The US as a Global Power - Case Study Example

History and Political Science Topic: Briefing papers on the foreign policy of the United s towards a range of different countries (Module Title: The US as a Global Power) Diplomacy is a professional activity aimed at enabling states to secure its diplomatic policies using laws, communicative processes, and without the use of force and coercion. Officials in diplomatic communities are generally involved in formal or tacit agreements, research, vivifying intention, promoting goodwill and some negotiations to balance the power of two states (Berridge, 2002). Nowadays, statespersons are engaged in international relations to balance power and to professionally nurture political interdependence of nations, thus, states perform such function with diplomatic diligence through embassies (Freeman, 2000). This briefing paper will tackle the diplomatic relations of United States with North Korea taking into account the historic relation of this country; US key interests of this nation; potential key tensions in this relation; and some policy recommendations to enable US to pursue its interests diplomatically. US interests & North Korea relations Like other developing countries of the world, North Korea is populated of about 23 million mixed Japanese and Chinese population and has been an interesting problem of the U.S. foreign policy (Armstrong, 2002). Historically, Korean Peninsula was formerly inhabited by peoples of a Tungusic with Ural-Altaic language family who migrated from northwestern area of Asia. Others came from Manchuria, China and Japan. Despite its multi-ethic nature due to intermarriages, the nation is racially and linguistically homogeneous (Armstrong, 2002). Their religious beliefs are influenced of Buddhism and Shamanism. Christianity was only introduced in the area in the 16th century when missionaries arrived to preach this religion in Pyongyang. These days, however, the government strictly restricts religious movements (Armstrong, 2002). Korea have also passed many wars and invasion based on the annals of its history. It has been colonized by Mogols in 1231 toward 14th century and was also invaded by Japan in 1592 and 1597 (Armstrong, 2002). Western authorities only started extending conditional diplomacy with Korea in mid-19th century albeit it adopted a walled or closed door policy. They maintained independence from foreign control in the 19th century (Armstrong, 2002). Later on, Korea started trading and business relations with China, Japanese and Russian, but the Chinese attempt to consolidate its economic power within Korea triggered the Sino-Japanese War in 1894-95 and Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. In these violent conflicts, Japan won and successfully annexed Korea in 1910 as (Armstrong, 2002) as its political empire. This control depicts excessive political and economic dominance of Tokyo as it attempted to change its language and culture. These inspired resistance against colonialization and ended Japanese occupation during the World War II in 1945. Korea was later divided into two regions: north and south. The latter is being controlled by the United States and the north is also being administered by the Soviet Union. Political changes have occurred in these regions and the pattern of developments can be tract in the history (Ashurov & Alexeyev, 1979). US have been supportive of the reunification of these regions depending on the level of Korean acceptability. America maintained advisory support but advocated primarily on what dialogues could offer amongst authorities engaged in conflict management and government administration. To reckon, North Korea have participated in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985 as a nuclear-free country but it has announced its withdrawal in 1993 when international bodies and its domestic counterpart failed to enforce the agreed inspection of North’s nuclear facilities (Baek, 1981; Baek, 1983). US again reopened the discussion on denuclearization in 1993 and developed a diplomatic plan in 1994 dubbed as Agreed Framework for the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (Baek, 1981; Baek, 1983). This laid the plan on freezing nuclear program in North Korean and to permit the monitoring to be conducted by the IAEA. US agreed to support the disposition of the 5-megawatt reactor safety and to build a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula (Baek, 1981; Baek, 1983). In 1992, US expressed that when nukes are all eliminated, it will open up its new relation with this nation. However, in an unpredictable move, N. Korea froze its existing plutonium based facilities at Yongbyon, drove out IAEA inspectors, publicly announced it withdrawal from NPT, and restarted the production of plutonium needed for weapons production, purposes (Baek, 1981; Baek, 1983). North Korea announced that it was taking these steps to provide itself with a deterrent force in the face of U.S. threats and "hostile policy." But while the North Korea professed to have completed reprocessing its Yongbyon’s facility for it’s “nuclear deterrent force", these however, were not validated. In 2003, US revived the effort for multilateral talks with North Korean nuclear issue although the latter maintained that denuclearization is a bilateral dispute between United States and the D.P.R.K. Recently, however, neighboring countries and stakeholders e.g. China, Japan. R.O.K.. and Russia made N. Korea decide to sit in a six-party talks in 2003 at Beijing (Chanlett-Avery, 2011). In this talk, North Korea contend willingness to eliminate its nuclear production if US would voluntarily sign for bilateral "non-aggression treaty" and to support the processes involved in the normalization of diplomatic relations (Chanlett-Avery, 2011). The second proposal was unacceptable for US and officials counter-proposed for a multilateral resolution to finish denuclearization. In October 2003, President Bush said he would consider a multilateral written security guarantee provided North Korea will completely, verifiably, and irreversibly eliminate its nuclear weapons program (Chanlett-Avery, 2011). The multi-lateral talk was sustained in 2004. All these remained consistent with the views to make North Korea as US potent partner for global security, economic sustainability and political development within the Asian region. This is also conducive for US to manage control within the geographic regions. Military security reports beefed that stationed US military forces fielded to control and secure the Pacific felt unsecured and threatened by the fact that they are within the striking range of North Korean’s missiles (Chanlett-Avery, 2011). This brought focal interest to US about engaging leaders of North Korea in disarmament and denuclearization to fully end the cold war in the Southeast Asian region. Such political interest challenged US in identifying appropriate and diplomatic mechanisms to build relations with North Korea and to communicate its geo-strategic interests within the region whilst at the same time earn the trust with the countries’ authoritarian regime who maintained an unpredictable behavior on the issue at hand (Chanlett-Avery, 2011). As this develops, US are also simply weary of North Korea’s military capacity posed to American forces deployed within the region. US is likewise reflective of the long term consequence about the inherent risks of dismantling the North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, which may include forecasted humanitarian crisis and the possible impact to its political and economic activity around the region (Chanlett-Avery, 2011). Key areas of tension between North Korea & US Chanlett-Avery (2011) pointed that the United States didn’t have formal relations with North Korea although there were already three American presidents who have extended support of about $1 billion. North Korea remains its subject for resolution on nuclear program issues. With some difficulties on moving forward in pursuing the case toward a nuclear-free world, the Obama Administration allied with other nations, e.g. China, Japan, Russia, North Korea, and South Korea, to pursue the negotiations at a multilateral six party level (Chanlett-Avery, 2011). The problem on how to effect denuclearization remained unfettered and talks were even suspended in 2009. Sociologists perceived that this can’t be just attributed to the cultural system of close government as they also noted that the anticipation of transition of leadership in North Korea is presently causing some unrests and political disruption (Chanlett-Avery, 2011). The country has even launched series of provocative torpedo attack in South Korea last March 2010 (Chanlett-Avery, 2011). The dilemma persisted and America needs to redefine its approaches: must America isolate North Korea by excluding them from financial support or should America re-strategize its diplomatic engagement by strengthening its relations with Southeast Asian nations and to get their empathy as allies in upholding disarmament and denuclearization of nations? What else should be done to convince North Korea to cease the production of nuclear weapons; destroy the ballistic missiles; discourage conventional warfare strategies; and, its capacity to produce weapon of mass destruction for Iran and Pakistan? Authorities consistently pointed that North Korea possessed the largest storage of nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction. Thus, this anti-nuclear drive have been mounted and sprouted since early 80s but still remained to be dealt in this 21st century. As North Korea maintained unperturbed from pressures to dismantle its weapons, its neighboring countries have already started prejudicially calling them rogue, mad, illiberal and crazy nation. Proof of this is that when former North Korea leader Kim II Sung died in 1994, major magazines and journalists worldwide dubbed him “headless beast and radioactive lunatic” because of its preference to keep nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles as its business. Cha and Kang (2002) explicated that theorist posited that some have proposed to pursue isolation and containment of North Korea unconditionally, although there were those who perceived that such undisturbed position of North Korea is basically based on its inherent insecurity of possible US intervention or occupation when they’d be free of defenses. Such is compounded with the partisan debates between Korean executives and legislatives on the debacle of security management which border on homeland security efficacy; variegated position on deterrence as against US’s preemptive security doctrine; and, intelligence on national security management (Cha & Kang, 2002). Cha and Kang (2002) however pointed that US must logically maintain its optimistic engagement with North Korea to delve constantly in its political deviancy. Policy recommendations Transforming this world to make it safer for civilizations demands serious responsibility and accountability for better world governance. US, as global power, must delve beyond the cyclical pattern of North Korean’s conciliation and provocation to practice diligently the diplomatic functions. While it’s indeed true that violence is inherent in world condition, but it is more real that such can be deterred, prevented and regulated. Culture of violence is so discouraged in this era of climatic changes and economic difficulties, especially if nations are beset with variegated problems. The production of nuclear and ballistic missiles, in these times, to promote the culture of war as business, is so worrisome. Such problem should be resolved through education to shift violent national policies, e.g. nurturing power through nuclear into culture of peace and international harmony (Das, 2011). There ought to be a global understanding, as instrument for political pressure, for all nations to uphold the maximization and utilization of public fund primarily to social services and education, instead of capitalizing it for nuclear weapons and missiles production. Capital should be primordially invested to human empowerment and social services, instead of producing tools for violence. This is more essential for a nation to leverage with other countries in this era of globalization (Das, 2011). It should be cited that more advance countries, like Switzerland and Norway, are investing on their human capital instead of mounting tools of violence, to engender a peaceful and sustainable developed nation. Education, as requisites to change the present condition, can help the transition and demystification of violent culture toward culture of peace. As such, diplomats should uphold peace agenda in building relation with North Korea. Such must transcend in all political, economic and cultural processes to forestall violence and to promote the primacy of peace to end this cold war (Das, 2011). In an interconnected world, America must model too in unmasking and re-channeling budgetary allocations of funds from war, militarism, and of building power through weaponry to favor education (Das, 2011). The world needs more global peace to improve international cohesion and to better economic activities to eradicate the specter of poverty, terrorism, environmental destruction and marginalization. This goes to say that US, as global police force must head too, in discouraging the continued development and production of sophisticated warfare and weaponry, as this is the root cause which perpetuates the culture of violence (Das, 2011). While North Korea’s policy to US is influenced by cold war (Pinkston (2006), let it be popularized how this culture of violence in North Korea have cost so much displacement of its populace too and have sought refuge in neighboring countries and in United States to gain peace of mind. The plights of these refugees are so deplorable with lack of food supply and of massive condemnable human rights violations. Their situation is further aggravated by their vulnerability over poor protective measures and neglect in nations where they took temporal refuge. Other than pressing for the rights of these refugees to peacefully return to their original abode, their rights enshrined under international instruments on displacement should be accorded by their mother country, too. The accountability on this displacement should be primarily responded by North Korea and the intervention from civil society, religious groups and the academe should only be secondary. Diplomatic community must therefore sustain the negotiations and to held North Korea of its responsibility over its constituents, to afford them such rights for peaceful and decent life. Bridging leadership is crucial to rebuild people to people relations and let denuclearization be just a stepping agenda for better diplomatic ties and understanding of nations before mutual benefits of trade, aid and investment can flow in. The US may maximize the deterrence, restriction, isolation as matter of policy to define its relation with North Korea but dealing the needs of nation where they are most weak and needy of is always a diplomatic opportunity (Katzman, 2007)—and often the easiest strategy to trade interests. REFERENCES Berridge, G.R., (2002), Diplomacy Theory and Practice. New York, New York. Freeman, Chas W Jr., (2000). Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. United States Institute of Peace, Washington, D.C., United States. Chanlett-Avery, Emma (2011). North Korea: US Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy and Internal Situation. Congress Research Service, CRS Report for Congress. pp. 1-21. Das, Staya, B. (2004). Building Sustainable Peace. Ed. Keating, T & Knight, Andy. In: University of Alberta Press and United Nations University Press. Canada. pp. 1-504. Kang, Victor & Kang. David (2003). Nuclear North Korea: A debate on engagement strategies. Columbia University Press, New York. Hyunjin Seo and Stuart Thorson. (2010). “Academic Science Engagement with North Korea.” On Korea. Washington, DC: Korea Economic Institute of America, p. 105-121 Jonathan Medalia (2009). , North Korea’s 2009 Nuclear Test: Containment, Monitoring, Implications, CRS Report R41160, North Korea. Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland (2011). Witness to Transformation, Refugee Insights into North Korea. Peterson Institute for International Economics, p. 51. James T. Laney and Jason T. Shaplen (2003) How to Deal With North Korea. Foreign Affairs; USA. Vol. 82 Issue 2, p16, 15p Daniel A. Pinkston (2006). North Korea’s Foreign Policy Towards the United States. Strategic Insights, Center for Contemporary Conflict. Volume V, Issue 7. Katzman, Kenneth (2007). US-North Korean Relations: An Analytic Compendium of US Policies, Laws and Regulations. Occasional Paper. The Atlantic Council of the United. Washington, United States. Armstrong, Charles K. (2002). The North Korean Revolution, 1945-1950. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Ashurov, N. and V. Alexeyev (1979). "Soviet-Korean Cooperation." Far Eastern Affairs. Moscow 1 (1979): 78-87. Baek, Jong Chun.(1981). A Quantitative Analysis of the Conflictive Interactions between South and Korth Korea, 1953-1978." Korea Observer 12:3 : 304-338. Baek, Jong Chun (1983). "The Conflict in the Korean Peninsula, 1953-1961." Korea Observer, North Korea. 14:2: 145-171. Read More