USFP Towards North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program

Memorandum on U.S. Foreign Policy Towards North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program

TO: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

CC: Mark Shirk

FROM: Foreign Analyst Rachael Feldhausen

DATE: March 25th, 2018

SUBJECT: Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program

It is currently believed that North Korea may finally have developed a functioning nuclear missile capable of reaching the United States mainland. Given the threat that North Korea poses to the United States and U.S. allies, it is important that the U.S. work to denuclearize North Korea. Plans have been made to summon a summit between the U.S., North Korea, and thirteen other countries, to initiate talks of denuclearization. There have also been talks of taking direct military action against North Korea to encourage them to denuclearize. However, Trump and his administration should pull out of the summit, not engage militarily unless provoked by North Korean military action, and continue the Obama administration’s plan of strategic patience and the implementation of tougher sanctions.

BACKGROUND

North Korea is a communist state that has long been a threat to the United States. It’s current leader, Kim Jong Un, is known to be a brutal dictator who starves his country, killed his own uncle, and has made many threats to the United States. North Korea has pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003, and has since worked to rapidly increase its nuclear capabilities. While the extent of their capabilities is unknown, it is almost certain that North Korea has the ability to at least send nuclear missiles to neighboring countries including South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia.

TASK

It should be the goal of the United States to denuclearize North Korea. Not only does North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons threaten the U.S., and the major U.S. allies of South Korea and Japan. While imminent nuclear war is unlikely, allowing a communist state that is led by a seemingly irrational leader to sit on a bed of nuclear missiles is against the long term interest of the United States, as the future is always uncertain.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Solution 1: President Trump has called for a North Korea - United States Summit to initiate talks of the denuclearization of North Korea. The goal of these talks is to work towards peaceful negotiations between the two countries and the eventual denuclearization of North Korea through these negotiations.

Solution 2: Taking preemptive military action on North Korea to encourage them, through the use of military force, to rid themselves of their nuclear weapons. This strike would most likely be a joint effort between the U.S. and South Korea and would involve the combined “use of land forces, aircraft, and American sea-launched missiles” (“Here’s How the Preemptive Strike Against North Korea Would Play Out” The Hill). These forces would attack major nuclear plants and weapons facilities.

Solution 3: Continuing the Obama administration’s foreign policy plan of strategic patience and imposing increased economic sanctions on North Korea. Strategic patients is basically refusing to acknowledge North Korea or have any negotiations with North Korea until they submit to denuclearization. Economic sanctions make it difficult for North Korea to garner enough money to fund their nuclear program.

IMPLEMENTATION

In the end, the best way to denuclearize North Korea without starting a nuclear war is to continue strategic patience and increase economic sanctions on North Korea. The U.S. should pull out of talks to engage North Korea in a summit. Recognizing North Korea as a global power is what Kim Jong Un wants, and we will therefore only be playing into his demands. Furthermore, the Trump administration has given no indication that it is willing to compromise with North Korea. Unwillingness to compromise will only heighten tensions with North Korea and not aid the U.S. in it’s goal of denuclearizing the State. A preemptive military strike is also against the interest of the United States as it will most likely lead to war with North Korea and or China and Russia who are both allied with North Korea.

Ultimately, given that the goal of the United States should be to denuclearize North Korea without causing an all out war, than it is in the best interest of the United States Foreign Policy to continue strategic patience and implement stronger economic sanctions which will force North Korea to eventually give in to U.S. demands.

Comments

  1. UnknownMarch 31, 2018 at 9:30 AM

    I really enjoyed reading your post and I found your suggestions to be quite interesting! I absolutely agree with your statement about the fact that the United States must take action to denuclearize North Korea, especially since it is very important to the United States to protect other nations and their well-being. You argue that President Trump should pull out of the potential United States - North Korea Summit because you believe that this will only give Kim Jong Un the power that he wants. While I do agree with you to an extent, I also believe that peaceful negotiations between President Trump and Kim Jong Un might be beneficial to the relationship between the United States and North Korea. For many reasons, a summit between the two nations is a good diplomacy strategy and Kim Jong Un might even be willing to negotiate denuclearization. Do you think the U.S. should completely rule out a summit with North Korea? Why or why not?

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownApril 3, 2018 at 5:30 PM

    In response to your comment, I guess that I have hesitations in thinking that North Korea will be willing to denuclearize. I believe that this would be directly against the interest of Kim Jong Un as it would require him to give up power that he so desperately seems to crave. Furthermore, Trump's rhetoric has seem to suggest that he is similarly unwilling to compromise. If both parties are unwilling to compromise than I can only surmise that a summit will not only be ineffective, but potentially even detrimental to US-North Korean relations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownMay 6, 2018 at 8:12 PM

    This memorandum was great. I also agree that strategic patience is the best option. a military assault would be too costly and too risky. It would be a repeat of Vietnam. The U.S. suffered heavy casualties during the Vietnam War because the army was not equipped to fight in the jungles of Vietnam. The U.S. had no problem capturing and holding the cities, but there was no effective way to control the country side due to North Vietnam's strategy of guerrilla warfare. Recent developments have shown that the U.S.'s strategy of strategic patience has paid off with the announcement that the leaders of both North and South Korea have agreed to formally end the Korean War. So overall, i believe that strategic patience was the best option.

    ReplyDelete
  4. UnknownMay 7, 2018 at 6:08 PM

    I think your memo is quite well thought out. I agree that we should choose economic sanctions over military force. However, given the historic cooperation between North Korea and South Korea recently, I think NK had no intention to use their nukes from the start, it is purely a diplomatic tool to develop the country. That is, nuclear missiles had given North Korea leverage to talk as equals with the US. In order to develop the country, Kim Jong-Un needs to cut military funding. In order to not get bombed by the US while cutting military funding, he needs nuclear weapons and a negotiated peace treaty. His strategy is the repeat of what China did from 1960–1980. First nukes, then negotiations, then cut military funding and open up.

    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

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 agai...
Read more