Korean History and Nuclear Threat - Essay Example

Student Name: Instructor’s Name: Title: Korean History and Nuclear Threat Course: Institution: Korean History and Nuclear Threat Introduction Although Nuclear weapons are major components of North Korea’s national security approach (Vaddi, 2013), it is regarded as illicit at least in the eyes of the US. While several nations in the world over are engaged in some illegal activities in one way or another, Korea Case is unique as it presents with it a potential threat not just within the North East Asia but also international security. The US has classified North Korea’s involvement in Nuclear weapon as an urgent security concern that needs to be settled instantaneously (Global Security, December 31, 2001). This paper aims at presenting historical review of Korean Nuclear threat. A study of this nature can assist in coming up with suitable intervention and direction towards maintaining peace not only in the within Korea and its neighbors but also the whole world at large. In addition, the study would give foundational information that can be utilized in predicting the possibility of cooperation between Korea and her neighboring countries. The starting point of this paper is a review of theoretical framework. This is followed by discussion into the historical review of nuclear threat presented in terms of the division of the Korean Peninsula, increasing pressures, and imposition of foreign policy by the US and eventually the current nuclear threats. The final section is conclusion drawn from the rest of the discussion. Theoretical Framework This paper is based on Nuclear Weapon Proliferation Theory which has two major schools of thoughts, the first one being the Proliferation Optimists who support nuclear weapons for deterrent purposes (Han, 2007). They argue that these weapons are vital or essential factor in the maintenance of peace between the United States and the Soviet Union right from the time of Cold War. For effective deterrence, there must be the ability and good communication, as well as credibility. In other words, the nation which fears any nuclear attacks must be able to counter against the aggression using the same weapons. The counter measures should be implemented with good communication network. Lastly, one must be able to understand the tow components and acknowledge their worth or credibility (Carranza, 1989). Waltz is one of the optimists as he claims that such weapons are effective for security purposes, (Sagan and Waltz, 1995), a fact supported by Mearsheimer (1993) and who insist other countries should follow suit especially contemporary world. However, the second school of thought, the proliferation Pessimist argues against use of nuclear as it is not effective deterrent against external aggression (Han, 2007). Evolution of Nuclear The North Koran’s ambition and interest in nuclear based weapons can be traced back from the Second World War, the period of Japanese colonial rule and eventual splitting of the peninsula. The historical background is presented under the following heading: The division of the Korean Peninsula Nuclear programs is suspected to have started in North Korea right from the time the nation got independence and liberation from the oppressive rule by the Japanese around 1945. This was followed by splitting of the land along the 38th parallel, with the US forces dominating the southern side while the north occupied by the Soviet forces. After the liberation, the new government was mainly composed of Leftists as backed by the majority for successfully leading struggle against Japan’s colonialism and for promising relief from the exploitation by the landlords and capitalists (Vaddi, 2013). The USSR, occupied the north of the country until 1948 and mainly collaborated with the KPR in its occupation zone, however, the United tended to suppress the KPR in the south and tried so hard to exterminate leftist forces in its backing the conservatives in Southern Koreans. In 1948, the Peninsula was split between a northern government under the control of the guerrillas and a southern government, led by the US. The guerrillas were lead by Kim Il Sung, who was the grandfather Kim Jong-un. The two Koreas, namely, the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), embarked on their independent life, free from the United States and the Soviet Union forces. During this time, conflicts during this time were manifested by frequent confrontation between mainly the communism and the capitalism (Cummings, 2005). Cummings (Cited in Vaddi, 2013, par.3) states that the Korean War comes from numerous causes. For instance, Koreans begun to view the US with a lot of criticism after the liberation from the Japanese and the consequent domination by the US taking over most of the administrative roles and functions which were previously held by the Japanese in the south, and the Soviets in the North (Cummings, 2005). The US was accused of imperialism leading to the struggle against their foreign policies by the North however the South Koreans seemed to collaborate with the US forces and other foreign powers (Cummings, 2005). Since the splitting of the peninsula between a northern government led by guerrillas and the southern government led by a US, the important character of the two protagonists has not changed. For instance, Park Geun-hye, the South Korean president and the daughter of a former president, Park Chung-hee, came to power through a military coup in 1961. Similarly, Kim Il Sung, grandfather of North Korea’s current leader, Kim Jong-eun, and the guerrilla leader who, unlike the conservative and collaborator, Park, struggled against foreign domination instead of the serving the Japanese (Miliband, 2009). North Korean represents the struggle for change, against domination by foreign forces. On the other hand, the South Koreans are conservatives and they tend to submit and collaborate with foreign forces. The other different between the North Koreans and the South is the fact that unlike the South, there are no foreign troops stationed in the North. Again, under not circumstances have the North Korean troops engage in any foreign fight. South Korea engaged in the 1955 Vietnam War and the 1991 as well as the 2003 Iraq wars. This was partly influenced by the infusions of mercenaries from the Americans, and later in the Iraq conflict (Cummings, 2005). Concerning repression, the South Korea’s authoritarianism on behalf of rightist causes can only be described as extensive or lengthy and enduring, typical of the virulently anti-communist National Security legal system associated with harsh consequences in case of nay breach of the law such as collaborating with the North Korea (Cummings, 2005). Pressure North Korean has experienced increased and endless pressure from the United States and South Korea since the Korean War. This has been achieved through various ways including the use of subversions, spying, propagation of lies and propagandas, economic sanctions, threats of attack by Nuclear weapons and military incursions (Cummings, 2005). As a result of this, the North Koreas have been forced to incur high expenses in its preparation for any eventualities. Unfortunately, the huge spending in Military and weapons for defense tend to channel away from the vital components or services to civilians. In addition, it retards the economic development or growth. The other big challenge to the North Koreans is the economic sanctions through the blockage of trade and financial engagement. This brings with it further harm to the already declining and weak economic. By extension, consequences of such weak economy lead to disruption and cutting down of food supplies eventually making life harsh for several North Koreans, and breeding a lot of discontent (Vaddi, 2013). As a result of the Discontented Koreans, there are numerous political oppositions to the government, though this can be contained by measures towards repression and restriction of civic and political freedom. The US is taking advantage of the whole situation. Washington deceitfully deplores Pyongyang’s military expenditures at the opportune time, the time the North Koreans are experiencing economic challenges characterized by starvation. Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program is often viewed as simply a provocation strategy but not as deterrence against the threats by the US forces (Miliband, 2009). Most Koreans are made to believe that the weak economic status of the country is as a result of ineffective governance particularly in term of the inability to put in place good public ownership and effective planning (Vaddi, 2013). In reality, this is not the case; the weak economy is enhanced by the imposition of sanctions. In other words, the negative picture of North Korea as encouraged by the Washington is aimed at demonizing and discrediting the DPRK is rather the impacts, not the causes, of US- North Korea relations. In my view, to consider the US policy as a reaction to the DPRK’s nuclear weapons program without taking in consideration the economic challenges of the North Korea and repressions lead to wrong direction. US foreign policy After review the pressures against the North Koreans, it is worth tackling the issue of foreign Policy in details. So what is the actual aim of the US foreign policies? The policy strategy of imposing is often aimed at securing and defending access to international markets, exploitation of natural resources endowments and investment opportunities while denying communists and nationalist’s free use and control through inaccessible, blocked or limited social services and national development programs (Miliband, 2009). In the context of this paper, North Korea is one of the few nations left that engages in the alleged illicit activities , therefore is this continues and its allowed to develop interpedently and without any interference such as through military pressure and economic sanctions, then other countries with the same potentials might join the wagon. We cannot imagine a world where nations are free to conduct such illicit activities like proliferation of Nuclear weapons. The world would not be the safest place to live (Hanley and Hershaft, 2010). By weakening the North Korea economic status and its political governance as well as its social welfare to discourage others, Washington aims at maintaining access to its strategic position on a peninsula whose closeness to China and Russia give a forward operating base where the US can continue with its global domination. Threats of nuclear war In view of secret and declassified documents which leaked during the 60th-anniversary of the Korean War, the US has engaged in strategic pondering and planning as well as threatening the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea (Hanley and Hershaft, 2010). This by implications paints a pattern of US nuclear intimidation of the DPRK as illustrated by the introduction of nuclear weapons to the Korean peninsula in 1950 (Hanley and Hershaft, 2010). During the time of the Korean conflicts, the US considered a possible use of nuclear weapons. As a result of this, the US forces carried out nuclear rehearsal over Pyongyang where a good number of atomic bombs were dropped across the northern part of Korean peninsula in a bit to prevent intervention by the Chinese (Hanley and Hershaft, 2010). In the late 1960s, nuclear-armed US warplanes were on high alert to attack the North Korea (Hanley and Hershaft, 2010). In 1975, the US through its defense secretary revealed that US nuclear weapons were deployed in South Korea (Hanley and Hershaft, 2010). In February 1993, the US considered the need to retarget hydrogen bombs against North Korea. This is the time the North Korea moved out from the Nuclear Non-proliferation agreement (Cumings, 2005). In February this year, North Korea was termed or viewed as a possible threat to the United States, to domestic and regional peace as well as international global security. It is during this time that the US threatened to take appropriate action against the North Korea as a security responsibility to the Republic of Korea and other regional collaborators (Sang-Hun, 2013). Since the 1950s, the US has turned South Korea into the biggest nuclear arsenal in the Far East, gravely threatening the DPRK through endless manoeuvres for nuclear conflicts. As if this is not enough, it has really worked so hard to deprive the DPRK of its freedom, authority and sovereignty. This be extension has resulted in huge damages to the economic status and potentials of the regions (Cummings, 2005). Conclusion To sum up, nuclear weapons have the potentials for political use. This also related to the Nuclear Weapon Proliferation Theory where the weapon can be used for various gains. Nations with sizeable nuclear base can take advantage by extorting political concessions from non-nuclear-armed states through threats and intimidation. A case in point is the US which exploits the political potential of its nuclear to threaten and intimidate North Korea. The US has also intimidated and threatened other nations with possible nuclear attacks for its policies gains. Some of the countries which have fallen to the US trap are nations such as Iraq, China, the USSR, Libya, Iran and the latest being Syria. One common on feature of all these nations is that they were under communist or economically nationalist governance at the time the threats were imposed on them. At the same time, Nuclear weapons also have political utility for countries which experience nuclear intimidations and other military threats. They tend to used by countries in raising their stakes in the possible use of their military resources for conquest, and therefore reducing any opportunity for military intervention. For instance, US has to disarm its targets who might use their military resources like nuclear to prevent interventions. In relation to this, the current North Korean nuclear arsenal does not necessarily enhances the chances or possible conflicts, instead, it reduces or protect the livelihood system that the United States and its collaborator, South Korean may attempt to impose on the communist state in Pyongyang. Any other country would do the same for the sake of its security and as a as a strategy to opposing undue imperialist military interference. Again, any nation that has the interests of its citizens and which advocates for the freedom and right of a people in conducting their affairs and liberating themselves from foreign domination. In other words, North Korea is right in its interest to fight against the international capitalistic system of exploitation, intimidation and domination by foreign forces. Bibliography Carranza, M.E (1989). An Impossible Game: Stable Nuclear Deterrence after the Indian and Pakistani Tests, the Nonproliferation Review (Spring/Summer) Cumings, B (2005). Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History, W.W. Norton & Company, p. 488-489 Han, J. (2007). The Impact of the North Korean Nuclear Crisis on Northeast Asia, Unpublished masters thesis, Monterey, California Hanley, C.J., and Hershaft, R. (2010). U.S. often weighed N. Korea nuke option”, The Associated Press, Mearsheimer, J.J. (1993). Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War,” International Security, vol. 15, no. 1 (Summer 1990), 5-56; Mearsheimer, “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3 (Summer 1993), 50-66. Miliband, R. (2009). The State in Capitalist Society, Merlin Press Sagan, S.D., and Waltz, K.N (1995).The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate (New York: W. W. Norton and Company Sang hun, C. (2013). “New leader in South criticizes North Korea,” The New York Times, February 13, 2013. Vadd, S (2013). North Korea’s Nuclear Ambition: Issues and Challenges, Mainstream, VOL LI, No 15, March 30, 2013 Read More