Contemporary Japanese Foreign Policy PDF

Week 8 JAPAN-EAST ASIA RELATIONS III: NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT BY DPRK ‘Doomsday Clock’（世界終末時計）- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists -​ How close humanity is to catastrophic global events, primarily due to existential threats like nuclear weapons, climate change, and disruptive technologi...

Week 8 JAPAN-EAST ASIA RELATIONS III: NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT BY DPRK ‘Doomsday Clock’（世界終末時計）- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists -​ How close humanity is to catastrophic global events, primarily due to existential threats like nuclear weapons, climate change, and disruptive technologies. "Midnight" on the clock signifies a global disaster or apocalypse. -​ "Closer than ever (2024.1.23)": On January 23, 2024, the clock was set to 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been since its inception in 1947. This adjustment reflects heightened global threats: ​ Geopolitical instability (e.g., North Korea’s nuclear tests). ​ Insufficient action on climate change. ​ Emerging global threats exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. -​ Key Concerns Highlighted: 1.​ Nuclear Threats: Escalating risks from nuclear proliferation, as seen with North Korea’s development and modernization of nuclear arsenals by major powers. 2.​ Climate Change: Worsening impacts due to insufficient global action on emissions reduction. 3.​ Disruptive Technologies: Misuse or lack of governance of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and bioweapons. -​ Implication of "90 Seconds to Midnight": This alarming proximity symbolizes the urgent need for international cooperation to mitigate risks, promote disarmament, and strengthen global resilience against these threats. A BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION -​ Nuclear weapons development began with the United States’ first test in 1945, followed by other countries: -​ -​ In the Cold War period ​ Competitions Between the U.S. and the Soviet Union -​ The Cold War (1947–1991) was characterized by intense rivalry between the two superpowers—the United States (capitalist bloc) and the Soviet Union (communist bloc).  -​ Nuclear weapons became central to this competition, as both nations raced to build larger and more advanced arsenals to assert dominance and deter each other. ​ Nuclear Proliferation -​ Nuclear proliferation refers to the spread of nuclear weapons and technologies to additional states. During the Cold War: -​ Both superpowers developed and stockpiled massive numbers of nuclear warheads. -​ Other nations, such as the UK, France, and China, also entered the nuclear club during this period. -​ The risk of further proliferation increased as some states sought nuclear weapons to enhance their security or status. ​ ‘Nuclear Deterrence’ -​ The concept of nuclear deterrence played a central role during the Cold War: -​ Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union maintained nuclear arsenals to deter the other from initiating a nuclear attack or major conflict. -​ This led to a state of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), where neither side could attack without guaranteeing its own destruction. -- a military strategy that assumes that a nuclear attack by one country would lead to a nuclear counterattack that would destroy both countries. ​ Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) -​ A 13-day confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union in October 1962 -​ The Soviet Union deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles from the U.S. mainland, in response to U.S. missile deployments in Turkey. -​ The U.S. discovered the missiles and demanded their removal, leading to a tense 13-day standoff that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. -​ Ultimately, both sides reached a peaceful resolution: ​ The Soviet Union withdrew its missiles from Cuba. ​ The U.S. secretly agreed to remove its missiles from Turkey. ​ Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1963) -​ In the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, both superpowers recognized the need to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict and limit the environmental damage caused by nuclear testing. -​ They signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) in 1963: ​ Banned nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, outer space, and under water. ​ Underground tests were still allowed, but the treaty was a step toward reducing tensions and promoting arms control. ​ The Cuban Missile Crisis was a turning point in the Cold War, demonstrating the catastrophic risks of unchecked nuclear competition.  ​ The Partial Test Ban Treaty marked the first major arms control agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, laying the groundwork for future treaties aimed at curbing the nuclear arms race. ​ The Cold War period was marked by fierce nuclear competition and the development of deterrence policies, but crises like the Cuban Missile Crisis underscored the need for cooperation to manage the risks associated with nuclear weapons. -​ Is nuclear disarmament happening? ​ Whether nuclear disarmament is happening is a matter of opinion ​ South Africa is the only country to have voluntarily dismantled its entire nuclear weapons program. -​ In the 1970s and 1980s, South Africa developed six nuclear weapons during the apartheid era. -​ In 1989, before the transition to democracy, it decided to disarm unilaterally. By 1991, all nuclear weapons were dismantled, and the country joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear state. -​ This is often cited as a success story of nuclear disarmament. -​ The decision was driven by shifting political circumstances, including the end of apartheid and reduced threats from regional conflicts. ​ Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine: Post-Soviet Disarmament -​ After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, these three newly independent states inherited large numbers of nuclear weapons: -​ Ukraine: The world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. -​ Kazakhstan: Hosted key Soviet nuclear test sites and a significant stockpile. -​ Belarus: Contained Soviet nuclear weapons on its territory. -​ All three countries agreed to relinquish their nuclear weapons and return them to Russia for dismantlement. This was formalized through agreements such as: -​ The Budapest Memorandum (1994): In exchange for giving up nuclear weapons, these states received security assurances from nuclear powers, including the U.S., UK, and Russia. -​ These cases are hailed as examples of cooperative disarmament. -​ However, the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2014 and 2022 has raised concerns about the reliability of security assurances given in exchange for disarmament. ​ Disarmament has occurred in specific cases like South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, demonstrating that it is possible under certain political and security conditions. However, on a global scale, nuclear disarmament remains slow and uneven, with ongoing modernization and proliferation undermining efforts. Whether it is happening depends on whether one focuses on these isolated successes or the broader challenges. -​ Debate on Nuclear Proliferation ​ Optimism (Kenneth Waltz): The spread of nuclear weapons will lead to more stability and less conflict. ​ Pessimism (Scott Sagan): The spread of nuclear weapons will lead to more accidents, instability, and conflict. -​ Global nuclear weapon inventories -​ Current international regime 1.​ Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) - 1963 Treaty banning Nuclear Weapons Test in the Atmosphere, in outer Space and under Water ​ To ban nuclear weapon tests in specific environments to limit radioactive contamination and reduce the arms race. ​ Allowed underground tests, which continued during the Cold War. 2.​ Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) - 1996 → not yet in force ​ To ban all nuclear weapon tests, regardless of location. ​ Not yet in force, as key nuclear-armed nations (e.g., the U.S., China, India, Pakistan) have not ratified it. ​ Aims to prevent the development of new nuclear weapons and further proliferation. 3.​ Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - 1970 ‘Five are recognized as nuclear weapons states’ ​ Prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament, encourage peaceful use of nuclear energy. ​ Recognized nuclear weapon states: The U.S., Russia, China, the UK, and France (the "P5"). ​ But, some states (e.g. India, Pakistan, Israel) never joined, North Korea withdrew and developed nuclear weapons 4.​ Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) - 2021  ​ To completely ban nuclear weapons, including their use, testing, production, and possession. ​ Major nuclear-armed states and their allies (e.g., NATO countries, Japan) have not joined. ​ Critics argue the treaty lacks enforcement mechanisms and fails to address the current geopolitical security environment. 5.​ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ​ Promotes the safe, secure, and peaceful use of nuclear technology. ​ Conducts inspections to ensure compliance with safeguards agreements. ​ Verifies that nuclear materials are not diverted to weapons programs. ​ Supports peaceful applications of nuclear energy, such as medicine and energy production. -​ Strategies to Control the Spread of Nuclear Weapons ​ By gradually decreasing the number of the weapons ​ By lowering the possibility of the use ​ How? -​ Negotiations among ‘the five’ ​ The P5 nations (U.S., Russia, China, UK, France) hold significant responsibility for disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. ​ Agreements among these powers set the tone for global nuclear policy. -​ Never pass them into the hands of ‘irrational nations or groups’ ​ Nations with nuclear weapons are expected to prevent: -​ Transfers of nuclear technology or materials to rogue states. -​ Non-state actors (e.g., terrorist groups) from acquiring nuclear capabilities. -​ Control by the treaties ​ Treaties like the NPT, CTBT, and TPNW create legal frameworks to regulate nuclear activities. ​ IAEA inspections ensure compliance with safeguards agreements and deter misuse of nuclear materials. NON-PROLIFERATION EFFORTS BY DIVERSIFIED ACTORS: Counter Proliferation Efforts -​ Nuclear Weapon Free Areas (NWFZs) ​ Established in regions like Southeast Asia and Latin America. -​ UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) ​ Prohibits individuals, companies or other actors from supporting non-state actors that are seeking to acquire weapon of mass destruction -​ The US-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)  ​ Aims to stop trafficking of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their delivery systems, and related materials to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. ​ PSI-endorsing countries commit to: 1.​ Interdict transfers to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern to the extent of their capabilities and legal authorities; 2.​ Develop procedures to facilitate exchange of information with other countries; 3.​ Strengthen national legal authorities to facilitate interdiction; 4.​ Take specific actions in support of interdiction efforts. -​ ‘Global Zero’ movement by Obama (2009): ‘Three Pillars’ 1.​ Nuclear disarmament 2.​ Access to civilian nuclear energy 3.​ Nonproliferation -​ Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) (effective in Jan 2021) ​ A new nuclear weapon prohibition treaty was adopted by 122 nations in a historic vote at the United Nations (July 2017) ​ To ban the acquisition, development, production, manufacture, possession, transfer, receipt, testing, extraterritorial stationing, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons ​ Many nations including Australia, Canada, India, Norway and Japan previously supported the idea but didn't join the TPNW. ​ Japan has not joined the TPNW despite being a victim of atomic bombings. Reasons include: -​ Dependency on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for security against threats like North Korea and China. -​ A cautious approach to disarmament that balances humanitarian ideals and national security interests. ​ Problem points of the TPNW -​ Treaty without nuclear nations and nuclear allegation ​ The TPNW has not been signed or ratified by: 1.​ Nuclear-armed states: The U.S., Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. 2.​ Allied states under the nuclear umbrella: Countries like Japan, NATO members, South Korea, and Australia, which rely on the security provided by allied nuclear arsenals. ​ The treaty lacks enforcement or influence over the primary holders of nuclear weapons, limiting its global effectiveness. ​ Without participation from these key players, achieving complete nuclear disarmament is unrealistic. -​ The treaty does not clearly mention the process of nuclear disarmament and abolition of the arsenal. ​ The treaty calls for the elimination of nuclear weapons but does not specify:  1.​ A timeline or step-by-step process for disarmament. 2.​ Mechanisms for verifying compliance or dismantling existing nuclear arsenals. ​ Critics argue that the treaty is more symbolic than practical, as it lacks actionable guidelines to transition from possession to elimination. ​ This vagueness makes it difficult for states to consider joining or implementing the treaty in practice. -​ Intention of nuclear nations and the delicate security situation of those who are under the nuclear umbrella is unconsidered. ​ Nuclear Nations: -​ Nuclear-armed states view the TPNW as incompatible with their deterrence policies, which they argue are essential for maintaining regional and global stability. -​ For example, the U.S., UK, and France issued a joint statement rejecting the TPNW, citing its conflict with existing security frameworks and the realpolitik of global security. ​ States Under the Nuclear Umbrella: -​ Countries like Japan and South Korea face security threats from neighbors (e.g., North Korea’s nuclear program) and depend on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for protection. -​ The TPNW fails to address these nations' unique security concerns, making participation politically and strategically challenging. ​ By ignoring the geopolitical realities faced by nuclear and allied nations, the treaty struggles to gain widespread support and credibility. ​ Different positions: Nuclear haves and nations under the nuclear umbrella -​ Nuclear nations: US, Russia, China, UK, France ​ Value NPT over TPNW from the realpolitik perspective ​ Joint statement by the US, UK, and France: -​ TPNW obviously ignores the real security environment -​ TPNW conflicts with the nuclear deterrence policy that has been conducted over the ages in Europe and Asia -​ We never sign or ratify the treaty. ​ Accelerate the modernization of weapons -​ Nuclear allegation nations: India, Pakistan, Israel, NK ​ Equip themselves with nuclear arms based on the nuclear deterrence theory ​ Ignore the NPT ​ Secure a regional advantage ​ Ignore inhumanness of nuclear weapons ​ Ignore rule of laws or norms that should be shared by nations -​ Nations under the umbrella: NATO members, US alliance partners ​ Share the spirit of TPNW ​ Understand inhumanness of nuclear weapons ​ Recognize the potential impact of TPNW ​ Prioritize the stabilization of regional security environment and deeply dependent on the nuclear umbrella provided by the allies -​ Japan and TPNW ​ Japan knows well about the inhumanness of nuclear weapons. ​ Japan’s disarmament diplomacy for realizing the world free from nuclear weapons should be promoted to meet its coordinated and comprehensive security policies. ​ Japan does not press forward the disarmament policies if there's a possibility to undermine Japan’s national security interests. ​ Discussions 1.​ For all Japan is a victim of nuclear bombing, why doesn’t Japan join the treaty? 2.​ Japan should join the treaty immediately as a representative of the victims of the weapons. 3.​ Some suspect Japan over the possible development of nuclear weapons. -​ However, Japan’s pacifist constitution (Article 9) and strong anti-nuclear sentiment within its society make this unlikely. 4.​ Some understand Japan’s difficult position of being unable to join the treaty. -​ Many recognize Japan’s dilemma: while it advocates for nuclear disarmament as a moral imperative, it also faces tangible security threats from nuclear-armed neighbors. -​ Japan’s inability to join the TPNW is thus seen as a pragmatic choice to prioritize its security within the U.S.-led alliance. 5.​ Japan should join the treaty because she takes multilateral policies. 6.​ It is possible for Japan to join the treaty, while she remains to be under the US nuclear umbrella. -​ The TPNW explicitly prohibits reliance on nuclear weapons, including deterrence strategies provided by allies. -​ Joining the treaty while maintaining the nuclear umbrella would likely be viewed as contradictory and undermine the treaty’s principles.  7.​ Outside of the treaty, Japan needs to join COP as an observing nation. -​ Contribute to discussions on disarmament. -​ Show its commitment to humanitarian goals without fully committing to the treaty. -​ Balance its security needs with its moral responsibilities. ​ TPNW vs Nuclear deterrence -​ Nuclear deterrence views nuclear weapons as a stabilizing force, while the TPNW views them as an existential threat -​ Nuclear deterrence argues that the threat of retaliation prevents conflict, but the TPNW counters that this reliance on weapons increases the risk of humanitarian disasters. -​ The TPNW rejects nuclear deterrence policies outright, considering them a justification for perpetuating the status quo and delaying disarmament. -​ The nuclear deterrence policy prioritizes security through strength and the retention of nuclear weapons to deter conflicts, while the TPNW prioritizes humanitarian goals and seeks to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. These two approaches are fundamentally incompatible, as the TPNW directly challenges the validity of nuclear deterrence as a security strategy. NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT BY NORTH KOREA: SECURITY MANAGEMENT -​ Facing humanitarian crises ​ UN Humanitarian Work: 3 Strategic Objectives -​ The overall goal in DPRK is to support and reinforce national efforts to ensure people’s health and well-being, especially the most vulnerable, and to build their resilience. 1.​ Improving food security and nutrition 2.​ Access to basic services 3.​ Strengthen resilience to recurrent disasters ​ The North Korean Threat -​ A grave security threat due to its military and nuclear capabilities ​ Conventional Military Force: one of the largest standing armies in the world, its assets pose a significant threat to South Korea and neighboring countries -​ One of the largest conventional military forces combined with its missile, nuclear tests and aggressive rhetoric: ​ Missile and nuclear tests: its missiles can reach US and global targets, nuclear weapons program has advanced, heightens regional tensions and destabilizes East Asia  ​ Aggressive Rhetoric: uses brinkmanship diplomacy, threatening military action to gain political leverage in negotiations with the U.S. and other nations. Keeps neighboring countries, such as South Korea and Japan, on constant alert. -​ Among the poorest countries in the world -​ Spends nearly a quarter of its GDP ​ Spends nearly 25% of its GDP on military expenditures, including its nuclear and missile programs. ​ Worsens the population’s suffering and perpetuates its dependence on humanitarian aid -​ -​ North Korea exemplifies a unique dual challenge: a nation grappling with severe humanitarian issues while simultaneously threatening regional and global security through its military and nuclear ambitions. Addressing these issues requires a careful balance between providing humanitarian assistance and enforcing measures to curb its threatening behaviors. -​ Nuclear development by NK ​ Kim Jong-Un has followed the brinkmanship diplomacy. -​ NK has repeated missile and nuclear tests. -​ These tests have isolated herself from the international community. ​ What are the possible objectives: -​ Ensuring regime survival. ​ North Korea perceives external threats, especially from the U.S.-South Korea alliance, and believes nuclear weapons are the ultimate safeguard against regime change or invasion. ​ Kim Jong-Un uses nuclear deterrence to project strength in the face of perceived military threats. -​ Enhancing domestic legitimacy. ​ Standing up to powerful nations like the U.S., reinforcing Kim’s image as a strong leader. -​ Using nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip.  ​ Forcing other countries to engage with North Korea on his terms. -​ Gaining strategic and geopolitical leverage. Despite severe sanctions and international condemnation, these objectives underline why North Korea continues to prioritize its nuclear and missile programs, often at the expense of its population’s well-being. ​ Why do states pursue the development of nuclear weapons? 1.​ Security States only build nuclear weapons to increase national security against foreign threats, especially nuclear threats 2.​ Domestic Politics Nuclear weapons can play a role of political tools used to advance parochial domestic and bureaucratic interests 3.​ Nuclear symbols and state identity Nuclear weapons (or a conscious decision not to have them) are part of what modern states believe they have to do or possess to be legitimate, modern, respected states. ​ If NK proliferates nuclear weapons… -​ Give grave damage to neighbors -​ Invite horrible consequences in the region -​ Invite military expansion in other regions -​ May cause changes in non-nuclear policy of SK and Japan -​ May cause changes in alliance partners …… ​ -​ Launch of military reconnaissance satellite (Nov 21, 2023) ​ Why? -​ The direct result of assistance from Russia -​ A stated goal of NK’s weapons programs to improve the country’s intelligence and reconnaissance capability  -​ Competition with South Korea that is schedule to launch of its first domestically built satellite at the end of the month ​ Implications -​ NK is profiting from Russia’s war in Ukraine. By giving weapons and ammunition to Russia, NK is receiving not just food and fuel assistance but also military satellite technology and possibly other advanced technology. -​ The launch will reveal the inability of the UN Security Council to enforce the 10 resolutions now levied against NK. -​ A fully functional military satellite capability will give NK real-time information about U.S. and SK military activities on the peninsula. -​ What’re the likely responses going forward? ​ U.S.-SK-Japan trilateral consultations are certain to have already taken place to respond to NK’s latest. -​ Joint military exercises to demonstrate preparedness and deterrence. -​ Enhanced intelligence sharing, especially on North Korea’s satellite capabilities. -​ Joint public statements condemning the satellite launch as a violation of UN resolutions. ​ SK could terminate the so-called September 19 inter-Korean agreement, under which the two Koreas agreed to suspend hostile activities along their border, including measures to establish buffer zones and no-fly zones and suspend naval drills and surveillance activities. -​ South Korea could respond to North Korea’s provocations by withdrawing from this agreement, resuming military drills, and reinforcing its defense posture along the border. -​ This would likely escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula, increasing the risk of direct confrontations. ​ There may be a coordination of statements and sanctions policy among groupings like the G7 because there will be no new UNSCRs. ​ NK provocations provide windows of opportunity to restart diplomacy with the U.S. NK is waiting out the U.S. presidential election in November 2024. -​ North Korea may avoid substantive diplomatic engagements until after the U.S. presidential election, hoping for potential changes in U.S. foreign policy. -​ The satellite launch and similar provocations could be used to pressure the U.S. and its allies into restarting stalled diplomatic talks, potentially seeking concessions like sanctions relief. -​ While provocative, North Korea’s actions also provide an opportunity to reengage in diplomatic discussions. -​ The U.S. and its allies may explore avenues for dialogue to reduce tensions while maintaining a firm stance on denuclearization. ​ The satellite launch represents a serious escalation in North Korea’s military capabilities, prompting immediate trilateral responses from the U.S., South  Korea, and Japan. While the international community may struggle to enforce new UNSC resolutions, coordinated actions through groups like the G7 and opportunities for diplomacy could help manage the situation. However, the risk of heightened regional tensions and further provocations from North Korea remains high. -​ History of NK’s nuclear development ​ The 1st Nuclear Crisis (1993-94) -​ NK’s refusal of IAEA’s inspection -​ NK’s announcement of withdrawal from NPT -​ Factors which contributed to deterring a war ​ Nuclear/military deterrence policy ​ Supposed high “war cost”  ​ J. Carter’s visit to NK ​ Bargaining between NK and the US -​ ‘Carrot and stick approach’ by the US aims to deter the historic-high millions of migrants fleeing persecution from their home countries and seeking US asylum from entering the country illegally a.​ NK: - Give up brinkmanship diplomacy b.​ US: - Promise to supply energy, technology, foods; Guarantee the regime; Promise to have regular talks with NK ​ The 2nd Nuclear Crisis (2003-06) -​ George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” comment on NK ​ Implied that these nations were pursuing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and supporting terrorism, posing a threat to global security. ​ North Korea viewed this as an existential threat, increasing its distrust of the U.S. and reinforcing its justification for nuclear weapons development as a deterrent. ​ The rhetoric heightened tensions between North Korea and the international community. -​ NK’s refusal of IAEA’s inspection ​ North Korea refused to allow inspections, citing the U.S.'s "hostile policy" as the reason for its defiance. ​ The refusal cast doubt on North Korea’s intentions and raised concerns about its clandestine nuclear program. -​ NK’s announcement of withdrawal from NPT (2003) ​ First ever country to do so ​ This move followed accusations from the U.S. that North Korea was pursuing a clandestine uranium enrichment program, violating the 1994 Agreed Framework (a U.S.-North Korea agreement to freeze NK’s nuclear program in exchange for aid). ​ The withdrawal effectively removed North Korea from the NPT’s obligations, enabling it to pursue nuclear weapons development openly. -​ The 1st nuclear and missile tests ​ These tests heightened global alarm and confirmed North Korea as a nuclear threat. -​ Refusal of attending “Six-Party Talks” ​ A multilateral framework established in 2003 involving six countries: North Korea, South Korea, the U.S., China, Japan, and Russia. ​ The goal was to negotiate the denuclearization of North Korea and address its security concerns.  ​ North Korea initially participated but later boycotted the talks, citing U.S. sanctions targeting its financial institutions. It viewed the talks as biased and unproductive. ​ The breakdown of negotiations led to a lack of dialogue and further escalation of North Korea’s nuclear program. ​ UN Security Council economic sanctions -​ Banning arms exports to and from North Korea. -​ Restricting luxury goods imports to target the elite. -​ Freezing assets and imposing travel bans on individuals involved in North Korea’s nuclear program. -​ Resolution 1718 (2006) specifically condemned North Korea’s actions and sought to limit its ability to advance its nuclear and missile programs. -​ While the sanctions aimed to pressure North Korea into compliance, they also contributed to its economic isolation, further entrenching its defiance. a.​ arms embargo b.​ ban/limitation on the export of luxury goods, oil, coal …. c.​ travel ban d.​ assets freeze on designated persons and entities e.​ inspection of all cargoes to and from the NK -​ Factors which contributed to deterring a war ​ Military/nuclear deterrence policy ​ Supposed “war cost” ​ Efforts for avoiding the regime collapse ​ Iraq War ​ UNSC resolutions -​ Frameworks for controlling NK’s nuclear development ​ International level: NPT, IAEA ​ Regional level: ASTOP (Asian Senior-level Talks on Non-Proliferation), NEAPSM (Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism) ​ Unofficial level: “Quasi-institutionalized” mechanism -- “Six-Party Talks” (2003-) ​ US-led system: PSI -​ Conflict management mechanism for NK ​ US-led security order in Asia ​ Non-nuclear policies of SK and Japan ​ Alliances among fixed members ​ Dialogue channels (formal, informal) ​ UN presence ​ Rational decisions (war-benefit examinations) ​ Solutions  -​ Make a security regional mechanism for deterring nuclear or missile tests -​ Promote a balance between deterrence and dialogue -​ Do not push NK too much to the corner ​ Skeptical that NK can manage an accidental incident. ​ How does a state achieve nuclear disarmament 1.​ ​The state has to decide that it either does not need nuclear weapons anymore, or that the costs of having an arsenal outweigh the benefits. 2.​ There is a complex technical process of weapons elimination, disposition of nuclear and other radioactive materials associated with them, as well as dismantlement of all the infrastructure that was built to produce nuclear devices, materials for them, and their means of delivery. 3.​ There is an issue of verification. Once a state has decided to disarm and then successfully dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, how would it be able to provide assurances to other states that the process was complete? It would need to convince them that there was no plutonium, highly enriched uranium or nuclear explosive devices hidden away somewhere. 1. Factual Questions a) Nuclear Proliferation and Treaties 1.​ What is the difference between the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)? ○​ Answer: ​ TPNW: Prohibits all aspects of nuclear weapons (development, possession, use, etc.), aiming for total disarmament. However, it lacks the participation of nuclear-armed states. ​ NPT: Focuses on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons while recognizing five nuclear-armed states and promoting disarmament in a phased manner. It also facilitates peaceful nuclear technology use. 2.​ Why did North Korea withdraw from the NPT, and when did this occur? ○​ Answer: North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003, citing "hostile policies" from the U.S. and allegations about its uranium enrichment program, which violated the 1994 Agreed Framework. 3.​ List the five recognized nuclear-armed states under the NPT. ○​ Answer: United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, France. 4.​ What is the purpose of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)? ○​ Answer: The IAEA promotes the safe, secure, and peaceful use of nuclear energy and ensures compliance with nuclear safeguards to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials to weapons programs. 5.​ What are Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs), and name one treaty establishing such a zone. ○​ Answer: NWFZs are regions where nuclear weapons are banned under international treaties. Examples include the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Latin America) and the Treaty of Bangkok (Southeast Asia). b) North Korea’s Nuclear Development 6.​ What is brinkmanship diplomacy, and how has North Korea used it? ○​ Answer: Brinkmanship diplomacy involves provocative actions to push opponents to the edge of confrontation, forcing concessions. North Korea uses missile and nuclear tests to gain leverage in negotiations for sanctions relief or economic aid. 7.​ What was the significance of North Korea’s first nuclear test in 2006? ○​ Answer: It marked North Korea’s emergence as a nuclear-armed state, confirming its capability to develop nuclear weapons despite international opposition and sanctions. 8.​ What are the strategic objectives of the UN’s humanitarian work in North Korea? ○​ Answer:  ​ Improving food security and nutrition. ​ Providing access to basic services. ​ Strengthening resilience to natural disasters. 9.​ What was the September 19 Inter-Korean Agreement, and why is it significant? ○​ Answer: Signed in 2018, this agreement aimed to reduce hostilities between North and South Korea through buffer zones, no-fly zones, and halting military drills near the border. Its potential termination signals rising tensions. 2. Opinion-Based Questions a) Nuclear Proliferation and Disarmament 1.​ Do you think the TPNW can be effective without the participation of nuclear-armed states? Why or why not? ○​ Sample Answer:​ The TPNW's effectiveness is limited without nuclear-armed states since they hold the majority of the world’s nuclear arsenal. However, the treaty is important for stigmatizing nuclear weapons and creating international pressure for disarmament. 2.​ Is nuclear deterrence a justifiable security policy in today’s world? Why or why not? ○​ Sample Answer:​ Proponents argue that nuclear deterrence maintains peace by preventing conflicts between major powers (e.g., during the Cold War). Critics, however, highlight risks of accidents, proliferation, and the moral cost of threatening mass destruction. 3.​ Should Japan join the TPNW despite its reliance on the U.S. nuclear umbrella? Why or why not? ○​ Sample Answer:​ Japan faces a dilemma. Joining the TPNW aligns with its history as a victim of atomic bombings, but it may weaken its security against North Korea and China, which are immediate threats. Balancing humanitarian ideals and security is key. b) North Korea’s Actions 4.​ Do you think the international sanctions on North Korea are effective in curbing its nuclear ambitions? Why or why not? ○​ Sample Answer:​ Sanctions limit North Korea’s access to resources and technology, slowing  its progress. However, they have not stopped its nuclear development entirely. Instead, they deepen North Korea’s isolation and push it to use brinkmanship to demand relief. 5.​ How should South Korea respond if North Korea continues to violate the September 19 Inter-Korean Agreement? ○​ Sample Answer:​ South Korea could strengthen its defense posture, resume military exercises, and coordinate closely with the U.S. and Japan. However, it should balance this with maintaining open channels for dialogue to avoid escalating tensions. 6.​ What do you think is North Korea’s primary goal in developing nuclear weapons: national security, regional dominance, or gaining leverage in negotiations? Explain your reasoning. ○​ Sample Answer:​ North Korea’s primary goal is likely national security. It uses nuclear weapons to deter regime change by the U.S. and its allies. However, regional dominance and negotiating leverage are secondary goals that complement its security strategy. 3. Complex and Debate-Oriented Questions 1.​ Compare and contrast the Cold War-era nuclear arms race with North Korea’s modern nuclear development. What lessons can be learned? ○​ Sample Answer:​ The Cold War arms race involved superpowers (U.S. and USSR) seeking balance through deterrence, while North Korea's program focuses on regime survival. The Cold War highlights the importance of diplomacy (e.g., Cuban Missile Crisis) and arms control agreements, which could inform current efforts to address North Korea’s threats. 2.​ Is the international community justified in prioritizing sanctions over humanitarian aid in North Korea? ○​ Sample Answer:​ While sanctions are necessary to curb nuclear proliferation, they often exacerbate the suffering of ordinary citizens. A dual-track approach—pressuring the regime while ensuring humanitarian aid reaches the vulnerable—may be more ethical and effective. 1. Factual Questions a) Nuclear Proliferation and Treaties 1.​ What is the difference between the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)? ○​ Answer: ​ TPNW: Prohibits all aspects of nuclear weapons (development, possession, use, etc.), aiming for total disarmament. However, it lacks the participation of nuclear-armed states. ​ NPT: Focuses on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons while recognizing five nuclear-armed states and promoting disarmament in a phased manner. It also facilitates peaceful nuclear technology use. 2.​ Why did North Korea withdraw from the NPT, and when did this occur? ○​ Answer: North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003, citing "hostile policies" from the U.S. and allegations about its uranium enrichment program, which violated the 1994 Agreed Framework. 3.​ List the five recognized nuclear-armed states under the NPT. ○​ Answer: United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, France. 4.​ What is the purpose of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)? ○​ Answer: The IAEA promotes the safe, secure, and peaceful use of nuclear energy and ensures compliance with nuclear safeguards to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials to weapons programs. 5.​ What are Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs), and name one treaty establishing such a zone. ○​ Answer: NWFZs are regions where nuclear weapons are banned under international treaties. Examples include the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Latin America) and the Treaty of Bangkok (Southeast Asia). b) North Korea’s Nuclear Development 6.​ What is brinkmanship diplomacy, and how has North Korea used it? ○​ Answer: Brinkmanship diplomacy involves provocative actions to push opponents to the edge of confrontation, forcing concessions. North Korea uses missile and nuclear tests to gain leverage in negotiations for sanctions relief or economic aid. 7.​ What was the significance of North Korea’s first nuclear test in 2006? ○​ Answer: It marked North Korea’s emergence as a nuclear-armed state, confirming its capability to develop nuclear weapons despite international opposition and sanctions. 8.​ What are the strategic objectives of the UN’s humanitarian work in North Korea? ○​ Answer: ​ Improving food security and nutrition.  ​ Providing access to basic services. ​ Strengthening resilience to natural disasters. 9.​ What was the September 19 Inter-Korean Agreement, and why is it significant? ○​ Answer: Signed in 2018, this agreement aimed to reduce hostilities between North and South Korea through buffer zones, no-fly zones, and halting military drills near the border. Its potential termination signals rising tensions. 2. Opinion-Based Questions a) Nuclear Proliferation and Disarmament 1.​ Do you think the TPNW can be effective without the participation of nuclear-armed states? Why or why not? ○​ Sample Answer:​ The TPNW's effectiveness is limited without nuclear-armed states since they hold the majority of the world’s nuclear arsenal. However, the treaty is important for stigmatizing nuclear weapons and creating international pressure for disarmament. 2.​ Is nuclear deterrence a justifiable security policy in today’s world? Why or why not? ○​ Sample Answer:​ Proponents argue that nuclear deterrence maintains peace by preventing conflicts between major powers (e.g., during the Cold War). Critics, however, highlight risks of accidents, proliferation, and the moral cost of threatening mass destruction. 3.​ Should Japan join the TPNW despite its reliance on the U.S. nuclear umbrella? Why or why not? ○​ Sample Answer:​ Japan faces a dilemma. Joining the TPNW aligns with its history as a victim of atomic bombings, but it may weaken its security against North Korea and China, which are immediate threats. Balancing humanitarian ideals and security is key. b) North Korea’s Actions 4.​ Do you think the international sanctions on North Korea are effective in curbing its nuclear ambitions? Why or why not? ○​ Sample Answer:​ Sanctions limit North Korea’s access to resources and technology, slowing its progress. However, they have not stopped its nuclear development entirely. Instead, they deepen North Korea’s isolation and push it to use brinkmanship to demand relief.  5.​ How should South Korea respond if North Korea continues to violate the September 19 Inter-Korean Agreement? ○​ Sample Answer:​ South Korea could strengthen its defense posture, resume military exercises, and coordinate closely with the U.S. and Japan. However, it should balance this with maintaining open channels for dialogue to avoid escalating tensions. 6.​ What do you think is North Korea’s primary goal in developing nuclear weapons: national security, regional dominance, or gaining leverage in negotiations? Explain your reasoning. ○​ Sample Answer:​ North Korea’s primary goal is likely national security. It uses nuclear weapons to deter regime change by the U.S. and its allies. However, regional dominance and negotiating leverage are secondary goals that complement its security strategy. 3. Complex and Debate-Oriented Questions 1.​ Compare and contrast the Cold War-era nuclear arms race with North Korea’s modern nuclear development. What lessons can be learned? ○​ Sample Answer:​ The Cold War arms race involved superpowers (U.S. and USSR) seeking balance through deterrence, while North Korea's program focuses on regime survival. The Cold War highlights the importance of diplomacy (e.g., Cuban Missile Crisis) and arms control agreements, which could inform current efforts to address North Korea’s threats. 2.​ Is the international community justified in prioritizing sanctions over humanitarian aid in North Korea? ○​ Sample Answer:​ While sanctions are necessary to curb nuclear proliferation, they often exacerbate the suffering of ordinary citizens. A dual-track approach—pressuring the regime while ensuring humanitarian aid reaches the vulnerable—may be more ethical and effective. These questions and answers cover a mix of factual recall, analytical reasoning, and critical thinking, preparing you for a range of possible exam formats. Let me know if you'd like to refine any questions or answers further! 4o You said: can you make exam questions for me in the form of short answers, short essays, and essays (this one needs opinions thoughts), please give me answers too! ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Here’s a set of exam questions in three formats—short answers, short essays, and essays—designed to cover key topics from the materials. Answers are included for each. 1. Short Answer Questions (2–3 Sentences Each) Q1: What is nuclear deterrence, and how does it work? ​ Answer: Nuclear deterrence is the strategy of preventing an enemy's attack by threatening devastating retaliation with nuclear weapons. It relies on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), where the risk of total annihilation deters all sides from initiating conflict. Q2: Why hasn’t Japan joined the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)? ​ Answer: Japan has not joined the TPNW because it relies on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for security against regional threats, such as North Korea and China. Joining the treaty would undermine its defense strategy and alliance with the U.S. Q3: What is the significance of the Six-Party Talks? ​ Answer: The Six-Party Talks were a multilateral effort involving North Korea, South Korea, the U.S., China, Japan, and Russia to negotiate the denuclearization of North Korea. They failed to achieve lasting results, as North Korea withdrew and continued its nuclear development. Q4: How does North Korea’s brinkmanship diplomacy affect regional security? ​ Answer: North Korea’s brinkmanship diplomacy—using nuclear and missile tests to provoke crises—heightens tensions in East Asia. It forces neighboring countries like South Korea and Japan to strengthen their defenses, escalating the arms race in the region. Q5: What is the purpose of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs)? ​ Answer: NWFZs aim to prohibit the development, possession, and use of nuclear weapons within specific regions. They promote disarmament and reduce the risk of nuclear conflict in those areas. 2. Short Essay Questions (150–200 Words) Q1: Explain the challenges faced by the TPNW in achieving global nuclear disarmament. ​ Answer:​ The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) faces significant challenges because nuclear-armed states and their allies have not joined. Countries like the U.S., Russia, and China prioritize nuclear deterrence as a core part of their security policies, viewing the TPNW as unrealistic in addressing real-world threats. Additionally, allies under the nuclear umbrella, such as Japan and NATO members, are reluctant to join because they rely on extended nuclear deterrence for their security.​ The treaty also lacks enforcement mechanisms, as it does not outline a clear process for disarmament or verification. Moreover, the refusal of nuclear-armed states to engage with the treaty limits its influence in global politics. While the TPNW is significant in stigmatizing nuclear weapons and promoting disarmament ideals, its effectiveness is undermined by the absence of participation from key stakeholders and the geopolitical realities of modern international relations. Q2: What were the key events and outcomes of North Korea’s Second Nuclear Crisis (2003–2006)? ​ Answer:​ The Second Nuclear Crisis began with the U.S. accusing North Korea of pursuing a secret uranium enrichment program, violating the 1994 Agreed Framework. In response, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003 and expelled International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.​ During this period, North Korea conducted its first missile and nuclear tests, marking its emergence as a nuclear-armed state. It also refused to participate in the Six-Party Talks aimed at resolving the crisis, citing U.S. hostility and sanctions.​ The crisis led to heightened tensions in East Asia and prompted the UN Security Council to impose economic sanctions. These sanctions targeted North Korea’s arms trade and luxury goods to pressure the regime. Despite these measures, North Korea continued its nuclear development, setting the stage for future provocations and diplomatic standoffs. 3. Essay Questions (300–500 Words, Opinion-Based) Q1: Is nuclear deterrence an effective and ethical security strategy in the 21st century? Discuss with examples. ​ Answer:​ Nuclear deterrence is a controversial security strategy. On one hand, proponents argue that it has been effective in preventing large-scale wars, particularly during the Cold War. The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) ensured that neither the U.S. nor  the Soviet Union initiated conflict, knowing the consequences would be catastrophic. Even today, nuclear deterrence is seen as a stabilizing factor, especially in regions with asymmetric power dynamics, such as between North Korea and South Korea.​ However, the ethics of nuclear deterrence are highly questionable. The threat of mass civilian casualties and environmental destruction contradicts humanitarian values. Additionally, the risks of accidental launches or miscalculations remain significant, as demonstrated by near-miss incidents during the Cold War. Modernization of arsenals by nuclear-armed states, instead of disarmament, perpetuates an arms race and undermines global stability.​ In the 21st century, nuclear deterrence faces new challenges, including the rise of rogue states like North Korea and the potential for non-state actors to acquire nuclear materials. Diplomacy and disarmament efforts, such as the TPNW, offer alternative paths to security, but their feasibility remains limited without the participation of major powers. While nuclear deterrence may provide short-term stability, its long-term sustainability and morality are debatable, requiring a shift toward cooperative security frameworks. Q2: Should Japan abandon the U.S. nuclear umbrella and join the TPNW? Why or why not? ​ Answer:​ Japan’s decision to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) while under the U.S. nuclear umbrella presents a complex dilemma. On one hand, as the only country to have suffered atomic bombings, Japan has a moral responsibility to lead global disarmament efforts. Joining the TPNW would reaffirm its commitment to a nuclear-free world and enhance its leadership in humanitarian advocacy.​ On the other hand, Japan faces real security threats from North Korea and China, both of which possess nuclear weapons. Abandoning the U.S. nuclear umbrella would weaken its deterrence against these threats, leaving Japan vulnerable in a volatile region. The U.S.-Japan alliance is also central to Japan’s defense strategy, and withdrawing from the nuclear umbrella could strain bilateral relations.​ A balanced approach may involve Japan continuing to advocate for disarmament through multilateral diplomacy while maintaining its current security framework. Japan could also participate as an observer in TPNW discussions, signaling its support for disarmament ideals without compromising its national security. Ultimately, while joining the TPNW aligns with Japan’s historical identity, its geopolitical realities make full participation impractical at this time. Q3: How should the international community address North Korea’s nuclear program while balancing humanitarian concerns? ​ Answer:​ North Korea’s nuclear program poses a significant challenge to global security, yet its humanitarian crisis cannot be ignored. Addressing both issues requires a nuanced and balanced approach.​ Sanctions have been a primary tool for pressuring North Korea to halt its nuclear development. While effective in limiting resources for its weapons program, sanctions often exacerbate the suffering of ordinary citizens, contributing to food shortages and economic hardship. The international community should ensure that humanitarian aid, such as food and medical supplies, is exempt from sanctions and reaches the most vulnerable populations.​ Diplomatic engagement is crucial. Past agreements, like the 1994 Agreed Framework and Six-Party Talks, demonstrated the potential for negotiation, even if their outcomes were temporary. Renewing dialogue with North Korea, possibly through multilateral frameworks, could open pathways to incremental agreements on denuclearization and arms control.​ At the same time, military deterrence must remain strong to prevent provocations. Trilateral cooperation among the U.S., South Korea, and Japan is essential to maintaining regional stability. Balancing pressure with incentives—such as phased sanctions relief or economic aid tied to verifiable steps toward denuclearization—may provide a sustainable solution.​ Ultimately, resolving North Korea’s nuclear issue requires a dual-track strategy that prioritizes both security and humanitarian concerns, recognizing the complexity of the regime’s motivations and the needs of its people.