US rhetoric masks absence of fresh North Korea policy

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
National Security ◽  
North Korea ◽  
National Security Council ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Public ◽  
The North ◽  
Nuclear Focus ◽  
Nuclear Issue

Significance South Korea’s unification minister (MOU) warned on April 10 that any US strike on North Korea would put “the safety of the public” at risk. A day later, Seoul’s defence (MND) and foreign (MFA) ministries dismissed rumours on local social media of an imminent war crisis as “overblown” and “groundless”, respectively. Moon Jae-in, the liberal opposition candidate whom most polls predict will win the May 9 snap presidential election, said he does not expect a US pre-emptive strike on the North. However, Moon also warned Washington that South Korea is “the concerned party” which “owns” peninsula-related matters, including the nuclear issue. Impacts Experienced military professionals in Trump’s cabinet and National Security Council are a restraining influence. South Korea and Japan, being in the front line, will counsel their US protector against any action that might imperil their security. If Moon Jae-in is elected, his desire to re-engage the North will clash with Trump’s hard-line attitude and narrow nuclear focus. After his smooth -- if insubstantial -- summit with Xi, Trump’s threatened unilateralism on North Korea is likely to stop at sanctions.

The Moon Jae-in administration’s North Korea policy and Korea–US relations

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-74
Author(s):  
Nam Kwang Kyu
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
North Korea ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
The Moon ◽  
High Likelihood ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The North ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Nuclear Issue

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the North Korea policy pursued by the Moon Jae-in administration and discuss the possibility of a weakened alliance between South Korea and the USA. Design/methodology/approach This paper compares the North Korean policies and the ROK–US alliance under the Moon administration, analyzing the recent inter-Korean and North Korea–US summits, with a focus on the issues of denuclearization and establishing a peace regime. Findings This paper reveals that the approach taken by the Moon administration regarding North Korea is similar to that of North Korea and China, and that the ROK–US alliance is likely to weaken should there be any change concerning the North Korean nuclear issue. Originality/value Denuclearization takes place in accordance with the agreement between North Korea and the USA, there is a high likelihood of the ROK–US alliance weakening.

Freeze will not settle the North Korea nuclear issue

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
North Korea ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The North ◽  
Nuclear Issue

Headline NORTH KOREA: Freeze will not settle the nuclear issue

Japanese Policy toward the North Korean Problem

2007 ◽  
Vol 42 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 297-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsuneo Akaha
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Korean Peninsula ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Urgent Problem ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
The North ◽  
Nuclear Issue ◽  
Nuclear Crisis

North Korea became an urgent problem for Japan as a result of the 1994 nuclear crisis in North Korea, the 1998 missile launch over Japan and the 2003—4 nuclear crisis. At the historic Tokyo—Pyongyang summit in September 2002, both sides acknowledged the need to solve the security issues surrounding the Korean Peninsula through peaceful, multilateral efforts. However, the issue of North Korean abduction of Japanese citizens in earlier decades intensified Japanese sentiment against the North and this issue halted bilateral normalization talks. Japan has participated in six-party talks on the nuclear issue since 2004, but its distinct bilateral interests vis-à-vis North Korea, South Korea and the United States limit its influence in the multiparty engagement.

scholarly journals North Koreans’ Public Narratives and Conditional Inclusion in South Korea (In Press)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Hough ◽  
Markus Bell
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Social Status ◽  
Korean Peninsula ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Korean Society ◽  
The Public ◽  
South Korean ◽  
The North ◽  
North And South

This article draws on the public testimonies of North Koreans living in South Korea (t’albungmin) and analyzes the role that these narratives play in South Korean society as mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion. North and South Korea technically remain at war, with South Korea claiming sovereignty over the entire Korean peninsula. While t’albungmin are eligible for South Korean citizenship, they describe feeling excluded from full social membership. Although some t’albungmin seek anonymity, this paper considers those who gain social status by speaking publicly about their lives and denouncing the North Korean regime. In so doing, they distance themselves from North Korea and align themselves with the “good” discourse of human rights. However, their actions reinforce a logic of exclusion, implying that t’albungmin who prefer anonymity are “sympathizers,” and consequently restricting their access to social benefits and resources. This case of conditional inclusion illuminates tensions that arise when a sovereignty claim entails the incorporation of people from an enemy state. It also highlights the carefully delineated boundaries of publicly acceptable behavior within which “suspect” citizens must remain as a condition for positive recognition.

Just Whose Side Is Time On?

2007 ◽  
Vol 42 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 263-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Hathaway
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
North Korea ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Security Strategy ◽  
The North ◽  
National Security Strategy ◽  
Multilateral Diplomacy

President Bush's bold National Security Strategy document of September 2002 would appear to have been written with North Korea as much as Iraq in mind. Yet the Bush administration has been uncharacteristically passive in responding to the challenge posed by Pyongyang's nuclear weapons ambitions, especially in comparison with the forceful manner with which the administration dealt with Iraq. In the latter case, Bush mobilized the full weight of military force; seemed disdainful of allies, international institutions and multilateral diplomacy; and moved forward with what his critics deemed reckless abandon. In the case of North Korea, on the other hand, the President has emphasized patience, close coordination with allies and an overall lack of urgency oddly at variance with his `axis of evil' characterization of the regime in Pyongyang, and with dangerous advances in North Korea's nuclear arsenal. This essay attempts to explain the rationale behind the Bush administration's surprisingly relaxed approach to the North Korea challenge.

South Korea defence ambitions may exceed capabilities

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
North Korea ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Self Reliance ◽  
High Degree

Significance It also benefits from policies that heavily favour the domestic arms industry. This has resulted in a well-equipped modern military and a high degree of self-reliance in equipping it. However, this model may be unsustainable. Impacts Seoul will likely attempt to expand armaments collaboration with other countries to gain additional resources, technologies and markets. China’s military modernisation is an increasing concern, including in the context of potential war with China’s ally, North Korea. Threats from North Korea make air and missile defence the top procurement priorities.

North Korea

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick McEachern
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Pop Music ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Foreign Service ◽  
The North ◽  
American President

After a year of trading colorful barbs with the American president and significant achievements in North Korea’s decades-long nuclear and missile development programs, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un declared mission accomplished in November 2017. Though Kim's pronouncement appears premature, North Korea is on the verge of being able to strike the United States with nuclear weapons. South Korea has long been in the North Korean crosshairs but worries whether the United States would defend it if North Korea holds the American homeland at risk. The largely ceremonial summit between US president Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, and the unpredictability of both parties, has not quelled these concerns and leaves more questions than answers for the two sides' negotiators to work out. The Korean Peninsula’s security situation is an intractable conflict, raising the question, “How did we get here?” In this book, former North Korea lead foreign service officer at the US embassy in Seoul Patrick McEachern unpacks the contentious and tangled relationship between the Koreas in an approachable question-and-answer format. While North Korea is famous for its militarism and nuclear program, South Korea is best known for its economic miracle, familiar to consumers as the producer of Samsung smartphones, Hyundai cars, and even K-pop music and K-beauty. Why have the two Koreas developed politically and economically in such radically different ways? What are the origins of a divided Korean Peninsula? Who rules the two Koreas? How have three generations of the authoritarian Kim dictatorship shaped North Korea? What is the history of North-South relations? Why does the North Korean government develop nuclear weapons? How do powers such as Japan, China, and Russia fit into the mix? What is it like to live in North and South Korea? This book tackles these broad topics and many more to explain what everyone needs to know about South and North Korea.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document