North Korea's Issue Research Articles

Japan’s Foreign Policy on the Truth of China and North Korea Issues

This article aim to seek after Japan’s Foreign Policy on the threat issues come from external cause, which are North Korea and China. The problems that Japan will respond to are the issue of the raising military strength of China and the launch of ballistic missiles by North Korea in 2021. This article will use the national interest theory and foreign policy theory on how the defence development is done by Japan. The defence development of Japan itself is shown on the Japan’s new proactive pacifism.

China in D. Trump’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy

With Trump as a president of the US from January 2017 and his decisive actions, which have undermined many agreements reached by previous American administrations (like withdrawal from the TTP, the Paris climate agreement, the Iran nuclear deal, the UNESCO, etc.), the international system and regional subsystems are under serious reconfiguration and readjustments. This accentuates the necessity to systemize Trump’s actions and initiatives in the realm of foreign policy and foreign trade, to interpret these actions’ logic, and to evaluate the changes that Trump’s policies have brought about. It is of high importance to analyze Trump’s strategy in the Indo-Pacific which is the priority region in his foreign policy agenda and the region where two major threats to the US and its allies are coming from - the rise of China as a country that pursues unfair trade and economic policies and reveals assertiveness in securing its core interests, and the threat from the North Korea. The aim of the article is to analyze China’s place in Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy. By studying American conceptual documents, Trump’s and other American high-level officials’ speeches, the article characterizes Trump’s free and open Indo-Pacific strategy, reveals its commonalities and peculiarities vis-à-vis Obama’s rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific strategy. The article also addresses the issue of Trump’s policies in the region on the economic front, because this is where Trump administration has introduces dramatic changes. Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy is examined in the article in the context of its impact on the US-China relations. The relations between the two countries - without exaggeration, one of the most consequential for the world - may seriously deteriorate due to not only the evolving US-China trade war, but also contradictions between them over various issues in the IndoPacific region. The article analyzes the aggravation of tensions between the US and China in 2017-2018 over South and East China Seas, Taiwan issue, and North Korea issue.

Japan’s New National Security Policy and Defense Strategy in a New Era

The security environment in Northeast Asia is changing dramatically and rapidly. Even more concerning than the North Korea issue is China’s strengthening of military power and activity. The author, a member of the House of Representatives of the National Diet of Japan and two-term Minister of Defense until October 2018, discusses recent developments in the region in terms of new methods of warfare, competition for technological hegemony, and Japan’s defense program. The article analyzes key relationships in the region, including the US-China relationship, the Japan-China relationship, and the Japan-Korea relationship and provides the author’s views of how best to manage these relationships in the mid- to long-term. This article is based on remarks delivered on March 6, 2019 for US–Japan LINK, a non-profit organization based in Tokyo.

A Case Study on National Security Conflict - Focusing on North Korea Issues -

A Case Study on National Security Conflict - Focusing on North Korea Issues -

The Evolving Sino-American Relationship and the Korea Problem

Distrust between the United States and China continues to grow in Northeast Asia. Among many contributing factors, the North Korea issue is one of the most important, as illustrated by the controversy over the possible deployment of the United States' THAAD missile defense system in South Korea. Thus, resolving or mitigating the Korea problem, a significant goal in its own right to both the United States and China, is also essential to reducing U.S.-PRC strategic distrust. China and the United States share long-term interests vis-à-vis the Korean peninsula. The question is how its resolution might be achieved. U.S. efforts to induce North Korea to abandon its nuclear and missile programs by offering incentives and imposing sanctions have failed, and Chinese attempts to encourage Pyongyang to adopt PRC-style economic reforms have not fared much better. With Washington, Beijing, and Pyongyang unlikely to change their approaches, the hope for any new initiative must rest with Seoul. South Korea's special relationships with the North, the United States, and the PRC, along with its status as a dynamic middle power, give it the potential to play a larger leadership role in dealing with North Korea. In doing so, South Korea should consult with the United States and China on a long-term strategy for inter-Korean reconciliation that would, for now, finesse the nuclear issue. Such a strategy would require U.S. and Chinese support of the South Korean leadership in addressing the Korea problem. The process of working together with Seoul to formulate and implement this strategy would allow both powers to ensure that their long-term interests on the peninsula are respected. Although there is no guarantee that such an effort will succeed, the worsening situation on and around the Korean peninsula and the U.S. and PRC's lack of progress all argue for this new approach, as do the potential benefits to the U.S.-PRC relationship.

North Korea's Perception and Policy on a Northeast Asian Order

IntroductionAfter the Cold War, globalization, regionalization, and informatization made a rapid advancement across the world. This brought great change in Northeast Asia but, unlike elsewhere in the world, the remnants of the Cold War still linger in the region. Although a discussion about a regional cooperative community is steadily surfacing, it is still at a level of dialogue and not yet fully institutionalized. Also, the previous paradigms of the Cold War are muddled and are competing with the new alternative paradigms of globalization and regionalization of the post-Cold War era.Not only government but businesses, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other involved actors were preoccupied with policies that were self-serving and seeking to transition from the regional cooperation of the Cold War period to a more modern and global post-Cold War era. This can be interpreted as characteristic of a transitional period of the early post-Cold War era, and initial conditions at this stage placed structural limitations on various actors. The initial conditions can be identified as historical issues in the region, a battle of hegemony between China and Japan, and the bilateral regional hegemonic strategies of the United States.Specific geopolitical and economic changes in Northeast Asian regional cooperation can be described as follows. First, in the military sector, although the national paradigm is the dominant framework, the discussion of an international paradigm has been newly emerging in recent years. In the realm of economic cooperation, increasing economic cooperation is focusing attention on the need for multilateral regional cooperation; nonetheless, bilateral cooperation is still prevalent. In the sociocultural realm, there is a growing consensus which points to the management of various North Korea issues via civil society; however, with varying civil-societal maturity amongst nations, most still take the state-centered approach when dealing with North Korea. Human rights discussions are often divided between debates on universality and cultural relativism, making human rights cooperation ever more difficult to pursue in the region. Similarly, the unique regional characteristics of Northeast Asia, along with international universalism, affect and further complicate inter-Korean relations.2Roughly put, the preexisting national paradigm and other related erative, and political elements have worked to keep the North Korean regime intact. In contrast, the alternative international paradigm and cooperative approach requires North Korea to adopt major changes, including changes to its regime.In the same context, discussions about extending and institutionalizing multilateral cooperation in dealing with all problems related to North Korea, including nuclear provocations, are gaining popularity.3 When the current Northeast Asian order is considered, there are different national interests at play. However, when it comes to the issue of North Korea, most countries agree that the problems should be resolved step by step, in a predictable and regulated manner, by inviting North Korea into the Northeast Asian community. In other words, resolving the North Korea problem through Northeast Asian regional cooperation means interaction with North Korea, which will eventually lead to stable and gradual regime change. Without North Korea's consent and active involvement, the North Korea problem will never be solved. Therefore, instead of generalizing North Korea's behavior as unique and episodic, more thorough analysis is required to understand its regime and policies. This will allow for a better analysis of its behaviors and response.This paper will adopt the comprehensive security framework from the Helsinki Process, a mechanism used during the Cold War to end the conflict and enhance and cooperation in the European region. Through this framework, North Korea's perceptions and policies on a Northeast Asian order and on regional cooperation will be analyzed through five domains: political and military, economic, humanitarian, sociocultural, and inter-Korean relations. …

The EU's Economic Cooperation with North Korea: The Possibility as a Useful Tool to Complement Korea-US Cooperation

North Korea conducted 2nd nuclear test on May 25, 2009. It made a vicious circle and continued military tension on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea regime got a question on the effectiveness of the six party talks and ‘security-economy exchange model’. In addition, the North Korea probably disappointed about the North Korea issue has been excluded from the Obama administration's policy position. So the dialogue or relationship recovery with the United States and North Korea through six-party talks or bilateral talks will be difficult for the time being. This paper examines the EU policy on North Korea. Based on the results, analyzes the EU is likely to act as a balancer on the Korean Peninsula. Through the procedure of deepening and expanding the economic and political unification, the EU utilizes their cooperative policies towards North Korea as an ideal opportunity to realize their internal value and to confirm the commonness within the EU members. The acceleration of the EU's unification, however, began to focus on human rights, and this made their official relationship worse. Yet, the EU is continuously providing food as wells as humanitarian and technological support to North Korea regardless of the ongoing nuclear and human rights issues in North Korea. Also, the number of multinational corporations investing in North Korea for the purpose of preoccupying resources and key industries at an individual nation's level has been increasing. The European Union has unique structure which should follow the way of solving the problem of member states like subsidiary principle. It appears to conflict between normative power of the European Union and strategic interests on member states. This paper examines if the European Union is useful tool to complement Korea-US cooperation in the near future.

International media coverage of North Korea: study of journalists and news reports on the six-party nuclear talks

This study examines what factors influence journalists’ perceived importance of different attributes of North Korea. In particular, this study analyzes the degree to which journalists’ perceived credibility of their sources influences their perceptions of different attributes of North Korea, even after controlling for individual, organizational, and social-system factors. To examine these issues, this study conducts a survey of South Korean and Western journalists who covered North Korea and a content analysis of media reports on North Korea. The results show that the influence of factors at different levels can vary depending on the issues or aspects of issues that journalists deal with. In the case of North Korea issues, sources at the institutional level had significant influence on journalists’ perceived importance of the rogue state dimension of North Korea. In comparison, journalists’ nationality at the social-system level best predicted journalists’ perceived importance of the dialogue partner dimension of North Korea.