What Is The Government Doing About North Korea

The recent frustrations with North Korea have made leaders around the world seriously consider the effectiveness of their responses. Western sanctions have had marginal effects and North Korea’s nuclear threats have continued to persist. So, what is the government doing about North Korea in the face of such growing tensions?

The current approach from many global governments is reflected in the UN Security Council’s Resolution 2375, which was adopted unanimously on September 11th 2017 in response to North Korea’s ICBM tests. This resolution targets North Korea’s ability to generate funding for their nuclear program, and introduced an export ban on coal, iron and iron ore, lead, seafood and also bans select joint ventures and prohibits investments in North Korea.

Although these economic sanctions were placed in order to diminish the financial resources available to North Korea, it is argued that the abilities of these sanctions to sufficiently reduce the funding sustaining North Korea’s nuclear program remain to be seen. It is still difficult to ascertain the extent to which North Korea is affected as the information is often subject to regional differences, speculation and lack of transparency.

Furthermore, there has been a reluctance for China and Russia to fully enforce these sanctions. China continues to support North Korea with its exports despite the UNSC’s resolution, fuelling concerns amongst neighbouring countries; China is North Korea’s largest trading partner and it is estimated that China accounts for 90% of North Korea’s external trade. This inevitably holds back the possibility of truly diminishing the economic resources available to North Korea.

However, other international bodies have responded to the growing tensions. The United States has implemented its own sanctions towards North Korea in addition to those of the UN’s. In addition to these economic measures, the US has also undertaken diplomatic steps with countries such as China to address the matter. As of 28th September 2017, the US is reported to have issued almost 30 sanctions designations for entities and individuals operating in North Korea.

Nevertheless, sanctions remain the strongest rejection from the world against North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and remain critical to the efforts of many governments, however, these sanctions are ineffective if not shared by all countries involved. To impose sufficient pressure and for governments to achieve their desired objectives, each nation has a responsibility to uphold their commitment and take necessary steps to reduce North Korea’s nuclear capabilities. This is an enormous task that is yet to be fully achieved, recognising and ensuring compliance to economic sanctions are one of the first steps in the right direction.

Although economic measures are being taken, the possibilities of diplomatic solutions are not being overlooked. It has been reported that the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, said that the “dialogue with North Korea is essential” and urged China and Russia to cooperate in implementing resolutions which were unanimously passed in the UNSC. These diplomatic solutions are also supported by South Korea, where the President, Moon Jae-in, has proposed more exchanges between the two countries and said that the North Korean nuclear issue can “fundamentally be resolved through dialogue when mutual trust is established” between North and South Korea.

The groundwork for a peaceful resolution has been slowly laid by the US and other countries in the region. South Korea, Japan, the United States and China have repeatedly emphasised their intention to end North Korea’s nuclear development through diplomatic means, by way of collaboration, dialogue and negotiation. Despite the differences in opinions and approaches, the common sense for all nations is to prevent the conflict and safeguard peace in the region. The unified aspiration of peaceful solutions underscores the broader objectives of the international community.

It goes without saying that the reduction of nuclear weapons requires the participation of both sides. North Korea needs to take responsibility and make sincere efforts to constructively engage with the rest of the world, while economic sanctions can continue to be an effective tool in expressing global disapproval of their actions and taking steps in the right direction.

The success or failure of economic sanctions are often difficult to judge, considering the lack of insightful data and regional difference. Despite this, stakeholders continue to hold sanctions as a viable strategy for pressuring North Korea. However, many would agree that sanctions should not be the only form of action proposed by the international community; rather, it should be accompanied by more diplomatic efforts and possible negotiations to reduce the risk of joining the League of Nations.

There have been an array of studies that suggest both the efficacy of sanctions and the importance of other forms of negotiations. For example, a 2008 analysis looked at the foreign aid provision and the North Korean nuclear weapons programme, and found that an increase in political economic and social exchanges were effective in reducing the risk of North Korea’s proliferation.

In a similar vein, another study conducted by the Congressional Research Service looked at the effectiveness of sanctions on North Korea and noted that the majority of sanctions imposed on North Korea were related to military technologies, nuclear and missile capabilities and therefore, the impact of these sanctions was largely aimed at motivating North Korea to stop their nuclear weapons programme. Consequently, the study concluded that sanctions were successful at preventing North Korea from increasing their nuclear weapon capabilities, while also serving to reduce tensions between the two nations.

In conclusion, there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to North Korea’s nuclear crisis and the effectiveness of certain strategies is heavily reliant on the execution and follow-up. Despite the marginal impacts of economic sanctions, it remains an important tool in addressing North Korea and global governments should continue to implement sanctions whilst creating and strengthening other political, economic and social engagements as viable alternatives.

The severity of the North Korean issue cannot be overlooked, as the risks of military confrontation present a serious threat to the security and stability of the region and the entire world. The risk is so great that the UN Security Council and other international organisations have convened an array of meetings in order to address the situation.

The risk of military action is further highlighted by the aggressive rhetoric from both sides, with the North Korean leader Kim Jung-un famously vowing to “wipe out” the US if provoked. However, the international community is focussed on pursuing a diplomatic solution rather than a military one, as a war between North Korea, South Korea and the US would inevitably lead to an all-out conflict.

Nevertheless, numerous doubts remain as to how much pressure the US and its allies can place on North Korea without triggering war. Although China and Russia have urged North Korea to de-escalate conflicts and focus on economic matters, it is yet to be seen whether this will be sufficient in coercing North Korea towards peaceful negotiations.

The US president Donald Trump’s rhetoric has also been a contributing factor to the instability of the matter. Trump’s provocative language has led to heated exchanges between the US and North Korea, as well as turmoil within the region as countries surrounding North Korea have had to decide whether to cast their lot in with the US or to look for a more cooperative solution.

In addition, the effectiveness of economic sanctions has yet to be seen. North Korea has been able to evade the sanctions through different tactics such as the use of shell companies, allowing them to continue to fund their missile and nuclear programmes.

Overall, it is clear that the North Korean situation remains incredibly complex, filled with potential risks. With no clear sign that one of the parties is willing to back down, cautious decisions must be taken both by the governments and the international community in order to prevent further tensions and avert a greater risk of conflict.

Various global governments may have taken several measures so far, however it is evident that more action is required to bring the situation under control. Expansion of the economic sanctions and other diplomatic measures are steps in the right direction, however, it is also important to consider the effects on the civilian population in North Korea.

For example, over 10 million North Koreans are estimated to be suffering from hunger and food insecurity, and 4 in 5 North Korean people are reliant on government food aid for their sustenance. It is important for governments to weigh the outcome of their decisions and policies, as many of the regulations put in place may severely hinder the North Korean citizens from accessing basic necessities, further destabilising the situation.

Furthermore, other forms of international assistance should be explored. Expansion of scientific and educational exchanges would potentially have a significant impact on the North Korean population. A free trade agreement between the two Koreas may still be a distant possibility, however, it may be an idea worth exploring for the benefit of both nations and the broader region.

Ultimately, restoring peace in the region requires both sides to work together. Diplomatic talks are undoubtedly essential and economic assistance must be provided in order to ease tensions. Although it is the responsibility of the countries involved in taking decisive steps, the international community and global governments must also share in the burden and act in an equitable and considerate manner to ensure a stable future.

Presently, it is widely-recognised that North Korea’s human rights situation is catastrophic and undeniably the worst in the world. The North Korean government has been found to be routinely violating its citizens’ rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly amongst countless other violations. Despite this, the international community has had limited tools to address such issues.

The human rights situation in North Korea is seen deeply intertwined with the nuclear arms policy. For instance, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has been stressing for years that the North Korean authorities’ misappropriation of scarce resources to maintain and develop its military capabilities, including the nuclear and ballistic missiles programs, instead of improving citizens’ livelihood, is a grave breach of its human rights obligations.

It is agreed amongst thehuman rights community that the governments of the world must use all the means at its disposal to influence governments elsewhere in order to ensure that the human rights is observed. Different groups have called for a ‘targeted, comprehensive and independent assessment’ of the human rights situation in North Korea by the UN. This could be a potential starting point for the international community, who can use human rights as a bargaining chip to coerce North Korea into changing its stance on nuclear weapons.

The keyinternational human rights body, United Nations Office of the High Commissioner Human Rights (OHCHR) too, has weighed in on the issue, recognizing the importance of utilizing all means of diplomacy to improve the human rights in North Korea, OHCHR and other human rights organisations have offered their assistance to the dispute, which may be important factor in de-escalating the situation.

Ultimately, it is essential that the discussionsabout the current situation in North Korea not overlook the human rights situation. The governments of the world must develop joint efforts to improve the human rights status in the region, reimposing their human rights obligations as part of their diplomatic efforts towards North Korea.