Policy Research Program on How the US Will Deal with the North Korea Nuclear Program Conflict - Coursework Example

Running Head: Policy Research Program on how the US will deal with the conflict regarding the North Korea Nuclear Program (Your Course) University: (Your Institution) Introduction In this essay, I will argue that the North Korean Nuclear Program is not just a problem to the United states, but it also a threat to the other countries such as Japan and South Korea. Current approaches by the United States have not been very effective at solving the conflict. Consequently, it would be favorable for the United States if they made a paradigm shift in tackling this problem by negotiating with North Koreans. Macro level conflict related to the micro level conflict Ever since the mid twentieth century, North Korea has been engaging in nuclear development. There are two major reasons why this country may have chosen to take on such a venture. First of all, North Koreans could be trying to create a new relationship with the United States. On the other hand, this country could have been engaging in such a program in order to deter the United States. (Coughlin, 2000) In fact during the past, some people have asserted that the reason why North Korea has been doing this is so that they could foster trade agreements or other economic aids. On the other hand, the west would have the ability to restrain weapons made by past communist governments in North Korea. Not all people believe that this is the latter statement is the truth but it is difficult for one to determine whether it is the former assertion that is more convincing than the latter. (Niksch, 2002) It should be noted that North Korea has given its arguments in the past for engaging in nuclear programs. They asserted that there was a need to protect themselves from any sort of aggression especially from Japan, South Korea or even the United States. The North Koreans assert that they have no way of fully understanding what the real intentions of the US and other countries are towards them. Consequently, the nuclear program is a way in which North Korea can deter the security threat that can be presented from any of the above countries. While members of this country feel that this could actually be a valid argument, one cannot help but notice how insufficient it is. All the latter mentioned countries have communicated their intentions to North Korea; consequently, it becomes very difficult to know whether North Korea’s arguments hold water or not. (Minchoel, 2003) Relevant historical information The nuclear program began as far back as the early nineteen sixties. At that time, the North Korean government felt that there was a need to create a fortress around North Korea by militarizing this country. This decision led to the creation of an atomic energy complex. (Bill, 2001)The country obtained students who had received their education from the Soviet and it latter placed them in training programs located at Yongbyon. At that time, the country opted to create a nuclear research centre to be located in the latter mentioned town. Here, the country was working hand in hand with the Soviet to carry out their nuclear related activities. (Albright & O’Neill, 2001) It should be noted that in the year 1965, the Soviet built a research reactor on behalf of the North Korean centre. This was the year which marked a steady supply of nuclear enriched fuel elements that were supplied to the North Korean region. This pattern of cooperation continued between the Soviet and North Korea until 1973. It should also be noted that the latter program could continue quite successfully owing to the fact that there are about four million tons worth of uranium found in North Korean mines. During the nineteen Seventies, North Korea largely focused on the process of understanding the nuclear fuel cycle. Here, they dwelt on converting, refining and fabrication of this element. Also, in that decade, North Korea was particularly effective in creating a nuclear reactor that closely resembled that one in the Soviet and other related countries through a modernization process. After the creation of the latter reactor, North Korea could now boast of eighty percent fuel enrichment. Besides this, it was now possible for this country to have a capacity of eight megawatts of nuclear power. (Bill, 2001) In the late seventies, North Korea opted to reduce the degree of fuel enrichment to a sizable amount for this particular reactor. However, they started working on another research reactor which was worth five megawatts and was dubbed the “second reactor”. In the year 1977, North Korea finalized its agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. In this agreement, North Korea asserted that they would allow the latter group to inspect their first reactor. The nuclear weapons program began as early as the nineteen eighties. At that time, North Korea felt the need to focus on the uses of nuclear energy itself. Besides that, they also embarked on weapon development programs at Yongbyon and Taechon. These two towns were chosen for nuclear reprocessing and creation of nuclear reactor respectively. Highly explosive detonation tests were conducted in these towns. This was the point in history when the US began its intervention program. They asserted that their intelligence information depicted the fact that there were certain secret nuclear programs near one of the later mentioned towns. (Bill, 2001) Many other countries joined the United States in opposing North Korea’s activities. Consequently, they found themselves in such a position where they had to enter into the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Program. In ‘89, a US magazine asserted that North Korea planned on manufacturing nuclear weapons in 1993. In ‘ 90 US reports in the Washington Post depicted how there were certain satellite photographs illustrating how some structures within Yongbyon could be utilized in the separation of plutonium from nuclear fuel. In the year 1992, North Korea agreed to enter into an agreement with the IIAEA to allow inspections. (Grawin & Hippel, 2006) However, the latter agreement was short lived because in this same year, the issue of North Korea’s nuclear program became so disturbing to South Korea, Japan and the US. This was the case, after North Korea denied IAEA permission to inspect some sites that were suspicious in nature. In that same year, North Korea chose to withdraw from NPT. In 1994 and 1995, North Korea and the US engaged in talks that eventually led to agreements with regard to nuclear issues. In 1994 North Korea signed an agreement with the former country. As of 1994 to date, experts assert that North Korea has completed all the phases of the nuclear fuel cycle. However, it is still not very clear whether there are nuclear weapons. This is because the process of identifying them requires high tech detectors. Despite this, there is sufficient evidence to show that North Korea’s plutonium deposits are sufficient to produce six nuclear weapons. On top of the latter, it is particularly difficult to estimate the quantities of uranium based structures owing to the fact that they can be constructed underground thus rendering satellite images irrelevant. On top of the latter, there is a big difference between plutonium and uranium based structures in terms of their methods of detection. However, the Defense Intelligence Agency claimed that there may be close to twelve nuclear weapons in North Korea as of 2006. (Fairclough, 2006) However, the CIA gave differing figures in the subsequent year. They asserted that there may be two to three bombs produced by North Korea on an annual basis. The latter figures imply that North Korea may have chosen not to engage in any sort of nuclear arsenal regardless of the fact that they had acquired about as much as eight thousand plutonium fuel rods. The Department of Energy also released their figures and they believe that there could be about seven bombs produced by this country annually. If one was to choose the estimates made by the medium party, then the North Korean nuclear weapons program would still be a source of worry owing to the fact that it would result in approximately twenty weapons in the North Korean stockpile; this is definitely a worrying trend. Where are we now At the end of 2005, there were talks held between six member countries without North Korea. Consequently, this meeting led to stalemate. This was because North Korea chose to boycott it. They made this announcement claiming that as long as the US continued with their financial sanctions, then they would not attend the latter’s meetings. In that same year, US officials declared that there would be no business activity between them as long as the Macau region still existed owing to the fact that there were certain illegal goings on in that area. The US Treasury Department claimed that this area was synonymous with counterfeiting currencies and engaging in drug trafficking. As a result, there was a need to halt these illegal activities by ceasing trade with the latter areas. (Pritchard, 2005) In response to the US’s directives, North Korea responded by sending missiles to Japan’s seas. In fact, these missiles were seven in number. North Korea had also intended on sending a Taepodong missile too. However, this missile failed to launch within forty seconds and was instead plunged at sea. The United States acted quickly to respond to this. They asserted that all countries should suspend any financial support that was given to North Korea especially in relation to the weapons of destruction or missiles at Pyongyang area. Besides this, the US also prohibited member states from participating in the latter mentioned programs by contributing their technologies to North Korea. This was a resolution that was passed by the National Security Council. (Grawin & Hippel, 2006) The United States urged North Korea to attend the six party talks but the latter group rejected this prompt. Thereafter, the ruling US President; George Bush decided to appoint a specific individual to deal with the issues surrounding North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs Approaches tried in the past There are a range of things that have been tried out in the past five years or so. In 2002, President’s Bush representatives found that there were certain issues that needed to be addressed in terms of a secret nuclear weapons program that had just been discovered. This program was allegedly based on some of the plans that had been made prior to the year 1995 in North Korea. According to Bush’s officials, this secret nuclear program was founded on the premise that there was uranium enrichment going on there. This program was made possible by the cooperation of North Korea and Pakistan. The latter country would benefit by getting missiles from the former. In response to this threat, the United States opted to get a decision from the Korean Energy Development Organization. This was a program that was designed to terminate oil shipments by the United States to North Korea. The latter move was in line with what had been agreed upon during the 1994 Framework. (Yardley & Sanger, 2005) It seems as if this approach did not work for the United States owing to the fact that North Korea then continued with the nuclear shutdown that had been facilitated in the ‘94 agreement. Consequently, the latter country began reprocessing most of their fuel rods. The United States was unable to fully determine exactly how many fuel rods were affected by their decision. Besides the latter, North Korea also decided to terminate their NPT membership (Non proliferation Treaty) in the next year; 2003. They claimed that this was a necessary thing to do because they believed that there was an impending nuclear attack from the United States. The latter group felt that they had to prepare themselves. (Piak, 2007) The latter issues are a mere background to the policy approaches that have been utilized in the recent past. The Bush administration has been focusing on two types of approaches. The first is grounded on the fact that this president does not believe or trust anything that the North Korea team says. The President also holds the same attitude towards the current North Korean president Kim Jong Il. Another approach has also been proposed by some members of the Bush administration. There is a group that is advocating for a punitive approach to North Korea. This group constitutes of the following members Undersecretary of State Vice President’s Office Secretary of defense Other pentagon advisers (Hinderstein & Albright, 2006) These members believe that in order to deal with the North Korean challenge adequately, the later country should be isolated through diplomatic mechanisms. They believe that there is no room for negotiations between the two parties. They also assert that they should give North Korea demands for denouncing their military and nuclear related programs. Failure to follow this directive should cause the US to withhold any form of economic assistance that North Korea expects from them. (Kessler, 2003) The other approach to solving this North Korean Conflict is a more bi-partisan approach. This view is held by members of the the Department. The latter group asserts that North Korea is still an important part of the US’s international trade relations. Consequently, this group believes that there should be some form of negotiations between North Korea and the United States. Additionally, proponents of this approach believe that choosing to cause North Korea’s collapse through economic sanctions may not necessarily be the best way to go for the United States. (Grawin & Hippel, 2006) What is being advocated now (with specific policy recommendations) It should be noted that the six party meeting had considered three major issues with regard to the North Korean nuclear weapons issue. Their approach was in line with the former mentioned approach i.e. the one held by a series of Bush advisers who believe that North Korea should not be trusted at all. In fact, a substantial number of these members assert that North Korea should be told to immediately dismantle their nuclear weapons. (Kahn & Sanger, 2006)On top of this, the six member group asserts that there should be no negotiations with North Korea until they agree to disarm. It should also be noted that the latter group also believes in isolating North Korea by giving them economic sanctions. This group requests for the following in North Korea’s dismantlement program -Verifiability -Irreversibility -Completion The latter conditions are held for both the plutonium and uranium enrichment programs held by North Korea. In other words, the six member group believes that in order for US-North Korea relations to improve, the latter country needs to implement all the pre-conditions stated by the latter group. However, other groups oppose such an approach claiming that by doing this, the United States will be agitating North Korea. This might cause them to make due on the threats or accusations that have been labeled against them. (Munkyu, 2007) It should also be noted here that China has an important role to play in these relations. The United States believes that China is in a position to exert pressure upon the North Koreans through economic sanctions. The six member group claims that if China were to hold out their food (they supply forty percent of North Korea’s food and ninety percent of their oil) then chances were that North Korea would dismantle their nuclear programs What the new administration should do and why this policy is in the best interest for the United States Given the fact that there is a new government currently in power, there is a need to adopt a different approach to what the past regime has been using. Contrary to what Pentagon members have been thinking, there should be a complete shift in North Korean US foreign relations. The reason why a change is necessary is that past methods have produced stalemates. In order to produce effective results for these talks, there is need to remember the fact that North Korea does not just depend on the United States for economic assistance. As matter of fact, the largest share of its economic supplies emanate from the Asian continent with China leading the way in these negotiations. The United States seems to be the only country that is deeply committed to North Korean isolation yet other countries in the six member groups have not shown such enthusiasm. (ChanHo, 2006) Russia, South Korea and China believe that The United States have acted too aggressively towards North Korea. These countries affirm that there have been minimal efforts by the United States to try and engage in negotiations with North Korea. These countries also claim that the US has been going around the North Korean problem rather than tackling it ‘head on’ by negotiating in talks with North Korea. Also, these countries claim that the US has already assumed that North Korea will not choose to dismantle their nuclear and missile programs. This is because if they were to choose to do so, then there should be a reciprocal plan to deal with that aspect. The latter countries have not demonstrated positive support towards the United States. In fact, foreign ministers from Russia and South Korea asserted that they were not happy with US proposals and that they needed to look for better and brighter ideas to tackle the North Korean question. (Grawin & Hippel, 2006) It should also be noted that there have even been signs of support from South Korea and China for some of the stances that North Korea had chosen to take during the latter years. For instance, when North Korea had denied being in possession of a HEU program, they managed to get support from China and South Korea. Additionally, when there were proposals to conduct economic sanctions, these countries opposed the move. The only country that appeared to support the United States in this initiative was Japan. However, even this country claimed that the US should try negotiating or settling with North Korea first before imposing any economic sanctions. (Siegfried, 2006) In light of these facts, the United States should seriously consider a change in strategy. If the US had overwhelming support from all the six member countries, then chances are that they would be at a better position to avoid talks with North Korea. If this has been the case, then past approaches would have worked. However, putting in mind the fact that the US seems to be spearheading these moves alone, then chances are that their strategy of isolation may not succeed. Instead, it may even worsen North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. (Kamran & Lancaster, 2005) Another important aspect that would necessitate a paradigm shift in this area is North Korea’s attitude in the conflict. At the beginning, North Korean representatives appeared as though they were worried about the possibility of being isolated economically by all the countries that matter to it. However, instead of yielding to US demands, the North Korean government opted to go in a totally different direction. They started conducting propaganda campaigns among the six member states. Additionally, they played with the psychology of the latter group by issuing their threats; they asserted that they would abandon talks with this group. Consequently, this caused fears in the minds of the representatives. It should be noted that North Korea is not a passive party in this conflict. In fact, they have their own strategy. North Korea plans on garnering the support of the other six member countries and thus weakens the US’s negotiating powers there. (Sang hyun, 2005) This latter country has also made its share of demands from the United States. They have asserted that the US and North Korea should sign a pact that ought to be made public. In this pact, the US should promise not attack N. Korea while North Korea on the other hand promises to terminate their plutonium program. North Korea also proposes the continuation of this nuclear program but that it will be done peacefully. It should be noted that North Korea has also made a list of other demands that range from; Being eliminated from a list of terrorist supporting nations by the US Termination of US economic sanctions Termination of US interference in North Korea’s international relations Shipment of heavy oil Electricity supply Etc While some of these demands may be difficult to meet, some of them are not. If the United States opts to negotiate directly with North Korea, then chances are that the latter might loosen some of their tough stances and they may actually opt to freeze their nuclear program. Owing to the fact that North Korea itself has suggested that they are willing to suspend part of their nuclear program; this is a sign that they are willing to bend their rules. (Hinderstein, 2006) The United States needs to embrace the fact that North Korea has some leverage too. They have the ability to turn the situation around if there are no other ways of dealing with it. Consequently, one should look for more effective mechanisms of solving this problem. Given the fact that North Korea chose to boycott talks with the US, then they could be trying to create a stalemate that could have a long term effect. Experts assert that North Korea was trying to ‘finish’ the Bush administration by boycotting talks that had been arranged by the latter administration. If the US continues to take a punitive stance on the nuclear program, then they could be worsening the matter. (Poneman & Galluci, 2004) The fact of the matter is that North Korea’s nuclear program is a real problem and a threat to the United States and other countries such as South Korea and Japan. If nothing is done, or the new regime opts to adopt a similar stance to the one taken by the latter regime, then chances are that there will be no positive outcome here. Statistics show that if the Taepodong missile is targeted towards a real country, then it is likely that the missile has the possibility of reaching as far as Alaska, the Commonwealth’s Northern Marianas or Guam. This is a very worrying trend. Additionally, newspapers in Japan indicated that North Korea was working hand in hand with Iran to export the latter mentioned missiles to this country. The CIA has also made claims that North Korea is in the process of perfecting the missile ranges because current ones have the ability reach various parts of the US without much difficulty. Conclusion International findings depict the fact that if left unchecked, North Korea could prove to be dangerous to the US. They need to look for alternative ways of dealing with N. Korea because past approaches have not worked. The purpose of the paper was to prove that North Korea’s nuclear program is dangerous to Japan, South Korea and The United States. This has been shown by the missiles that targeted Japan’s seas and satellite images from international groups. The best way to end the current stalemate is by negotiating directly with North Korea. Punitive measures will not work. Reference Yardley, J. & Sanger, D. (2005): US tries a new approach in talks with North Korea; The new York Times, p A9, 27th July Pritchard, C. (2005); Six party talks – False Start or a case for optimism? The Brookings Institute Report, 1st December Hinderstein, C. & Albright, D. (2006): Dismantling the DPRK’s Nuclear Program, United Institute of Peace, 3, 44 Piak, H. (2007): What is to be done about the North Korean nuclear resolution; Vantage Point, 23rd May, p. 15 Fairclough, G. (2006): North Korea hardens line; Asian Wall Street Journal, 13, 2, 69 Munkyu, P. (2007): Outdated Cold war structure must be obliterated; North Korean Communist Party Journal Kahn, J. & Sanger, D. (2006): US Korean deal on arms leaves key points open; The New York Times, 20th September, p A1 Kamran, K. & Lancaster, J. (2005): Scientist says he aided North Korea with superior knowledge; Asian Wall Street Journal, 4th February, p A 2 Kessler, G. (2003): US’s shifting script on N. Korea; The Washington Post, 7th December, p. A25 Sang Hyun, P. (2005): The Role of South Korea in six party talks; East Asian Review; p 124 Albright, D. & O’Neill, K. (2001): Solving the North Korean Puzzle; Institute for international Security Pres, pp. 57-80 Minchoel, K. (2003): Hwang and the secret nuclear program; Choson IIbo Journal, 15, 6, 79 Bill, G. (2001): Pyongyang’s launch; The Washington Times, p C1 Coughlin, C. (2000): North Korea and Iran’s long range missiles; The New York Times, 23rd November, p A 5 ChanHo, K. (2006): transfer of war time control should be carried out overnight; Joong Ang IIbo, p 13 Hinderstein, A. (2006): Dismantling the NPRKL’S nuclear weapons program, the Washington Post, p 19 Poneman, W. & Galluci, R. (2004): The First North Korean nuclear crisis; Brookings Institution Press, pp 193 Siegfried, H. (2006): Report on North Korean Nuclear Program, retrieved from http://www.fas.org/ accessed on 8th November Grawin, R. & Hippel, F. (2006): A technical analysis of North Korean nuclear test; Arms Control Today, 3rd November Niksch. L. (2002): North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program, Foreign Affairs and Trade Division Report, 2, 67 Read More