The stand-off between the North Korea and the US about nuclear weapon development has been ongoing for long. Several issues surround the persistent threats by North Korea and its sudden interest in the development of nuclear weapons. Many parties have attempted to negotiate the end of the nuclear weapon and sale of ballistic arsenals (Forge 81-104). The efforts to denuclearize the world have been full of frustrations marred with the uncertain stalemate. At some points, there have been signs of progress, but all seem to be in vain after certain periods. It is important for the world powers to denuclearize the volatile nations for fear of wreaking havoc. The global security is a matter of significant magnitude and must be provided at all costs. However, the quest by security agencies to enhance safety has been marred with numerous challenges and cases of incorporation spearheaded by the enemies of the West who find such endeavor too good to relinquish.
The nuclear nonproliferation has been a real challenge and America has attempted several policy alterations to scatter North Korea’s plans to develop nuclear weapons. However, North Korea remains the hardest challenge to the implementation of the nonproliferation policy as it has defied the calls and agreement to continue. Numerous security measures have been taken to North Korea, but none has been successful. Given security experts, it is critical to handle North Korea with care due to its alleged volatility. In this respect, US have taken strict measures including economic sanctions. They have even adopted nonproliferation mechanisms to control the export of dangerous arsenals. On several occasions, America has had military cooperation with the neighbors of North Korea as a move to subject them to pressure so that they can conform to the demands of nonproliferation (Alexander 1-29). Despite the efforts, North Korea has always responded unpredictably by accepting certain changes than acting in contrast later on thereby serving a significant setback to the efforts put by the international community. The move by North Korea to develop nuclear weapons has been created tension between the two nations. There have been huge diplomatic initiatives by the US in which an agreement was reached. The first agreement was intended for North Korea to seize development of dangerous weapons and in return receive aid.
However, the efforts to have Pyongyang abandon its production of nuclear arsenals did not last long, and it was not obeyed. Under the Agreed Framework, Pyongyang was to freeze its program of illegal plutonium weapons and get economic aid as a result. In 1994, North Korea announced that it intended to withdraw from Nonproliferation Treaty. It required that the non-nuclear nations forswore the acquisition and development of nuclear weapons (Alexander 1-29). It is at this time that the Agreed Framework was ratified. The year 2002 saw the collapse of the agreement and the following year North Korea made its intention of continuing to conduct nuclear program bear. In 2003, North Korea made its withdrawal intentions from NPT and began the operation of its facilities for developing nuclear weapons. The moved washed away all the gains and the achievements of the first diplomatic efforts by the international community. In 2003, August, the second diplomatic effort began. In this second attempt, the great Six-Party Talks was initiated. The talks brought together six nations mostly the neighbors of the North Korea. It included Japan, South Korea, China, Russia, North Korea, and the US. The negotiations lasted for more than two years and North Korea eventually agreed to return to the Nonproliferation Treaty. As a result, it pledged and agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons as well as the nuclear programs. The agreement was reached in 2005. The efforts seemed fruitful, and further efforts were made to ensure the implementation of the agreed resolutions (Early 43-58). A move was made in 2007 to ensure that set of procedure and a framework for implementation were created by the parties involved in the 2005 negotiation. Numerous steps were agreed upon to help in the implementation of the agreement.
Following the frameworks, there seemed light in the fight to control the use of nuclear weapons. However, events that preceded the agreement led to the permanent declaration by North Korea that it was no longer a party to the nonproliferation agreements and had no intention to return to such agreement. The agreement was dealt a great setback in 2009 when the disagreements ensued over the verification of the implementation of the agreement. During this period, North Korean rocket launch was intentionally condemned. The move made Pyongyang take a resentful decision against the agreement and decided to exclude itself the efforts for nonproliferation and has since conducted numerous launches as a sign of authority and assertion of their freedom to exercise their will. It declared that it is not bound by the 2005 agreement anymore and has since carried out series of threats of launching nuclear attacks (Early 43-58). Despite North Korea pulling out of the agreement and refusing to honor its resolutions, the other parties did not make any contradictory move and remained the party to the agreements thereby putting pressure. They remained committed to those talks and are always calling for Pyongyang to reconsider its decision to abandon its pledges of 2005 that had been imperative to denuclearization efforts.
Chronological account of the efforts
In 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union and its virtual dissolution left North Korea in a precarious position since Russia was its primary ally and much of the economic support came from the Soviet Union. Despite China filling the gap, North Korea did not have much trust with the neighbor and anticipated less affection from China (Denis 34-40). Due to this collapse of Soviet Union, it had lost its key protector in the Soviet Union. To encounter the US conventional power, it considered developing nuclear weapons to help protect against the looming enmity.
In 1993 Clinton administration moved to make a deal with the North Korean government after it announced its withdrawal from NPT. After the announcement, issues ensued and Atomic Energy Agency asserted that it had no verification that North Korea was using the nuclear material in its possession for peaceful purposes. It is during this time that the Clinton administration tried to negotiate the Agreed Framework. North Korea then consented to the terms and was promised economic and diplomatic concessions in return. The efforts meant that it would no longer have a strained relationship with the US thus limit external threats. It thus agreed to dismantle its programs for unity with the rest of the world. In the aftermath of longtime tyrant Kim II Sung’s death, his son became the successor, Kim Jong II. After that, catastrophe struck in the form of famine leading to mass deaths of North Korean people. It is approximated that up to 2.5 million people died as a result of the famine. The main reason for the disastrous famine was the absence of Soviet aid and the subsequent collapse of its food provision system. In a bid to secure North Korea, Kim Jong II militarized the country and created the Songun doctrine in which military was at the heart of the Korean nation. According to scholars, the system provided both external and internal legitimacy to the government (Denis 34-40). The system further put pressure on the civilians and expected them to make huge sacrifices for the military so that it could protect them from external intrusion. It is thus declared full funding despite the striking poverty. In efforts to justify the need for civilian sacrifices, it ignited external threat by attempting to assert authority by acquiring the most lethal military world to be able to protect its territories and keep enemies in check (Miyagiwa & Yuka 8-17). It justified their reason to acquire a nuclear weapon.
In 1998, it tested the long-range missile that seemed a provocation in the view of the international community. During the time, the negotiations were ongoing and thus it was never taken with a kind heart. It demonstrated a clear lack of commitment to the negotiations. Their attempts to send satellite up were met with an explosion of the fuel tank (Miyagiwa & Yuka 8-17).
When President Bush took office in 2001, his approach to the North Korean circumstances changed and a new approach was depolyed. The policy had shifted, and the era of negotiation was long overdue. The Bush administration was convinced that North Korea lacked the zeal and intent to relinquish its nuclear behavior. It saw the collapse of Agreed Framework which then was followed by the eviction of the IAEA monitors (Miyagiwa & Yuka 8-17). It then rolled out the nuclear program. Sooner the negotiations began in which six parties were involved including North Korea. However, the negotiations dragged and as Bush invaded Iraq for the possession of weapons of mass destruction and as part of what was referred to as the axis of evil. North Korea had been named alongside Iraq. The move saw Korea up its commitment to have nuclear weapons for protection against a possible threat.
In 2006, it launched Taepodong-2, a missile that could reach certain parts of the US. It however failed. It left serious questions about the intentions of North Korea and global security. At this point, negotiations were to begin from a different point altogether since North Korea were now in possession of the nuclear bomb. As a result of the test, UN Security Council resolved to condemn the test and further imposed economic sanctions on North Korea (Estes 23-35). After the failed test, it showed indications of openness to denuclearization. However, experts were skeptical that North Korea would give up its nuclear capability for any reason.
In 2009, just a year into Obama administration it carried out a second nuclear test. The test further indicated its lack of commitment to denuclearization and signaled Korea’s attempt to expand the nuclear arsenal. Further economic sanctions were slapped on North Korea, but the Kim government did not care. The efforts by the international community have since proved futile, and North Korea is not showing any sign of giving up their hard built nuclear arsenal at the expense of anything (Estes 23-35).
In 2012, another rocket launch failed, and the Unha-3 rocket disintegrated just after the launch. North Korea further tested another nuclear device in 2013 thus making many to wonder why it was performing so many tests if it had the nuclear weapon (Mousavian, 183-202). The move was seen as an attempt to provoke the West. In conformity with the Songun doctrine, the nation must keep making combative advances.
As the world still figure out what they could do further to create sanity in the use of military artillery, North Korea claimed in 2015 to have made hydrogen bomb then in 2016 launched tested another bomb that it said was hydrogen. It has since been considered a serious threat due to its advanced capabilities over the nuclear bomb.
How Machiavelli would have handled North Korea
The beliefs of Machiavelli culminate around combative ideologies aimed at advancing interests with recklessness where necessary. As asserted in his wisdom, the line of demarcation between nature of trouble and choice of lesser evil must be distinguishable. Machiavelli argues that certain actions might require pugnacious and harsher condemnation rather than diplomatic engagements. He denotes that the nature of an action should determine the use of coercive response. From this school of thought, the North Korean issue is too intractable and does not warrant any peaceful resolution. It has overcome even subtle, and skillful diplomatic negotiations, therefore, would call for a more combative action instead of non-violent aggression. In this respect, Machiavelli would have gone the combat way against North Korea.
Conclusion
Despite efforts to harness the use of weapons of mass destruction, North Korea is a determined nation that wants to showcase military prowess by provoking the West to demonstrate the necessity of the Songun. It justifies their relentless attempts to frustrate peace efforts and agreements. However, the numerous tests by North Korea are a clear indication of the rudimentary capacity in nuclear development no wonders the several failed tests.
Work Cited
Alexander, Kimett. "The Development of the International Initiative on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons and Its Effect on the Nuclear Weapons Debate." Int. Rev. Red Cross International Review of the Red Cross (2016): 1-29. Web.
Dennis E. "Developing a System Architecture for Managing the Nuclear Weapons Enterprise in the Context of a Comprehensive Policy Portfolio." Insight 12.2 (2009): 34-40. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.
Early, Bryan R. "Not a Double-Edged Sword: Why U.S. Economic Sanctions Encourage the Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons, but Can't Prevent Their Acquisition." SSRN Electronic Journal SSRN Journal (2016): 43-58. Web.
Estes, Kenneth W. "Weapons of Mass Destruction." The Encyclopedia of War (2011): 23-35. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.
Forge, John. "The Development of Nuclear Weapons." Research Ethics Forum Designed to Kill: The Case Against Weapons Research (2015): 81-104. Web
Miyagiwa, Kaz, and Yuka Ohno. "Nuclear Bombs and Economic Sanctions." Southern Economic Journal (2015): 8-17. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.
Mousavian, Hossein. "Iran, the US and Weapons of Mass Destruction." Survival 54.5 (2012): 183-202. Web.
