International Security Course–Fall  2020

To Prevent Proliferation, Stop Enrichment and Reprocessing in the Middle East

There is definitely a high risk of nuclear proliferation in the middle East. Most of the time, countries driven by security fears, regional ambitions or sometimes nationalism are trying to acquire nuclear weapons. So, the FP is suggesting that the US must reiterate its position on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. To achieve that goal, it must apply a firm rule, “no spent reactor fuel reprocessing or uranium enrichment—by anyone in the region.”

There are concerns that Saudi Arabia is consulting with China to help the kingdom mine and process uranium. Given the monarchy of Mohammed Bin Salman is capable of atrocities, then there is going to be a security problem here with the Saudi’s interest in nuclear power. Even though they intend to create a domestic nuclear industry in anticipation of high growth in domestic energy consumption, the US must act decisively and never supply Riyadh with nuclear technology.

We are told that U.S. agreements for civilian nuclear cooperation are coming up for renewal with Egypt and Morocco in 2021, and with Turkey in 2023. Sp, the nuclear industry will try to keep Congress from imposing strict rules,  given both Democratic and Republican administrations traditionally support U.S. nuclear exports. But FP is suggesting that it is vital to maintain the rule of the gold standard for all three. Therefore, I must say that nuclear nonproliferation must be one of Joe Biden’s top priorities.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/15/to-prevent-proliferation-stop-enrichment-and-reprocessing-in-the-middle-east/

North Korea and Nuclear weapons

North Korea has highlighted many questions in regard to the efficiency of a lot of multilateral organization bodies along with legally binding treaties. A lot of concern has aroused around the fact that North Korea has been:1) able to acquire a nuclear weapon program under strong reluctant from all great power U.S, China and Russia. 2) the acquisition of the know-how from visits to more than 6 states and initial help from Russia and China that didn’t last for long leaving Pyongyang self-reliant and insisting on creating the bomb.3) the idea of how North Korea was able to cheat under being a member of the NPT and the limitations of the IAEA to effectively do its job. 4) the limitations of the security council and its inability to stop North Korea.

Walter Clemens has laid down in his book “North Korea and the world”, several strategies that have been already pursed such as sanctions, and have made negotiations more tensions and intransigent with North Korea. Also, some of the strategies that were proposed were new such as the “Hack and Frack”. North Korea’s geopolitics is crucial in Asia and also strategical to security of United States.

Diplomacy and negotiations are the only key in my point of view with North Korea. They already have the know-how and any forceful attempt would not be of benefit.

North Korea- United States Relationship Moving forward after the 2020 Elections.

At this point, we can all see that the World will be watching the results of the 2020 United States Election to see whether President Trump will lead for another 4 years or will Joe Biden usher in a new era for the United States. One nation of course will be watching will be North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong-Un. In an article from Nikkei Asia, North Korea and Kim Jong Un will watch and await the results of the election will determine where the relationship between the United States and North Korea, and South Korea included as well.

This time around, North Korea has been quiet with provocations and  military parades as all are aware the result will determine what happens in relations between the two nations.  During the Trump administration, he held the first summits with North Korea and being the first sitting president to set foot on the country, and talked about his great relationship with Kim but since then nothing positive has come into fruition, and its also important to not forget that North Korea still has its nuclear arsenal.

This election of course will see whether relations will be on brinkmanship or whether there will be a new blossom in talks. For Trump, he will be eager to improve relations with North Korea as well as keep an eye and look out for South Korea as South Korea is a prominent ally in diplomacy, security and trade. A Biden victory would see a new approach, but most South Koreans hope Biden would steer away from an Obama approach “strategic patience” which was deemed as ineffective, but regardless whoever is in the White House will have to deal with the the hermit Kingdom of North Korea and a way to deter them from growing into a threat into Asia alongside China.

What America Will the World Get Next Week?

I read an article today in the New York TimesAs the U.S. votes, a frazzled world holds its breath.” While U.S. Presidential elections are always a matter of global interest, this particular one seems not only far more stressful at home, but also abroad. There were many in the U.S. and likely many among our friends and allies that did not expect the dramatic departure from standard U.S. foreign policy that the Trump administration has pursued. Republican leaders at the time told worried Americans and allies that they should relax, there would be “adults in the room” to curb his worst tendencies. This, of course, hasn’t played out the way they imagined.

Our allies in NATO now rightly worry a second term for Trump means the end of the alliance, and possibly of U.S. participation in multilateral organizations in general. Trump’s enamorment with dictators and rapport with authoritarians would likely lead to greater instability as the U.S. no longer serves as a check on dictators and would-be dictators and imperialists.

A few weeks ago, I read that Russia and China were waiting to engage with Iran to see what the outcome of the election might be. Since then, Putin made a statement saying he saw no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, which many saw as undermining President Trump’s new favorite conspiracy. When invited to explicitly support Trump after he suggested on a public conference call that Biden could not have “made this deal” with Sudan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demurred, saying “Well, Mr. President, one thing I can tell you is we appreciate the help for peace from anyone in America. And we appreciate what you’ve done enormously.” The president appeared visibly deflated by Netanyahu’s statement.

One line in today’s New York Times article that I found interesting suggested that at least some in the Israeli government fear a second term for Trump could lead to a deal with Iran they would not like as Trump would no longer need the electoral support of evangelicals. I can see how this might be a consideration, but I wouldn’t anticipate Trump’s stance to change too greatly. And to be fair, he has (not really jokingly) suggested he should be eligible for a third term because Democrats were “so unfair” to him in his first. He’d want to keep evangelicals in his corner for that fight.

What will the election bring?

With the election happening in only 2 days, votes streaming in across the U.S., and unrest rising, I decided to write about it. Of course, Americans are preparing for the inevitable anger and the aftermath of the results – once again stores are rapidly being emptied, people are filling their gas tanks, and businesses are preparing to completely shut down as many board up windows and doors across the nation. In D.C., George Washington students are being warned and told to “be prepared” for the disruptions that will erupt post-election. The university emailed students with a list of supplies to stock up on for at least a week. It appears that no matter who wins, a surge of violence will inevitably come. According to NPR: “Several human rights and conflict resolution groups that typically monitor elections abroad, mostly in fledgling democracies or places where sectarian violence could erupt, are now turning their attention to the United States for the first time.” But while anxiety and tension increases and is almost palpable in the air across the country, other nations appear ready to distance themselves from the U.S.

Over the past four years, Europe’s opinion and trust in the U.S. has drastically changed. So low is their trust in the free word that in a survey conducted by Pew Research, many survey respondents place less hope in Trump doing the “right thing regarding global affairs” than Chinese President Xi Jinping. Though support for Biden to win seems to be the popular opinion across Europe, it does not appear as if his winning will undo the damage done to the U.S.’s reputation. WaPo reports “Europeans do not believe they can depend on the United States as they did before. They want to be ready to act, with or without Washington.” The article cites this administration’s disregard for the many eruptions of unrest across EU borders and how that forced them to deal with the issues on their own. This reality has shown these nations that perhaps they do not need the U.S. as urgently as they had once thought. As our allies gradually distance themselves, what will it mean for the U.S?

Trump’s “Successes” in North Korea Policy

President Donald Trump has taken a “personalized” approach to North Korea and its leader Kim Jong-un. His emphasis on establishing a personal, businessman-esque relationship with the North Korean leadership parallels his policy towards a number of other strongmen around the world such as MBS, Vladimir Putin, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Presidential administrations of yore have distanced themselves from such behavior as so to avoid legitimizing one of the most brutally repressive regimes on the planet.

A critical pitfall of this approach is the appearance that the United States is treating North Korea as an equal negotiating partner. All the administration has received in return for its efforts are empty promises that North Korea will put the breaks on its nuclear program. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has labeled these moving-framworks-to-a-potential-deal-in-concept as major foreign policy achievements. In exchange, the United States has alienated key regional ally South Korea by canceling joint military exercises and insisting that South Korea “pay up” for the presence of the 30,000 U.S. servicemen on the Korean Peninsula. Trump has even floated the idea of reducing U.S. troop numbers entirely. The move mirrors the diminishing U.S. commitment to its regional allies across the globe that has been observed under the current administration.

China, Trump and North Korea

In his article “China’s clear and present conundrum on the Korean Peninsula: stuck between the past and the future”, Xiangfeng Yang discusses China’s complicated relationship with its ally North Korea. The author states that although countries share deep historical ties, the erratic actions of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has eroded the relationship between the two countries. In my opinion, this development is something that could be used by the United States to further its interests in the region and perhaps improve its relationship with China. However, with his inflammatory rhetoric, President Trump threatens to push North Korea and China closer together.

In their article, the author discusses a debate occurring in China regarding its relationship with North Korea. The author describes there being two sides, one which consists of what they consider to be “conservative hard-liners” and the other side which consists of moderate intellectuals. The hardliners want China to continue to support North Korea against what they view as an increasingly aggressive and belligerent United States while the moderates want to work with the United States to deal with North Korea and other security issues in East Asia. By using inflammatory rhetoric, President Trump weakens the position of the moderates and strengthens the hardliners who would see American influence completely removed from East Asia. In order to foster cooperation on this issue, the President should use less harsh rhetoric when discussing China.

The Korean War 70 years later- US and China

Seventy years ago, this week, China entered the Korean War in order to aid a retreating North Korean army. President Xi Jinping didn’t mince words speaking at the ceremonies. He made it very clear that China, a young nation at the time, was not afraid of this imperial super power coming to their side of the planet to wage war. 

President Trump indiscriminately takes shots at President Ping seemingly every chance he gets, continually stoking the fiery tension between the two that has only been exasperated since COVID-19 has hit US soil. Almost like a rallying call, President Xi, appeals to the Chinese citizens differently than he had when giving a speech on the same subject matter 10 years ago as the vice president. There’s much more fervor in his language and he does not mince words when he states, in reference to the brave Chinese soldiers who gave their lives in the war, “They smashed the myth that the American military is invincible.”

State run propaganda has also seemed to be ramped up to depict America as these savage invaders, who needed to be stopped. As generations progress, wars like the Korean war can be seen as in eternity ago to a nation’s youth, and that is often forgotten that many players in these wars still exist in our world today. 

In order to continually educate their youth on the Korean War, a film titled, “The Sacrifice,” was released that depicts Chinese soldiers keeping a river crossing open against relentless American bombardment. The film depicts an American pilot marveling at the tenacity of the Chinese soldiers below and radios back to his commanders that their attacks have failed. In the film the American pilot eerily states, “There’s nothing we can do to stop them,” almost as if the Chinese states want to remind its people that they’ve staved off America before and they are prepared to do so again if necessary.  

Myers, S., & Buckley, C. (2020, October 23). In Xi’s Homage to Korean War, a Jab at the U.S. Retrieved November 01, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/23/world/asia/china-us-korean-war.html?referringSource=articleShare

 

North Korea and America or The Mad Dog and The Tyrant – Would you shut up, please?

No, “Mad” or “Rabid Dog” this time doesn’t describe Gen. Mattis, and “Tyrant” not the yet 45th President of the United States.[1]

Rabid dogs like Baiden [sic] can hurt lots of people if they are allowed to run about. They must be beaten to death with a stick before it is too late. Doing so will be beneficial for the U.S. also.[2]

This is how Kim Jong Un called FRM Vice President Biden and Biden called his North Korean offender a Tyrant. It seems these two are not friends.

In just two days Americans will decide who will be the 46th President of the United States- and who will take the duty to deal with a country which built the largest vehicle-launched ballistic missile the world has ever seen. Should Mr. Biden take the Oval Office, however, they must overcome the animosity they put on display during the last weeks,

North Korea and its “Tyrant” as Biden said managed one thing for sure: to mislead practically the entire world and become under our very nose a nuclear power with more than 100 missiles. The 2018 visit of Trump and 2019 hopes to close the sad chapter of the Korean-Korean conflict seem now to be a staged theater play without a happy end.

But if not with talks like Trump how could Biden deal with North Korea? The commercial or military threat would not work. North Korea is already isolated and sanctioned. Probably the only country, which keeps the ties is China, and who would risk a military confrontation?

First of all, one cannot reach real results with inconsequent actions. As Stanton et al[3] suggest in “How to Hit Pyongyang Where It Hurts ”

The United States should begin fining and sanctioning the Chinese banks that illegally maintain relationships with North Korean banks and fail to report suspicious North Korean transactions to the U.S. Treasury Department.

It seems Mr. Biden will not want to deal directly with the Dictator from Pyongyang but it also seems that he has either an idea what to do. And North Korea keeps poking the bear, recently with the presentation of the monstrous nuclear rocket. It is like in Kindergarten; when you can’t impress with the old toys you need to have a bigger one and show it to everyone.

The solution of the conflict seems to be somewhere between Beijing and Washington, and between Washington and Pyongyang and it seems very much that the wisdom quoted by Yang et al[4] proves true

all roads to Pyongyang have to go through Beijing first.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/north-korea-calls-biden-a-rabid-dog-who-deserves-to-be-beaten-to-death/2019/11/14/09583e84-0748-11ea-b388-434b5c1d7dd8_story.html

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/north-korea-calls-biden-a-rabid-dog-who-deserves-to-be-beaten-to-death/2019/11/14/09583e84-0748-11ea-b388-434b5c1d7dd8_story.html

[3] Joshua Stanton, Sung-Yoon Lee, and Bruce Klinger, “Getting Tough on North Korea: How to Hit Pyongyang Where it Hurts, Foreign Affairs (Vol. 96, No. 3), May/June 2017, pp. 65-74

[4] Xiangfeng Yang, “China’s Clear and Present Conundrum on the Korean Peninsula: stuck between the past and the future,” International Affairs, Vol. 94, No. 3 (May 2018), pp. 595-611

Four Ideas for a More Practical Approach to North Korea

The U.S. Institute of Peace is making a U.S.-DPRK policy recommendation on how Washington can possibly and effectively get along with North Korea in the pursuit of its denuclearization agenda. They are suggesting that the U.S. must first recognize that the ultimate goal for all sides is to achieve peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Given Kim Jong-Un is willing to cooperate provided the US commits to “new U.S.–DPRK relations” and build “a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.” Therefore, Washington can prioritize peace in parallel with denuclearization by reaching out.

Second, there must be a reciprocity and proportionality approach, meaning the US must be willing to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea by lifting up the travel ban, have liaison offices in both capitals, engage in humanitarian assistance etc. This will reduce tensions and pave the way for denuclearization. Obviously, North Korea will not will give up his nuclear program overnight, that is why there must be discussions on both side’s security concerns, but the US must not loose sight of the overall goal.

Finally, the US must bring China and South Korea on board if it wants to win over the DPRK. There is definitely going to be challenges given US interests in the Korean peninsula do not align with those of China. That is why Washington must widen the talks by involving Beijing and Seoul. So, the outcome of the November 3 election will determine the course of US foreign policy with North Korea.

https://www.usip.org/publications/2020/10/four-ideas-more-practical-approach-north-korea