POLICY PAPER

ON

USA-NORTH KOREA RELATIONS

WHAT WOULD USA DO TO DEAL WITH PROBLEM

OF NORTH KOREA’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS? (Policy and Politics International Perspective)

Ergul HALISCELIK Senior Treasury Controller

Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Undersecretariat of Treasury

Policy Paper, Spring 2006 H. John Heinz III College, Carnegie Mellon University

1

Background Information About USA-North Korea Relations :

North Korea has a centralized government under the rigid control of the communist Korean

Workers' Party (KWP), to which all government officials belong.1 U.S.-North Korea relations

developed primarily during the Korean War, but in recent years have been largely defined by the

United States' suspicions regarding North Korea's nuclear programs, and North Korea's perception of

an imminent U.S. attack. North Korea claims to possess nuclear weapons, and is widely believed to

have a substantial arsenal of chemical weapons, deliverable by artillery against South Korea.2

Different presidents have dealt with North Korea in different ways. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush,

the 42nd and 43rd presidents respectively also tried at the beginning of their tenure as president to

ignore the brewing problems in North Korea. Their decisions in dealing with North Korea would help

to define their early reputations as foreign policy makers. Many similarities can be seen, however,

between how Clinton started dealing with North Korea and how Bush started out dealing with North

Korea.3

Clinton’s and Bush’s policies toward North Korea:

Clinton started out trying to altogether ignore some important problems brewing in North

Korea. However, Clinton very rapidly understood to deal with North Korea when fears starting to take

place that they were generating materials for nuclear weapons with their small nuclear reactor in

Yongbyon. Clinton, in response to these fears, decided to begin military training exercises, known as

Team Spirit, in South Korea. This flexing of military muscle prompted North Korea to threaten to pull

out of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). After some negotiations North Korea agreed to pull back

on their threat of withdrawing from the NPT. This led Clinton to reward North Korea for its reversal

2

by not considering any trade sanction or military actions against the North Korea. Clinton

administration supported the idea that the military coercion was not an effective policy. On October

12, 1994, the United States and North Korea signed the "Agreed Framework4

George W. Bush also started out with a policy of indifference towards North Korea. But policy

was changed after September 11, 2001. In 2002, the Administration also became aware that North

Korea was developing a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons purposes. U.S.- North

Korea tensions accumulated, when Bush classified North Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil" in his

2002 State of the Union address. North Korea's conventional force posture, missile development and

export programs, human rights practices, and humanitarian are important issues for the Bush

Administration. Another trend that can be seen early on in the Bush Administration's policy is that of

economic punishment. Bush planned to stop the progress of oil shipments and construction on the two

light water reactors. Many clear differences can be seen between Clinton's policy and Bush's policy

towards North Korea. Clinton's was more of a reward path, enticing the North Korea to comply with

the United States by offering economic rewards. Bush, on the other hand, is attempting to bully the

North Korea into complying with economic threats. Another difference that we see between the two

administrations is the use of diplomacy.5

The Effects of Those Policies:

It was the Clinton’s administration success to sign "Agreed Framework" with North Korea On

October 12, 1994. By this the United States and North Korea agreed to freeze its plutonium production

program in exchange for fuel oil, economic cooperation, and the construction of two modern light-

water nuclear power plants. Pyongyang carefully observed these provisions until the Bush

administration stopped the oil shipments in December 2002.

3

The Bush administration believes that the United States should adopt a hawkish policy and

should penalize North Korea's rogue behavior. In contrast, the Clinton administration did not seem to

view North Korea as an irrational revisionist state, despite its rogue behavior, but felt that North Korea

could be understood through the security dilemma. Thus, engagement with negotiation often was the

best policy for the North Korean threat.6

As a result of Bush administration policies, On September 19, 2005, Six-party talks ( China,

North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan and the United States) resulted in an agreement where North

Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program for economic cooperation and assistance,

repeating its right to "peaceful uses of nuclear energy," while the U.S. recognized North Korea's

sovereignty and stated that it had no intention to attack North Korea. 7

May be as a result of these policies, North Korea didn’t produce any nuclear weapons in Bill

Clinton’s eight years of office, while they produced about six in the first 4 years of President’s Bush

office.8

What would new administrations do to deal with problem of N. Korea’s nuclear weapons? New administrations, contrary to Clinton and Bush Administrations, should start out with an

effective policy towards North Korea.

They should provide a security guarantee and better relations to deal with problem of

N.Korea’s nuclear weapons. Because North Korea aims to ease its security dilemma and

maintain its regime survival, to dismiss North Korea's security dilemma is to miss the cause of

its actions.

4

The policy of isolating North Korea to force it to abandon its nuclear weapons programs is not

effective policy. New administrations should negotiate one-on-one talks with North Korea not

only on nuclear weapons issue but also on economic and social issues.

While none of the parties desire a North Korea with nuclear weapons, South Korea and Japan

are very concerned about North Korean counterstrikes in case of military action against North

Korea. China and South Korea are also very worried about the economic and social

consequences should this situation cause the North Korean government to collapse. So Six-

party talks will be effective policy to solve North Korea problem.

Even though Bush Administration named North Korea as part of an "Axis of Evil" following

the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, New administrations should not plan any urgent

military action against North Korea.

1 North Korea (11/05) http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm#political 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-North_Korea_relations, "U.S.-North Korea relations - Wikipedia" 3 http://people.umass.edu/mray/essays/northkorea.html, "Comparison of Bush and Clinton Foreign Policy towards North Korea." 4 http://people.umass.edu/mray/essays/northkorea.html, "Comparison of Bush and Clinton Foreign Policy towards North Korea." 5 Ibid 6 Jihwan Hwang, “Realism and U.S. foreign policy toward North Korea: the Clinton and Bush administrations in comparative perspective” World Affairs, Summer, 2004 7 North Korea and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 8 Nicholas D.Kristof, “N.Korea, 6, And Bush, 0,” The New York Times, April 26, 2005 pg.A.19