Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea

Memorandum
Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea
To: President Donald Trump
CC: Professor Shirk
From: Foreign Policy Analyst, Victoria Hassan
Subject: The North Korean Nuclear Arsenal Dilemma
Issue:

If not already, North Korea is very close to achieving nuclear armed international ballistic missile capability that is capable of reaching the United States and other regions of North America. Even to experts, North Korea’s motive and intentions for building up a nuclear arsenal have been quite unclear and unpredictable. Recently, there has been much debate as to whether or not the United States should take military action regarding North Korea’s reluctance to denuclearize the entire Korean Peninsula. However, U.S. military action and complete U.S.  inaction are not the only options for dealing with North Korea.

Option 1: Trump-Kim Summit Peaceful Negotiations
Avoiding military action and possibly the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea would be a very wise decision on the United States’s part, considering that mutually assured destruction is likely to occur if a nuclear war were to break out. However, inaction does not solve the problem at hand. Thus, it may be wise to follow through with a peaceful meeting with North Korea in order to negotiate the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Additionally, the term “denuclearization” has often been defined differently by the United States and North Korea, creating a considerable misunderstanding. In order to ensure that this meeting is successful, it is important to make sure that certain terms such as “denuclearization” are clearly and adequately defined between the two parties. In this way, all parties will have a clear picture of what will happen going forward regarding North Korean actions to denuclearize. This will most likely allow for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula without the need for military action or the result of mutually assured destruction.

Option 2: Coercive Approach
Another possible solution to the North Korean nuclear arsenal dilemma would be to conduct a coercive approach, requiring the application of continuous and unbreaking United States, regional and global pressure on North Korea to denuclearize the peninsula. This strategy is likely to be successful without the fear that it would lead to the self-destruction of the United States. The Trump Administration must pursue a reinforced relationship with United Nations allies, considering that the United Nations has been quite successful at maintaining sanctions. While strengthening United Nations alliances, it is also important for the United States to strengthen its alliances with Japan and South Korea by enhancing the military technology used within this alliance. This will send North Korea a strong message that attacking just one of these nations, means attacking all of these nations. In this way, North Korea might be coerced by these United States efforts and feel pressured to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and avert Kim Jong Un from taking any impulsive military actions against the United States and its allies.

Possible Counterarguments:
Some might argue that peaceful negotiations between the United States and North Korea will not be efficient or successful, considering that North Korea has had a history of backing out of agreements (i.e. North Korea’s withdrawal from the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1994). It is very clear that Kim Jong Un’s main concern is gaining and maintaining power within his regime and internationally. Thus, it is quite possible that Kim Jong Un will not be open to complete denuclearization. For Kim Jong Un, complete denuclearization would mean a loss of power for North Korea and it would show the power of the United States over North Korea. Thus, if negotiations fail, some believe that this failure will lead to the outbreak of a major nuclear war between the United States and North Korea. Additionally, some might argue that if peaceful negotiations will be unsuccessful, then military action against North Korea is the only way to pressure Kim Jong Un into carrying out the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Importance of Peaceful Solutions:

However, an in-person meeting with Kim Jong Un would be quite advantageous to the relationship between the two nations. This meeting would be a major act of diplomacy that could perhaps ‘build a bridge’ between the two nations. As for the argument for U.S. military action against North Korea, this would be a very dangerous tactic. Military action would be a major risk to the American people. Though many officials within the Trump Administration believe that a preventive military strike is the answer to the dilemma, this is not the best solution. An outright military strike against North Korea would ultimately shock the nation and cause them to immediately retaliate against the United States. This would most likely lead to a military war in which neither the United States nor North Korea could survive. Thus, if the United States were to pursue a large military strike against North Korea, this might only exacerbate the problem. It seems very unlikely that peaceful negotiations with North Korea would lead to a war because both the United States and North Korea are well aware that a nuclear war would lead to the complete destruction of both nations.



Overall, it is imperative to take peaceful and non-military approaches to the nuclear arsenal dilemma in North Korea. By pursuing peaceful strategies such as negotiations and the pressure from coercion, the United States can avoid risking American lives and mutually assured destruction.



Works Cited
Drezner, Daniel W. “Perspective | What the Heck Will Happen at the Trump-Kim Summit?”The


Washington Post, WP Company, 12 Mar. 2018,



Cha, Victor. “Opinion | Victor Cha: Giving North Korea a 'Bloody Nose' Carries a Huge Risk to
Americans.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 30 Jan. 2018,
a-huge-risk-to-americans/2018/01/30/43981c94-05f7-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.ht
ml?utm_term=.5f55314187f9.

Comments

  1. UnknownApril 3, 2018 at 6:16 PM

    I think that you have a really strong analysis and that you do a really good job of clearly explaining the complexity of the issues regarding US foreign policy towards North Korea and their nuclear weapons program. I agree that the United States should take any measures necessary to avoid military engagement with North Korea. Not only will this lead to the potential for nuclear war between the two countries, but it will also heighten tensions between the US and China and Russia. However, I am not necessarily sold on the suggestion to engage North Korea in a summit. While I believe that summits are a great way to open negotiations between conflicting countries, I think that a summit with North Korea is an exception. In my mind this would be just as bad as engaging into negotiations with ISIS and recognizing ISIS as a legitimate power. Maybe this is an extreme reaction, however I do not believe that Kim Jong Un should be legitimized.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownApril 5, 2018 at 8:08 PM

      Thank you so much for your feedback, Rachael! Yes, I definitely agree that it is best to avoid any kind of military interaction with North Korea, especially to avoid a nuclear war. In addition, I can understand your hesitation in regards to the possibility of peaceful negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea at a potential summit. Yes, I see how a summit between President Trump and Kim Jong Un would legitimize Kim Jong Un’s power. However, I feel as though the summit option should still be considered as a viable alternative to military action, which would likely have worse consequences than the potential Trump-Kim summit. Although I see your point, I do think it is more crucial to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula for the safety of the international community than to avoid legitimizing Kim Jong Un’s power.

      Delete
  2. UnknownMay 6, 2018 at 7:56 PM

    This memorandum was very well written. I agree that a peaceful resolution is the only way this can be achieved. An invasion of North Korean would be a repeat of the Vietnam war in which the U.S. took heavy casualties as a result of underestimating the enemy. Guerrilla warfare was the downfall of the U.S. because the U.S. would control every major city; however, the U.S, could not control the forests because the army was not well equipped for jungle warfare. I do not know if you have been keeping up with the news lately but it seems that some progress has been made since both North and South Korea agreed to formally end the Korean War. This was an important first step. I have also heard that Kim Jong Un also said that he has been open to negotiating with the U.S. to reduce his nuclear weapons capacity.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

U.S Foreign Policy towards Middle East

After World War II, the overriding concern of American foreign policy was finding a new way to check Soviet expansion and influence throughout the world. The Middle East, specifically, was a vulnerable target for the U.S. and Soviet Union after British and French colonialism. That said, US foreign policy towards the Middle East was not completely linear during the past century. Instead, it can be divided into two periods — during the Cold War and after the Cold War. During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was mostly a reaction to Soviet strength, position, and action. [1] After the Cold War, the Middle East — being considered as part of the Third World, was to be “exploited” for the needs of the industrial societies and to “fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market.”[2] In other words, peace and oil have been the main focus of US foreign policy in the Middle East after the Cold War.  During the Cold War, the Soviet goal was to achieve strategic pari...
Read more

Memorandum on US policy on the Paris Agreement

TO: President Donald Trump FROM: Matt Fitzgerald DATE: April 29, 2018 SUBJECT: Memorandum on US policy on the Paris Agreement Introduction Climate change has been increasingly affecting Earth ever since the industrial revolution. Earth has been becoming warmer every month. Sea levels have been rising, and coastlines have been disappearing. Something needs to be done so that the effects of climate change do not become permanent. There have been many failed global attempts to decrease our carbon emissions, and many countries including the three largest polluters, the U.S., China, and India are reluctant to do so. Only one attempt looks promising to help start the trend towards using green energy. The Paris Accords might not be perfect, but it is a good start to the world using green energy. Option 1 Pulling out of the Accords will be a reckless long-term decision. The U.S. needs to be the leader of the free world. The U.S. is the largest polluter in terms of population. W...
Read more