Policy Forum

As North Korea has developed nuclear missiles to the extent that they could threaten the United States, the American public has come to recognize the North Korean threat clearly and map out how to respond to it. Therefore, they can no longer be approached merely in terms of “knowledge public diplomacy” or “cultural public diplomacy.” It is time to carry out “policy public diplomacy” to communicate with them and coordinate the policies of the two countries.

At the end of 2016, an agreement on a crisis management framework between the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) and the European (“EU”) was put into effect. This agreement established a legal foundation for Korea’s participation in the EU’s crisis management operations. This agreement expanded upon existing forms of cooperation that mainly permitted dialogue by allowing Korea and the EU to operationally cooperate in political and security matters.

Military tensions rose significantly on the Korean peninsula as a result of the 20 North Korean missile launches conducted in 2017. Eleven of these missile launches and North Korea’s sixth nuclear weapons test took place after President Moon took office and President Trump mentioned the possibility of a military strike against North Korea.

Despite the NPT’s contribution to preventing global nuclear proliferation, North Korea’s nuclear armament has emerged as a threat to the international nuclear nonproliferation regime and the existing nuclear order in Northeast Asia that has complied with it.

Denuclearization through security assurance is an important policy alternative because economic sanctions have not yet led to denuclearization and military measures are too risky. As can be seen in the Ukrainian crisis, security assurance can be an empty promise, however. Therefore, in order to induce denuclearization through security assurance, it is desirable to promote a denuclearization zone treaty that the US, Russia and China participate in and ratify.

As North Korea’s nuclear armament is being completed, discussions on military options such as pre-emptive strike, preventive war, and North Korean leaders’ elimination are intensifying inside and outside the US government. Discussions on South Korea’s independent nuclear armamentor the redeployment of US tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula are being intensified. In addition, some discussions have been raised to accelerate the collapse of North Korea by intensifying military pressure.

If the current trends in Northeast Asia are maintained, it is expected that North Korea will acquire nuclear weapons, China will challenge the existing US-Russia-centered nuclear order, and Japan will gradually overcome domestic resistanceto nuclear weapon development.

The emergence of terrorism in various countries of the West in the 21st century and the global financial crisis that began on Wall Street in the United States in 2008 have created doubt toward the US-led neoliberal economic order across the world. Amidst these circumstances, the Brexit referendum of May 2016 and the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election of the same year have led numerous experts to voice the sense of threat that the liberal international order is facing a crisis. Indeed, the two most noteworthy phenomena within the international economy in early 2017 were Brexit and the changes in the US trade policy, which both represent a significant reflection of national interest.

The Putin government of Russia is enlarging its presence in international affairs by intervening in the Syrian civil war and the negotiation process to end the war, and by performing a leading role in the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear arms, after its annexation of Crimean peninsula in March, 2014. Russia has as its top priority the lifting of sanctions by the U.S. and the West on itself, while dealing with the North Korean nuclear and missile issues using its ties with the U.S. and China.