Nuclear tension between the US and North korea ( past, and present) - Essay Example

Nuclear Tension between the US and North Korea The United s – North Korea relationship and its constant state of flux, since the independence of the younger nation, has been a source of increasing tension for both the countries. With the present bone of contention in the ambiguous Nuclear Weapon program of North Korea, this relationship has experienced everything; from threats of nuclear attacks to saving lives, extension of financial and economic aid to imposition of sanctions, freezing nuclear reactors in accordance with agreements signed to sudden changes in policies and declaration of power by performing Nuclear Tests. Having a background of unhappy interactions dating as early as the mid nineteenth century, when the first diplomatic expeditions from America venturing to Korea and Japan for the sake of trade ended up killing 200 Korean troops, the history of negotiations between the two countries has been colored by high levels of distrust on either side. The U.S support of aggressors Japan and South Korea, during Japanese Rule (1910-1945) and the Korean War (1950-53), which ended up dividing Korea into Democratic Republic of Korean ( North) and the Republic of Korea ( South), further impeded possibilities of friendly ties till the end of the Cold War. With the advent of the atomic era, the tension between the two countries heightened as North Korea, claiming to be under the nuclear threat of America since the Korean War, began asking its allies, China and Soviet Union, for assistance in Nuclear research. The efforts to develop a nuclear program continued throughout the years until it became apparent to the U.S, by the 1980’s that the activities being carried out in PyongYang and Yongbyon were not entirely power generation oriented. By 1992 North Korea had withdrew from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty it had signed earlier. This triggered a course of negotiations and talks that continues till today, having been suspended repeatedly due to non-cooperation between the two. (Chanlett-Avery, 2012, p. 12) Initially the talks led to signing of the Agreed Framework in 1994, as a result of which North Korea terminated its suspected nuclear program with the removal of sanctions and the provision of heavy fuel oil from the U.S. until its reactors are replaced by Light Water Reactors (LWR). This agreement, attempting to normalize relations, started with delays and failures and doubts on both sides and ended in disappointment in 2003, with the withdrawal of North Korea from NPT, as a result of the declared hostility of the Bush administration towards North Korea naming it part of the ‘Axis of Evil’. The intervention of the international community especially China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, seemed necessary for the peace and stability of the region and this lead to the Six Party Talks from 2003-2007 . These too had a similar fate, with the initial acceptance of a Joint Statement by 2005, according to which nuclear weapon programs would be suspended, which it violated with the testing Nuclear weapons in October 2006. (Chanlett-Avery, 2012, p. 4) From February 2007 to November 2008, negotiations were based on the suspension of nuclear programs in exchange of funds, removal of economic sanctions applied since the nuclear test, removal of North Korea form list of terrorism sponsoring countries. However another shock that nullified all diplomatic efforts previously made was the second more successful nuclear testing of 2009. Harsher sanctions were implemented by the United Nation and the event was condemned by most of the international community including China and Russia. The United States authorities, however, aggressively denounced the acceptance of a ‘Nuclear-armed North Korea.’ (Kaphle, 2012) In 2010, the sinking of a South Korean warship, Cheonan, gave rise to a new set of allegations against North Korea and the imposition of further sanctions. North Korea responded with nuclear threats, revealing its now developed uranium enrichment at the Yongbyon Plant to American Nuclear scientist Dr Siegfried Hecker. (Chanlett-Avery, 2012, p. 5) So far the course of events has made it evident what the policies of either country is aimed at. America, with friends in the neighborhood is seeking to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and North Korea seems to be using Nuclear weapons as both ‘military deterrents’ and as a source of ‘diplomatic leverage’ to get what it wants from the international community. (Chanlett-Avery, 2012, p. 1) The death of Kim Jong-il at the end of 2011 has affected the strategies of both sides as North Korea deals with succession and America formulates a strategy based on assumptions about the new leader. The events just before the previous ruler’s death were looking positive with Pyongyang willing to cease its uranium enrichment program and Washington looking to cooperate by providing food donations that the country needs during its present crisis. Recent events have made the U.S expect positivity and raised suspicions as talks in Beijing February 2012 resulted in the agreement of North Korea on suspension of it Uranium enrichment and nuclear tests and allowing access to IAEA inspectors in return for the provision of food aid from the U.S. While the decision of the new leader to carry on with the launching of a satellite on the 100th birthday of Kim ul-Sung, the founder of the nation, in spite of warnings from the U.S that this may damage the deal finalized in February, has left the world speculating how this would all end. (Times, 2012) From the American perspective, North Korea has been a challenge in achieving its aims of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, with its provocative acts and failure of compliance with agreements. According to North Korea: U.S. Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Internal Situation, a research conducted by the Congressional Research Service, the U.S Government has spent apart from providing technical assistance, over $1.2 million aiding it in its food and energy supplies as per the deals made in various negotiations for the shutting down of nuclear arms programs in North Korea. One thing, however is clear, the Pyongyang is willing to give up its nuclear ambitions only when internal crisis become stifling. Otherwise it appears that the country hardly shows any wishes to be accepted in the international community by giving up its nuclear protection. The Americans themselves have lacked consistency in their policy towards the potential opponent, jumping from talks and agreements to pronounced hostility towards Pyongyang, fuelling distrust in the already paranoid North Korean capital. The crucial question at this point is the national interests the U.S has at stake. The increasing frequency of nuclear threats issued by North Korea seem to have no effect on the security concerns of the U.S itself, however, in the Korean context the presence of a provocative North Korea with nuclear weapons threatens the stability of U.S allies in the region. The first claim that appears to guide U.S policies towards all Nuclear-armed nations is its adherence to its non proliferation agenda it is promoting globally with Obama’s April 2009 speech at Prague and publication of Nuclear Posture Review which limits the use or threat of Nuclear weapons against countries in compliance with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). (Emma Chanlette – Avery). This is aimed at controlling the contagious ambitions of acquiring nuclear power spreading among insecure countries. The existence of uranium enrichment and plutonium production in a country as unstable as North Korea raises concerns over the proliferation of the technology to other states in the light of the worsening economic condition of the country. ‘Evidence of some cooperation with Syria, Iran, and potentially Burma has alarmed national security experts.’ (Chanlett-Avery, 2012) Variations in policies of Washington towards Pyongyang have been affected by changes in the Presidential Office with Bilateral communication during the Clinton regime to the issuing of hard-line statements in Bush presidency. The Six Party Talks came up as a ‘multilateral framework’ to solve the Korean Nuclear issue in the Bush administration period and continued through the Obama Administration until the violation of its agreements by North Korea in 2009. The present office is bent on the imposition of sanctions to pressurize the violating party to presume talks at the cost of giving up its growing nuclear weaponry. It has also been analyzed in North Korea: U.S. Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Internal Situation that the U.S attitude towards North Korea has been subject to its relations with Japan and South Korea. Possible allegations of acts against the two allied have led to impediment of bilateral talks between Washington and Pyongyang. Several incidents including the sinking of South Korean warship the Cheonan in March 2010, and the later attack Yeonpyeong Island November 23 of the same year, resulted in further deterioration of diplomatic efforts and issuing of sanctions in spite of the North Korean denial or reasoning. This has led to the presumption that America lacks the sincerity to progress towards normalization of relation between the two states. Furthermore the growing closeness between the U.S and South Korea is increasing the reasons why North Korea wants to have nuclear power of its own. The motivation of the North Korean government for acquiring Nuclear weapons is another crucial factor in the progress of any negotiations on the issue. This, however, is the most challenging aspect regarding relationship with the North Koreans as their long term aims remain unclear and can only be gauged through speculation and projections. Pyongyang’s agreements to dismount their long strived for nuclear ambitions at the negotiating table have often backfired at the onslaught of the slightest disagreements between the concerned parties and have led to the current stall in negotiations since 2010. They have also been difficult negotiators, demanding equivalent financial and economic compensations for agreements to halting its suspicious nuclear activities. Several breeches of the concluded agreements have also resulted in two nuclear weapons test and several satellite and presumed missiles tests during the period 2006 to 2010, despite reproach by the international community. (Scobell et al 2009) Determining these motivations will help ascertain the seriousness of the country in cooperation with the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and help make further negotiations more effective. As stated before, the external nuclear threats from the U.S and other neighbors was the main reason for perusal of the nuclear research. This is reportedly the use of Nuclear power as a ‘nuclear deterrent’ to possible attacks on the country itself. The nuclear capabilities of North Korea, although incomparable to the U.S itself, has the strength to deter any military action similar to that of Iraq due to the risk it possesses of destroying the U.S allies in the region. And even in the case of its threats to the U.S directly, the uncertainty of the amount of nuclear arsenal it possesses, gives North Korea an advantage with the possibility of a second attack present. (Scobell et al 2009) The letting down of North Korean allies Russia and China, which Pyongyang experienced at several crucial occasions like the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis or the extension of friendly relations towards the South in 1990, and the failure of Beijing to fulfill the alliance of China and North Korea of 1960, led to the nuclear independence that the North has now achieved, while South Korea remains U.S dependent for Military actions of similar scale. Other than being used as protection from possible hostile attacks, the North Korean nuclear weapons programs have frequently been used as ‘diplomatic leverage’ for the achievement of aid and funds in compensation for temporary stalls in their development. This can also be termed as ‘nuclear blackmail’ when he North Korean capital threatens to start nuclear war in case of further estrangement of ties from the U.S in April 2005 : “We will never continue to sit back and look on with folded arms until the United States attacks us first” (Scobell & Chambers 2009) With the successful nuclear tests of 2010 and the undeterminable intentions of satellite launch in 2012, North Korea’s doctrine on the nuclear program is gradually coming out into the open, striving for the same status as New Dehli i.e. the international acknowledgement of North Korea as a Nuclear Power along with the normalization of relations with the U.S. This may not exactly be acceptable to the U.S with its own concerns. However the cooperation of North Korea can only be achieved if its concerns regarding security are adequately addressed. Although this process may require patience and time, it is far better than the imposition of sanctions which further deters any developments. REFERENCES: Chamber, A. S. (2009). Nuclearization of North Korea and the fallout from South Asia. In S. G. Kapur, Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia: Crisis Behavious and the Bomb (pp. 183-212). London: Routlege. Chanlett-Avery, E. (2012). North Korea: U.S Realtions, Nuclear Diplomacy and Internal Situation. Kaphle, A. (2012, February 29). North Korea agrees to halt uranium enrichment: A timeline of key events. Retrieved March 30, 2012 Times, T. N. (2012, February 29th). North Koreas Nuclear Program. Retrieved March 30, 2012 Read More