-
The Us Security Policy And North Korea Nuclear Programme, 2000 – 2008
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 6]
Page 6 of 6
-
-
-
Richter
(2003) remarked that international law has long held that the use of
force between states is illegal except on two grounds- authorization by
the Security Council, and that done in self-defense. Furthermore, the
writer evaluates the notion of preemptive self-defense as well as the
customary laws that give rise to it, and whether such can be extended to
address the threats of terrorism and WMDs. In so doing so, the writer
addresses the general laws relating to self-defense and the limits of
the doctrine of preemption. It argues that aside the threat posed by
terrorism and WMDs, the extended version of preemption is the US is not
only potentially dangerous, but will be rejected by the international
community.
Again, Henneka (2006) maintained that nothing in the
political behavior of Korean policy could be understood without
reflecting upon the experience of the Korean Peninsula and its people
under the policy of the Great Powers. Moreso, the writer contended that
one of the main reasons of the radicalisation of the US – and North
Korean – policy is the underestimation of the meaning of Korean history
before and after its division. To this end, the writer pointed out that a
peaceful solution for the North Korean problem would probably not be
found by waiting for regime collapse, regime change, or by forcing North
Korea to one-sided reforms. Instead the international community and
especially the United States must accept that this policy would only
lead to a further escalation of the situation and increase the
possibility of military confrontation. The historical perspective shows
that one-sided accusations for the situation, no matter in which
direction, do not reflect the historical facts. The problem cannot be
solved without a wide understanding of Korean history in general. For
the future, it is important for the administration in Washington to
realise that dealing with the Korean Peninsula in a responsible way
means to consider the region’s wider historical dimensions, the writer
concludes.
Moreso, Boureston and Russell (2009) maintained that the
proliferation activities of Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea
illustrate the problem faced today by the international community:
procurement networks are staying ahead of export controls by altering
their tactics, learning new and more evasive techniques and finding ways
to exploit legitimate trade practices to acquire sensitive materials.
According to the writers, while control regimes may have successfully
slowed the first and second tier of proliferation networks, there is
actually a third tier of networks – a ‘substructure’ that is comprised
of a variety of semi-autonomous groups that can service the demand size
of today’s nuclear black market. The challenge for intelligence
agencies, and international and national regulatory bodies, in the view
of the writers, is to continue to investigate questionable activities
and to find new tools to interdict any transactions which may result.
Looking for indicators such as frequent buying missions to industrial
countries, suspicious contacts and organizations operating out of
embassies, scientific exchanges and other doubtful alliances among
allied nations, and nationals living overseas shipping materials to
their home country, investigators can identify and analyze the existence
of new and existing procurement networks. These and other more
innovative measures are needed to help enable the international
community to stifle nuclear procurement activities, thereby slowing the
spread of nuclear weapons, the writers concluded.
Summary of the
Review
In all, the review of the extant shows that our research questions have
not been satisfactorily addressed. In the first segment, none of the
writers whose works were reviewed specifically evaluated whether the US
government perceives North Korea nuclear programme as a threat to its
national security, between 2000 and 2008. In the second segment also,
the works reviewed could not explicitly articulated whether the US
government perceives North Korea nuclear programme as part of its war on
terror, between 2000 and 2008. Finally, in the last segment, the
authors reviewed failed to logically and coherently articulate the link
between the US government security policy on North Korea nuclear
programme and multilateral intervention on nuclear weapon development,
between 2000 and 2008.
We have to reiterate that our broad concern in
this study is to find out whether the US government perceives North
Korea nuclear programme both as a threat to its national security and as
part of its war on terror, between 2000 and 2008, on the one hand and
whether the US government security policy on North Korea nuclear
programme relegates multilateral intervention on nuclear weapon
development, between 2000 and 2008, on the other.
Despite the fact
that the extant literature is redolent of efforts by scholars to address
the foregoing, we discovered that the issue as articulated above still
needs attention because it has not been satisfactorily addressed within
the existing literature. In other words, there is need to re-interrogate
the issue raised above with a view to filling the lacuna noted in the
literature.
1.6 Theoretical Framework
For an in-depth explanation
and understanding of the link between the US government security policy
and North Korea nuclear programme, we predicated our analysis on the
realist approach. This approach tackles politics from what it is without
moralizing as to what ought to be. It comes to term with current facts
and is ready to shift positions to meet the prevailing political trends.
Here what is obtained in society is addressed as against what ought to
or should obtain. The political realist must negotiate with situations
as they really are.
Indeed, the world is full of opposing interest
and moral principles can never be fully realized, rather they must be
balanced with interests and the precarious settlement of conflicts.
Hence all pluralist societies must work in a system of check and
balances, appealing to historic precedent rather than to abstract
principles, and aim at realizing the lesser evil rather than the
absolute good (Whitaker and Mills, 1922).
The realist or power
politics approach in the study of international relations essentially is
anchored on a particular conception of man. This view of man arose as a
result of the attraction of the realists to thinkers such as Thomas
Hobbes, Nicollo Machiavelli, whose works emphasized the dark side of
human behavior. As Hobbes noted while painting the picture of man in the
state of nature, “in the first place, I put for a general inclination
of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power
that ceaseth only in deathâ€. Thus, political realism centers on the
belief that man is generally selfish and aggressive in nature. H.
Morgenthau, a leading figure in politica
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 6]
Page 6 of 6
-
-
ABSRACT - [ Total Page(s): 1 ]This study examines the interface between the US security policy and North Korea nuclear programme. The thrust of the study however is to find out if the US government perceived North Korea nuclear programme as a threat to its national security on the one hand and part of its war on terror, between 2000 and 2008 on the other. The study also investigated whether the US government security policy on North Korea nuclear programme relegates multilateral intervention on nuclear weapon development wit ... Continue reading---
