Abstract
This study posits that the ineffective and futile efforts of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to contain North Korean nuclear ambition are a result of the United States (U.S.) consistently and strategically developing its sanctions regimes, rather than the limited implementation of the UNSC’s measures or by the non-compliance of China and Russia, the two North Korean-leaning permanent UNSC members. The U.S/ has endeavoured to maximise its strategic leverage against North Korea by consolidating bilateral channels to increase its foreign policy capacity and flexibility, instead of reinforcing multilateral pressures through the UNSC. Although both the U.S. and the UNSC share the goal of nuclear non-proliferation in Northeast Asia, the former deliberately exploited the deficient decision making process of the latter to maximise its foreign policy flexibility. Consequently, the U.S. has flexibly pursued both engagement and containment of North Korea while maintaining its hard-line stance against it at the UNSC, whereas the UNSC’s sanctions on North Korea have gradually become rigid and inflexible, without achieving tangible outcomes. We argue that the U.S.’s unilateral use of sanctions against North Korea is building on its instrumental use of the UNSC’s multilateral framework, which has significantly lost its legitimacy and effectiveness amid the looming U.S.-China rivalry over hegemony in Asia.
Highlights
Throughout the past decades, North Korea continued its nuclear venture while maintaining the status of a de facto nuclear state
Conforming to the recent discussion (Brands 2017; Weiss 2018; Nye 2019), we argue that the U.S.’s recent series of policy triumphs against North Korea is built on discrediting multilateralism, which has become a salient pattern of U.S foreign policy, under the Trump administration
At the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, President Trump once unapologetically swaggered: “In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country” (Trump 2018b)
Summary
Throughout the past decades, North Korea continued its nuclear venture while maintaining the status of a de facto nuclear state. The Obama administration focused on North Korea’s human rights issues, promoted “strategic patience”, and relied on its allies through multilateral agreements to impose stronger sanctions against North Korea, while containing the rise of China (Jin 2016). The U.S prioritised human rights issues in the agenda and sought multilateral cooperation to contain China and eventually to re-engage North Korea in negotiations on denuclearisation (United Nations 2016). Believing that only U.S.-led (i.e., unilateral) economic sanctions could weaken North Korea, Trump deliberately put human rights-related concerns at the bottom of the U.S foreign policy agenda (Holland and Mason 2018) He even accused the UNHRC, with its membership of Cuba, Venezuela, and China, of being a politically biased organisation, and the U.S withdrew in 2018 (New York Times 2018b: A-7).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have