their ego will deter them from making any kind of bargains over the issue of rolling back nuclear weapons; rather this will intensify the conflict. Also, considering the option of the development of Japan`s own nuclear weapons for that matter, this will merely take the shape of an ongoing arms race which will also tend to escalate the conflict rather than resolving it3. Alternatively, if all the states of the world present on the international forum or even most of them will show a consensus over an international forum, this will build a strong pressure over North Korea. When other states will play the role of a third party mediator in this issue, both parties will agree over compromising the relevant objectives thus North Korea would be more willing to accept the option of rolling back their weapons. Also, when the disarmament will be addressed from a global perspective, chances of resolution of the conflict will be increased. The most crucial risk involved in the UN mediation relates to the unbinding character of the resolutions passed by the forum. Though the resolutions passed unanimously by the United Nations member states in the Security Council are binding in nature, but there is no set system to monitor and implement the decisions. Also, historical evidences indicate that the resolutions passed in the UN have been undermined by certain states in the past. For instance, the US invasion over Iraq was unjustified as UN resolution was against it. Such instances can gear North Korea towards North Korea towards ignoring the decisions taken under the Security Council resolution. This would in turn boost up the confidence of North Korea as they would ignore the pressure and get away with their own decisions. This would further intensify the risks of nuclear war as more states would follow the lead and start violating the resolutions passed by the UN. Also, UN doesn’t have its own apparatus to take punitive action if violations are made to the agreed resolutions; i.e. for instance even if North Korea supposedly agrees to the resolution being passed and signs it, in the future if it violates the treaty the scope of action that the UN can take remains limited. Secondly, considering the changed circumstances in the international community the decision might go against the expectations of Japan. This implies that with the change in circumstances, the UN resolution may turn out to go into the favor of North Korea. Russia and China, being the permanent five are subject to veto or rather abstain from the resolution favoring Japan, which will weaken the case of Japan in the international scenario. For instance, in case of Iran`s nuclear arsenal and the intervention in Syria, China and Russia has even vetoed pursuing rightful resistance against the US on the forum of United Nations. Thus, if they exhibit similar role in context to the North Korean case, Japan would have to see a major setback in this context. Though, Japan has major allies on its side over the issue owing much to the economic involvement of many states with Japan4. However, politics is unpredictable and nature, and the strategic states might make the case go against Japan in this context. In this case, Japan would be at the losing end instead. However, analyzing the cost-benefit perspectives of the case in entirety the benefits definitely outweigh the apparent costs expected to be borne by Japan. If Japan pursues addressing the issue on the UN forum as an eminent policy measure, the costs borne by Japan will definitely be minimal as no efforts would be being made on a personal level. Also, when Japan would take the entire international community into confidence, chances of the escalation of conflict will be minimal. However, in any case the unbinding character of the resolutions won`t be an issue in this case, as the proposed policy measures incorporates North Korean perspective in view too, thus the resolution will also effectively address the threat perceptions of North Korea too under the efforts of disarmament too. Thus, when the case of North Korea would be weak it wouldn’t dare violating the resolution. The chances of a decision in the favor of North Korea are also minimal as this would encourage all the unstable states of the world to go for nuclear proliferation, and the states won`t take such a risk by taking an irrational decision. Thus, in any case going to the UN to take action in this case is the most rational choice which should be made by Japan to glorify its statecraft and offer security to the citizens of the state. References: NIKSCH, L. A. (2001). North Korea's nuclear weapons program. [Washington, D.C.], Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Volha Charnysh. (2009). North Korea’s Nuclear Program. Nuclear age Peace Foundation. KIRGIS, F. L. (2003). North Korea's withdrawal from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. ASIL Insights. BRACKEN, P. (1993). Nuclear weapons and State survival in North Korea. Survival. -. 353, 137-153. DRENNAN, W. M. (2003). Nuclear weapons and North Korea: who's coercing whom? The United States and Coercive Diplomacy. 157-223. Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York. (2009). SECURITY COUNCIL, ACTING UNANIMOUSLY, CONDEMNS IN STRONGEST TERMS DEMOCRATIC. Available: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9679.doc.htm. Last accessed 29th april 2012. Danielle Demetriou. (2009). Japan 'should develop nuclear weapons' to counter North Korea threat. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/5187269/Japan-should-develop-nuclear-weapons-to-counter-North-Korea-threat.html. Last accessed 29th april 2012. HIROFUMI NAKASONE. (2009). Ending the Nuclear-Weapons Threat.Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124103588928969859.html. Last accessed 29th april 2012. Neena Bhandari. (2012). ASIA: DANGERS OF EXTENDED NUCLEAR DETERRENCE. Available: http://www.indepthnews.info/index.php/global-issues/880-asia-dangers-of-extended-nuclear-deterrence. Last accessed 29th april 2012 Read More