North Korea-U.S. Nuclear Negotiations
The Korean War stopped when an armistice was signed by the nations involved. The armistice stopped aggressive acts by both parties, but it did not bring the war to an end. The Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK) and South Korea have since been in a long stalemate. The North Korean government has been preparing for the resumption of the war by investing in military training and the acquisition of weapons such as nuclear bombs and missiles. This paper uses the realism/neorealism, liberalism/neoliberalism, and social constructivism lens to analyze North Korea and U.S. nuclear negotiations
The North Korean nuclear program began in 1965 as a reconstruction of North Korea after the war. A small research nuclear reactor was constructed by the Soviet Union. The nuclear research facility was placed under the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards to ensure its peaceful use. In 1980, the United States discovered a larger reactor in North Korea, which led the U.S., for the first time, to confront North Korea about its nuclear weapons program. The claim that the research reactors were for peaceful use was denied by the United States after India had used a plutonium research reactor from Canada and imported heavy water from the U.S. to explode its first nuclear bomb in 1974 (Wit, Poneman, & Gallucci, 2004). The acquisition of nuclear weapons by India made the U.S. interfere and stop nuclear programs started by many countries, including South Korea. North Korea continued with its nuclear program even after signing the nuclear nonproliferation treaty until it exploded its first nuclear weapon in the year 2006.
Realism and Neorealism in U.S-North Korea Nuclear Negotiations
Realism is an International Relations approach that focuses on the human nature of states. The realists view human nature in a negative light, with humans seen as self-interested, fearful, and are aggressive, seeking power to dominate others. States are seen as having these self-centered qualities. The international environment lacks hierarchy; therefore, giving rise to an anarchical system where states are aggressive and seek power to dominate others to ensure their own survival and security. The drive for survival is what realists compare to the human nature of self-interest and the need for survival.
On the other hand, neorealism emphasizes that human nature and individual decision-makers don’t matter in international relations but rather the state and the international system. Neorealism states that the distribution of power across the international system is the most important factor that determines the behavior of a nation, therefore, the actions a nation takes are as a result of external factors but not the individual human nature of the people in power in that nation (Zavada, 2019).
Under the realism approach of international relations, the United States and North Korea, nuclear negotiations are seen as the self-interest of countries that seek power to dominate others. They are aggressive, and they both face a dilemma on how to ensure their security and their survival. The presence of United States nuclear weapons in South Korea in the 1960s made North Korea feel threatened and therefore sought to arm themselves to ensure their security by deterring the United States from attacking with nuclear weapons (Wit, Poneman, & Gallucci, 2004). The move by the United States to protect itself and its ally by placing nuclear weapons in South Korea had a direct effect on causing North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons. The arming of both sides is as a result of the zero-sum game in which gains in security by one nation results in losses in security by the other nation. The North Korea-United States negotiations have stalled due to the need for security and survival of both nations with neither side willing to lose their advantage and allow a relative security gain of the other side.
The North Korea-United States nuclear negotiations, when seen through the neorealism lens, show that state power distribution as the most important aspect of the negotiation. North Korea is motivated to acquire and use nuclear weapons as a means to an end to ensure their security. This approach is considered a defensive realism (Zavada, 2019). This approach was also applied early on by the United States after the Korean War to protect South Korea from North Korean aggression. The United States was prepared to use its nuclear weapons in North Korea. Inoffensive realism, states use power to dominate other nations to ensure their security (Zavada, 2019). The United States uses its economic power and international influence to isolate and apply economic sanctions to North Korea to limit its war nuclear program (Wit, Poneman, & Gallucci, 2004). The sanctions are a portrayal of United States domination and its offensive effort to stop the North Korea nuclear program to ensure its security. On the other hand, North Korea uses its nuclear program as a bargaining chip in negotiation to force the United States to ease economic sanctions (Chanlett-Avery, & Taylor, 2010). North Korea uses its capability to attack South Korea and Japan, both U.S. allies not only as a means but an end to dominate the negotiations and carry out aggressive missile and nuclear bomb test.
Liberalism and Neoliberalism in U.S-North Korea Nuclear Negotiations
There are many variations of liberalism in international relations. However, there are three major types of liberalism which are: republican liberalism, commercial liberalism, and sociological liberalism. Under democratic liberalism, it is assumed that democratic nations are less likely to engage in a conflict with each other. The democratic institutions which are founded and established with checks and balances are more stable and less likely to act radically (Moravcsik, 1992). Democratic nations also have separation of powers, ensuring no single department can act alone on international issues. The United States is a democratic nation where the president is elected every four years for a maximum of two terms. United States constitution ensures separation of power between the judiciary, legislative, and executive arms of the government. This ensures the government does not act without following the proper process when dealing with the North Korean nuclear threat. On the other hand, despite its name, North Korea is not a democratic country. Its supreme leader has absolute power over all different aspects of the Korean government. This fact makes North Korea foreign relations under individual variables and, therefore, subject to radical and unpredictable changes. Nuclear negotiations between the two nations don’t progress rapidly because North Korea is not a democratic country.
In commercial liberalism, trade between nations prevents war and conflict. Nations are motivated to negotiate and avoid war since the war will interrupt trade and their economic stability. It is, therefore, clear that nations with strong trade and interdepended economies are less likely to go to war since they stand to lose. The United States has imposed economic sanctions on North Korea, resulting in an isolated country without interdependence (Chanlett-Avery, & Taylor, 2010). The lack of trade between the two nations and economic interdependence makes them more likely to engage in a war because they don’t lose trade during a conflict. The increased probability of war causes both nations to act aggressively to protect themselves from the treat by acquiring nuclear weapons in the case of North Korea.
In sociological liberalism, countries that have an exchange of cultural ideas and values are less likely to go to war with each other. There is a trust between the two nations and their societies share ties and understand each other. Relations between the two nations are strong and are not affected by regime change. North Korean society is closed off from the world; therefore there is little to identify with. There is no cultural exchange between American and Korean societies making the less likely to identify with each other. Lack of social ties makes a war between North Korea and the U.S. more likely, therefore, resulting in an incentive to maintain their nuclear weapons.
The neoliberal view that states are self-interested and act rationally can be applied to the U.S.-North Korea nuclear negotiations since both nations are working to ensure their security and survival. Neoliberals also stress the importance of international organizations in international relations. Organizations formed to limit nuclear arms proliferation are important in these negotiations. United States’ cooperation with North Korea to reach a solution that maximizes both their self-interest of security is highly desirable.
Social Constructivism
This emphasizes on the affinity of societies of different countries as a major factor affecting how countries perceive each other and their likelihood of engaging in a conflict and war. The high affinity between societies results in an environment of trust, and any conflict can easily be solved through negotiations (Hoffmann, 2010). There is a less social affinity between the U.S. and North Korea, making conflict resolution through negotiations less likely. North Korean possession of nuclear weapons is seen as more threatening than France’s possession of the same category of weapons due to lack of affinity between the United States and North Korea.
In conclusion, the United States-North Korea nuclear negotiations can be seen and analyzed using different international relations theories. The realist theory best suits the negotiations and their outcome so far. North Korea acts on its self-interest, driven by the need to survive and ensure its security to acquire nuclear weapons and advance its nuclear program. The United States perceives North Korean advances as a threat to its security and therefore uses its influence to gain an advantage. The negotiations don’t bear fruit since it is a zero-sum game where one gains places the other one at a disadvantage. International relations theory are important in understanding international negotiations since they help explain a state’s behavior.
References
Chanlett-Avery, E., & Taylor, M. A. (2010, May). North Korea: U.S. relations, nuclear diplomacy, and internal situation. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Hoffmann, M. J. (2010). Norms and social constructivism in international relations. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies.
Moravcsik, A. (1992). Liberalism and international relations theory (No. 92). Cambridge, MA: Center for International Affairs, Harvard University.
Wit, J. S., Poneman, D. B., & Gallucci, R. L. (2004). Going critical: The first North Korean nuclear crisis. Brookings Institution Press.
Zavada, Y. (2019). IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM IN THE CONTEXT OF NEOREALISM THEORY. Humanitarian vision, (5, Num. 1), 25-29.