American Foreign Policy Group 2
Executive Summary:
Since the first meeting with President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un, the Supreme Leader of North Korea, it has been the United States ultimate goal to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons. President Trump will host his second summit the end of February with North Korean Leader Kim-Jong Un in Vietnam. Holding it in Vietnam would cast a spotlight on a country that has become an economic powerhouse in Southeast Asia after emerging from poverty and isolation in the decades after the Vietnam War. According to the United States, Vietnam could be a political and economic model for North Korea to follow. North Korea has still made no commitments to allow weapons inspections or to dismantle its growing arsenal of warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles. The announcement about the second summit suggested that the U.S. was softening its refusal to relax sanctions against North Korea because Kim had earlier this month threatened to walk away from talks if Trump didn’t compromise.
What the Summit May Produce:
The summit could take two directions, with the US focusing on making a deal to shut down North Korea's ability to create nuclear weapons or the US focusing on making a deal to have North Korea dismantle the weaponry they currently have. The first of these seems to be an arrangement that North Korea would be more receptive towards and would focus on the nuclear research center in Yongbyon. This center houses the majority of North Korea`s reactors and its sole producer of Plutonium. Experts are skeptical of the success of this type of deal due to two similar deals (created in 2003 and 2007) which fell apart after soon after they were agreed to.
Some experts also believe it would be a mistake for the US to focus on the North Korea production due to the expansive arsenal North Korea may already possess. Satellite images show the North Koreans have been increasing their arsenal and may give up production facilities because they no longer need the material they produce. These experts believe the US should try and create a deal that focuses on the disarmament of North Korean weapons already built.
What do North and South Korea Hope to Gain:
Through the Vietnam summit, North and South Korea both hope to make some progress on their peace talks after 70 years of hostility towards each other. South Korea hopes that this meeting will at least mark steps in the direction towards North Korean denuclearization. However, President Trump has said that there is no rush in regards to denuclearization and so it seems unlikely any concrete agreement on this issue will emerge. South Korea has also signaled that they would be open to economic engagement with North Korea if it meant that denuclearization could be accomplished. Both countries seem to have a desire to reopen inter-Korean projects that would help to boost both nations economies. Many Koreans seem to be skeptical of how much this meeting will accomplish but the general consensus seems to be that things can only improve from this.
What the U.S. Hopes to Gain:
The goals that the Trump administration has in mind for the summit talks with North Korea are fairly straightforward. US President Donald Trump met with Kim Jong Un in Singapore last summer in ana tempt to convince North Korea to denuclearize without starting an armed conflict with the country. When Donald Trump became president in January 2017, the situation with North Korea looked like it was going to turn hot. North Korea's military was testing new ballistic missiles every week by launching them into the sea of Japan. The leaders of the two nations exchanged insults and threats with one another. Donald Trump described the leader of North Korea as “little Rocketman” and North Korea threatened to use its nuclear weapons to attack the US. It looked like the world was heading towards another war. However, in the spring of 2018 the North Korean leader and agreed to meet Donald Trump in Singapore. There are many theories about why Kim Jong Un came to the table to negotiate. Some people say he wants to really change his ways but others say he's just stalling for time and he is playing Donald Trump.
Donald Trump has expressed a desire to be seen as the one responsible for ending the Korean War and eliminating the nuclear threat emanating from North Korea. He hopes to do this by strengthening the sanctions regime on North Korea’s economy and by trying to entice the North Korean leadership with suggestions of huge economic growth in North Korea if they dismantle their nuclear weapons program in return for an end to the sanctions regime. It is unclear how long this process might take, or if it will even go forward at all, but Trump's goal, in going to the second summit in Vietnam, is just to keep the dialogue going between him and the North Korean leader. People are not sure if the first summit in Singapore was really a success. President Trump says it's a success, but there is no evidence that North Korea has done anything to denuclearize. North Korea has stopped testing missiles but they are still operating their factories that produce uranium for nuclear weapons.
Recommendations for the US:
Above all, President Trump should keep in mind the things which he should not offer to Chairman Kim, namely the pullout of U.S. forces from South Korea. The President has expressed resentment regarding America’s security partnership with South Korea and it has been rumoured that he may offer it up to the DPRK in return for some small concession, as he did after the Singapore summit with the abrupt cancellation, without input from Seoul, of joint US-ROK military exercises - which had long been one of North Korea chief demands. Such a mistake would greatly undermine the credibility of America’s commitments both in Northeast Asia and elsewhere, and would have potential implications far beyond the Peninsula. In fact, it may make conflict more likely in the future if it is interpreted by Pyongyang as projecting an unwillingness to defend uphold its commitments to defend South Korea, and, at the very least, would greatly weaken America’s bargaining position.
If the President does determine that some sort of concession related to the sanctions regime is needed to keep diplomacy in motion (something he should avoid if possible) then he should look towards offering a largely symbolic concession that is as materially irrelevant and easily reversible as the concessions thus far offered by Chairman Kim. Agreeing to allow ROK President Moon Jae-in to reopen the Kaesong Industrial Zone - a joint ROK-DPRK operation that saw North Korean employees working in South Korean factories on the North Korean side of the DMZ which was closed down in 2016 by South Korea after a rise in tensions. Reopening Kaesong would amount to the same thing as easing sanctions, but would still keep North Korean walled off from the international financial system, and whatever revenue they generate from it would a pittance, thus limiting the DPRK’s ability to use the new revenue to fund their nuclear program. More importantly, it would be a victory for the Moon Jae-in administration, which has grand designs for greater inter-Korean economic cooperation, with whom Trump’s administration’s relationship has been strained. If North Korea balks at the offer - in the hopes of extracting further concessions - the US will be in a better position to dismiss Chairman Kim’s claims of bad faith.
Alternatively, the US could offer to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea, and thereby avoid making any sort of concessions regarding sanctions. It might also consider detaching the issue of nuclear disarmament and arms control from the wider peace process itself, paving the way for a formal end to the Korean War that would improve the on-the-ground security of vulnerable cities like Seoul. But above all the US should not ask for any more concessions regarding North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, or make any further concessions regarding sanctions, outside of possibly reopening the Kaesong Industrial Zone, unless they tied to a comprehensive framework. The US has much more leverage over North Korea than North Korea has over the US, and so continuing the ad-hoc tit-for-tat to the negotiations will only allow the North Koreans to buy time and extract larger and larger concession at little cost itself and little benefit to the US. However, progress on such a framework will likely only be made if the US accepts that North Korea will not likely be persuaded into relinquishing all of its nuclear arsenal. It should instead focus on 1) acquiring an inventory of, and capping, the DPRK’s nuclear weapons arsenals 2) eliminating, in a verifiable manner, the DPRK’s ICBM program and 3) eliminating, or severely curtailing, in a verifiable and irreversible manner, the DPRK’s nuclear reactors, and their plutonium reactors, in particular, 4) in return for gradually loosening sanctions, offers of humanitarian aid, and reductions in the number of US military personnel in South Korea, as North Korea reaches certain milestones along a mutually agreed upon timeline. In return for softening its positions on North Korean denuclearization, the U.S. might also expand the scope of negotiations into North Korea’s chemical and biological weapons, but it should only do so if it does not interfere with obtaining the goals listed above.
Bibliography
Berlinger, Joshua.
“Singapore summit: Asia reacts to the Trump-Kim meeting, June, 12th, 2018.https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/asia/singapore-summit-intl/index.html.
Denyer, Simon.
“North Korea's Yongbyon Nuclear Complex at the Heart of Trump-Kim Summit.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 22 Feb. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-koreas-yongbyon-nuclear-complex-at-the-heart-of-trump-kim-summit/2019/02/22/ee99269a-352d-11e9-8375-e3dcf6b68558_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8cd0902074e4.
Ghani, Faras.
“What South Korea Stands to Gain and Lose from Trump-Kim Summit.” GCC News | Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera, 23 Feb. 2019, www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/south-korea-stands-gain-lose-trump-kim-summit-190222132156885.html.
Jacobs, Jennifer,
Wadhams, Nick, and Lee, Youkung.“Trump-Kim February Summit Expected to Take
Place in Vietnam.” Bloomberg. Last modified January 20, 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-20/trump-kim-february-summit-expected-to-take-place-in-vietnam.
Kelly,
Robert E. “The Second Trump-Kim Summit: Getting Beyond the Photo Op.” War on the Rocks, War on the Rocks, 5 Feb.
2019,
warontherocks.com/2019/02/the-second-trump-kim-summit-getting-beyond-the-photo-op/.
Kim,
Duyeon. “What's In a Name? Korean 'Peace' and Breaking the Deadlock.” War on the Rocks, War on the Rocks, 14 Sept.
2018,
warontherocks.com/2018/09/whats-in-a-name-korean-peace-and-breaking-the-deadlock/.
Lawrence,
Christopher. “A Window Into Kim's Nuclear Intentions? A Closer Look at North
Korea's Yongbyon Offer.” War on the Rocks,
War on the Rocks, 14 Jan. 2019,
warontherocks.com/2019/01/a-window-into-kims-nuclear-intentions-a-closer-look-at-north-koreas-yongbyon-offer/.
Lee,
Christy, and Christy Lee. “Proposed Inter-Korean Projects Could Violate UN, US
Sanctions.” VOA, VOA, 19 Sept. 2018, www.voanews.com/a/Korea-sanctions/4577831.html.
Panda,
Ankit, and Vipin Narang. “Diplomacy Without Denuclearization: North Korea in
2018.” War on the Rocks, War on the
Rocks, 21 Dec. 2018,
warontherocks.com/2018/12/diplomacy-without-denuclearization-north-korea-in-2018/.
Taylor, Adam. “ 3 big questions about potential US- North
Korea Talks, March, 6th ,2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/06/3-big-questions-about-potential-north-korea-u-s-talks/?utm_term=.b19698ae1939.
Great job with this blog post. This issue is something that is incredibly important for domestic nation safety, expanding international relations, and avoiding future issues with North Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, etc. Resolving these issues and creating a nuclear agreement should be the largest concerns of American foreign politics but unfortunately will not happen over night or within one/two meetings with Trump regardless of how "successful" he claims these meetings to be.
ReplyDelete-Shannon
This is a really interesting blog post. The United States’ relationship with both North and South Korea as well as North and South Korea’s relationships with each other is very important. The question of how to reconcile the interests of these nations poses a fundamental threat to international security. This memo does a great job articulating the United States’ potential diplomatic options and the corresponding consequences. I would suggest, however, to write out the entirety of the abbreviation before using the abbreviation to improve clarity.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great memo, I thought it was well done and although the summit did not go quite as planned with minimal diplomatic advancement being done by either side. The United States and North Korea's relationship remain critical to US interests both in Asia and the World given their nuclear capability and the US relationship with its ally of South Korea. Further, I agree with the recommendation that was outlined. I also believe that North Korea will likely not give up any part of its nuclear program for a long time to come as the program builds a great deal of security for the nation.
ReplyDeleteYour memo does a good job covering a lot of material and summarizing it in a way that is readable to the average person. As the threat of nuclear proliferation increases with instability in the world, this topic specifically regarding North Korea negotiations will constantly be at the foreground of security concerns to the United States. You also did a good job of outlining several realistic policy recommendations that the US can take to deal with this threat.
ReplyDelete-Adam Miller
The talks between North Korea and the US (South Korea too) are key to helping avoid another Korean war. The second summit held in Vietnam not only promotes this country as a new world power but also stands as another country for North Korea to follow for success. The blog mentions that the second summit looks to be a softening of America’s refusal to relax sanctions because of earlier threats from North Korea. However, I find that this summit is a continuation of the dialogue that has slowly formed and become more concrete through the talks/summits. It is important to keep the communication up to help guide North Korea into making the right decision. On the other hand, the sanctions are important to maintain even after a deal is struck because it holds North Korea responsible for the deal. North Korea has broken deals before in 2003 and 2007 and therefore needs more guidance to stay true to their promise.
ReplyDelete-Kelsea
I thought the memo did a good job at covering an issue that many major news outlets have spent the week discussing. While I agree that this an important issue to discuss, I feel like the group could have done a better job at covering different subtopics because while it is good to cover all aspects of the topic, I feel like there was nothing in the memo to differentiate it from what the news is covering. Also, the final section which discusses the group's recommendations is a little too long. Lastly, for the next memo, it would make it easier to read if you address the spacing issues which would allow the information to flow better.
ReplyDeleteOverall I thought this memo did a great job at covering the purpose and aims of the Hanoi summit, a complex and ongoing topic of discussion that the Trump Administration has taken particular interest in. While I found the memo to be a great informational piece for someone with only basic understanding of the summit, one thing that could have strengthened your argument would have been to go into greater detail on the regional effects of this meeting, especially for the host state of Vietnam. I was drawn in during your executive summary when you mentioned the geopolitical significance of choosing Vietnam as the site for the summit, but there wasn't much elaboration on these points beyond the opening paragraph. Regional politics and stability are crucial to take into consideration when and if an agreement is made, so it would have been interesting to include a section that compared the aims of the United States against our allies and partners in the region.
ReplyDeleteNorth Korean and U.S. relations are at times difficult to understand, but the memo does a great job of giving information and explaining the summit. Having dialogue between North Korea and the U.S. about North Korean's nuclear weapons is significant because these talks could have an impact on the region. While the memo did a great job of explaining the gains that both sides hope to attain, the memo could have discussed more about how this submit could affect other countries in the region and more about the significance of choosing to hold the summit in Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteThis memo does an excellent job of explaining the complex relations of the United States and North Korea. The memo also does a great job at explaining what the United States wishes to gain, and the recommended actions the United States should take. I like the idea of how the United States hopes to continue the conversions between both countries, even if it doesn't result in denuclearization for North Korea. My recommendation would be to include something about how the relations between the U.S and NK will affect other regions or something regarding the opinions of other nations on the issue. Also, the last section does a good job at explaining the recommendations for the United States, but next time it could be a little more condensed and concise as in my opinion it's too drawn out. Overall the memo does explain the topic in a well put together memo.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be outstanding at informing us of the elaborate relations between the United States and North Korea, as well as outlining both parties desires in their discussions. Despite myself agreeing with the idea of continuing talks with North Korea, it is important for the United States to remain steadfast and unwavering in the push of denuclearizing North Korea. This is very important for United States Foreign relations, especially with our ally South Korea and our critical mission of keeping the country safe of any nuclear threat. It will be very interesting to see future discussions and developments in this situation.
ReplyDeleteI think you all did a great job providing ample background info on the topic and what the possible repercussions could be if Trump took certain actions. This foreign policy issue is extremely important to the US and the rest of the world right now. The conference did not go as planned, but this issue is still around. I liked the plan with the four focuses. However, like others have previously stated I wish you provided the aims of other nations who are allies with both countries and the impact on the region if an agreement were made.
ReplyDelete-Talia
I found this memo to be very informative with a lot of great information. Your group really delved into the issue and the current state of affairs between North Korea and the US. I agree that the US should focus its efforts on diplomacy and making sustainable strides with peace agreements instead of using hard power and economic sanctions to get the North Korean government to do what the US wants, whether that be disarming their nuclear weapons or stop producing new ones. I also liked how you included 4 criteria for the US going forward in your last paragraph, which I agree are crucial for the US going forward. Overall, this has been a long and slow process, and as we have seen, North Korea is not an easy country to negotiate with by any means. I believe the US should continue to conduct peace talks and focus issues one step at a time, while working with allies in the region to ease the process along. It will be interesting to see how the talks go from here. Good job!
ReplyDeleteThis memo did a great job with outlining the United States and North Korea’s relationship. I was not very knowledgeable to this relationship prior to the memo therefore I thought it was done very well. It was very easy to follow and learn about this foreign policy. I thought it gave great insight as to why the United States cares so much and what they hope to gain regarding nuclear weapons. Donald Trump has expressed a desire to be seen as the one responsible for ending the Korean War and eliminating the nuclear threat emanating from North Korea. He hopes to do this by strengthening the sanctions regime on North Korea’s economy and by trying to entice the North Korean leadership with suggestions of huge economic growth in North Korea if they dismantle their nuclear weapons program in return for an end to the sanctions regime was the most surprising piece of this memo to me. I did not realize how important this relations was between the two nations. I appreciated the layout of the recommendations for the United States and the different options that the US has. I look forward to reading about the second summit.
ReplyDelete-joslyn janeczek
I thought that this memo did a very good job of describing a very important topic. While North Korea is clearly a threat with nuclear weapons, I appreciated how the memo was careful in discussing how it isn't as easy to come up with a plan regarding North Korea as it may seem and that even discussing with NK at all is pretty groundbreaking. Overall, this was a very interesting memo that did a good job of laying out all of the options that the US has.
ReplyDeleteWill Moreton
This is a very relevant blog post and it is well done. I think the most important priority for US Foreign Policy should be producing a stable agreement with North Korea in terms of denuclearizing. The "America first" theme of Trump's presidency however may leave a little too much room for compromise in terms of reaching an agreement. Questions such as: will North Korea follow through with the terms of the agreement, or whether a strong agreement will even come into place need to be asked. Examining the problem of intercontinental ballistic missiles can best be examined using a realist worldview. Understanding why North Korea would rationally want to keep their weapons would allow for the Trump administration to better examine possible terms to set.
ReplyDelete