Analysis of North Korea and Kim Jong Un (original) (raw)
Related papers
M. G. Ciot (2018), New Researches in International Relations, Presa Universitara Clujeana, 2018
It is not difficult to support the claims that North Korea is both a rogue state (refusing to accept certain international responsibilities) and a threat to international peace and security (the nuclear ballistic missile programme). However, the scope of this paper is not to analyse the reasons that led to North Korea's notorious accomplishments, neither to reveal the disturbing human-rights abuses taking place regularly, nor to discuss the depths of state control and oppression of the North Korean people, which, from time to time, surprise even the most jaded of experts. The scope of this article is to assess North Korea's decision-making process in relation with the Trump Administration's change of policy towards the DPRK, thought the words and actions of Kim Jong-un, the country's eccentric dictator. Kim Jong-un became North Korea's Supreme leader in late 2011, following the death of his father, Kim Jong-il. From the start, many tried to portray the young Kim as a degenerate and ruthless dictator, part of which is true, part of which is biased and due to the Western, mostly the US', distaste for anything or anyone which does not share their values, thus adding to the fears of an already paranoid regime. Nevertheless, the new Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un, has made the headlines by engaging in a very complex and surprisingly able foreign policy by mixing nuclear threats with dialogue with its Southem neighbour. This has marked a premiere as the two Koreas have stopped trans-border cooperation and ceased any communications more than two years ago. This would also mark a premiere for the new South Korean Administration, which is actively seeking dialogue and cooperation, even as the rhetoriccoming from the South's main ally, the United States, indicates otherwise, with President Trump threatening military action to stop the North Korean nuclear programme.
Journal of Peace and War Studies, 2019
Since the end of the Korean War (1950-1953), North Korea has tenaciously sought to develop nuclear capabilities despite harsh external pressure and sanctions, and thus it poses a serious threat to the international community. What has motivated North Korea to persistently develop nuclear weapons? Under what conditions has North Korea been able to obtain them? How should the US resolve the North Korean nuclear problem? In responding to these questions, this article first articulates the key external and internal reasons behind North Korea’s nuclear development, including US military threats, distrust toward the Soviet Union (later Russia) and China, lessons on regime survival deriving from the cases of Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine, weak conventional forces, and unstable domestic conditions. The article then looks into how systemic elements, such as a weak Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) system and the US-China rivalry have indirectly helped the economically fragile nation to manufacture nuclear weapons. The article concludes by delineating several policy implications for North Korea’s denuclearization.
US FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS NORTH KOREA DURING Donald Trump updated 1 2
It is dire need of the age to deal with globalize environment. This is highly interactive environment for countries of the world in contemporary era. As there are no defined rules and regulations are observed between countries as stated by international institutions like: UN or other regional blocs. Each country interacts with rest of the world according to her power capacity. Same situation can be seen in the case of US-North Korean ties. This paper deals with the trend shifts between US-North Korean ties after implementation of Trump Policies in American political environment.
The evolution of the nuclear program (technical progress, doctrine etc.) of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has made the coerced nuclear disarmament of the country unfeasible and dangerous. New motivating factors within DPRK and the arms race in Northeast Asia (NEA) are diminishing the chances of voluntary disarmament. It has become clear that sanctions and pressure against DPRK do not solve the problem, but only lead to a dead end. Under certain conditions, this approach can even lead to the outbreak of conflict or nuclear proliferation. Thus, it is necessary to look for new ways to address the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue. For this purpose, the international community must move away from old approaches and towards new initiatives. One of the most promising ideas at the moment is the creation of a NEA Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone (NWFZ). This initiative implies a fundamentally new approach to DPRK that cannot be underestimated by its leadership. With flexibility and due consideration of the interests of all NEA countries, the implementation of NEA NWFZ initiative could really contribute to the peaceful solution of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. Over the past year, the tensions in Northeast Asia increased and the crisis on the Korean Peninsula escalated significantly. The nuclear and missile programs of DPRK accelerated drastically since the beginning of 2016; joint US-ROK exercises in the region have become even more provocative, taking into account the presence of nuclear weapons and the simulation by the United States of America (USA) and Republic of Korea (ROK) of a " decapitation strike " , designed to take out the top leadership of the DPRK. USA and ROK have agreed on the deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems 1 on the Korean Peninsula and countries whose interests are threatened by these systems have already undertaken military-technical countermeasures. Russia and China are improving their strategic capabilities, developing hypersonic weapons to overcome US missile defense 2 and their expert communities 1 THAAD is a system designed to shoot down short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase. A THAAD battery consists of launcher vehicles equipped with missiles, with two mobile tactical operations centers (TOCs) and the AN/TPY-2 ground-based radar (GBR) which is capable of detecting not only ballistic targets (missiles), but also aerodynamic ones (aircraft).
International attention concerned to Korean peninsula since the Korean War in 1953. The US as the world leading countries imposed sanction to the North Korea from international trade in order to enforce the country to eliminate mass destructive weapon (Choi, J.W. et.al, 2007). In 1994, the US facilitated South Korea and North Korea to sign the Agreed Framework. Under the agreement, North Korea agreed to replace its nuclear reactor to light water reactor which less dangerous. However, the North Korean commitment was not long lived. North Korea declared that the country was developing uranium and reactivated its nuclear reactor in 2002. Then, the country withdrew from NPT in 2004. International community put more attention since North Korea launched nuclear test in 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016, and recently in 2017 (Lee, Y.S., 2017) In responding this issue, it will be interesting to analyze about nuclear weapon development in North Korea and its effect toward regional stability. Although North Korean and South Korean leader recently have historical meeting to strengthen diplomatic relation of both countries, but, it does not guarantee that nuclear test by North Korea will be stopped. This is because North Korean track record in implementing treaty was unreliable. Therefore, nuclear still become tangible threats in Asia-Pacific region due to its uncertainty. This essay will proceed as follow; after short introduction provided in section 1, there are three more additional sections on this essay. Section 2 will explain the big picture of North Korean nuclear threat. After that, the essay will provide some responds from several countries related to North Korean nuclear. Then, discussion and writer arguments will be elaborated in section 4. The last part of the essay will provide conclusion and writer’s core analysis.
The Link Between Deteriorating Sino-North Korean Relations and Kim Jong-Un's 2016 Nuclear Threats
Early in the morning on January 4, 2016, residents of Chinese city Yanji woke to a new sensation: an explosion that could be felt as "if the earth was vibrating". What they probably did not know at the time was that North Korea would soon claim that the vibration originated from the successful detonation of a hydrogen bomb. Even though it has not been independently confirmed whether North Korea actually did detonate a hydrogen bomb, the event sent shockwaves throughout the world. Soon thereafter, the United Nations Security Council voted for harsh sanctions against the already isolated country. North Korea's long time friend China was perhaps the actor most upset with Kim jong-un's public display, condemning the tests as a serious threat to regional and international security (CNA, 2016). In fact, as will be made evident in this paper, China is also the key factor for understanding why North Korea chose to go through with the detonation in the first place. During the last year, Sino-North Korean relations have significantly deteriorated. Ever since the Korean War, North Korea has been virtually dependent on support from China to survive, and the relationship between the countries has famously been described "as close as lips and teeth" (Dor, 2015). In the last year, however, relations between China and North Korea have taken a turn for the worse, and Beijing has retorted to viewing Kim Jong-un as a threat to the stability of the Korean peninsula (Chung, 2015). In this essay, the basic assumption is that North Korea sees its deteriorating relationship with China as a threat to its survival. At a first glance, the logic of North Korea's decision to proclaim that it has detonated a hydrogen bomb may be seen as is not immediately obvious from a survival standpoint. It will be argued, however, that the hazard of seeing China forge increasingly closer ties with South Korea leaves little policy choices left for Kim Jong-un but to strike a blow to both countries at the same time.
DPRK AS DE FACTO NUCLEAR STATE: WHAT'S NEXT?
Recent acceleration of the nuclear and missile program (technical progress, doctrine etc.) has made the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) de facto nuclear state. In this connection, the further intentions and steps of North Korean leadership are of specific interest. The present article analyzes current state of the DPRK nuclear and missile programs and strategic planning and attempts to determine the further development of nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula. Key words: DPRK, nuclear and missile program, Russia, double freezing initiative, NEA NWFZ Opinions on the level of the DPRK nuclear and missile programs are various, but the majority of experts recognize that it has already become an actor other regional countries have to reckon with. DPRK has not yet tested ICBM equipped with nuclear warhead. However, the samples of weapons demonstrated by the country since the beginning of last year indicate that the DPRK is capable of overcoming existing missile defense systems and delivering nuclear weapons to any point of the territories of ROK and Japan.
How North Korea Views China: Quantitative Analysis of Korean Central News Agency Reports
The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 2018
How does the North Korean government view China? This study examines North Korea’s foreign policy on China by analyzing the strategic options of North Korean leaders and applying sentiment analysis to Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reports about China. It is found that North Korea’s generally positive attitude toward China contains nuanced types of sentiments and that North Korean leaders have managed the expression of these sentiments in the media to achieve political goals at domestic and international levels. Our findings also suggest that, first, China may not be the key to the solution of the Korean nuclear issue. Second, Kim Jong Un was not a weak leader from the beginning of his rule. Rather he had acquired a substantial amount of authority before Kim Jong Il passed away. Based on our findings, an analysis of the future development of the North Korea–China relationship is also provided.