Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on value frames frequently used in the current political discourse on North Korean nuclear aspirations, this study investigates how value framing affects people's policy preference. News stories were manipulated by highlighting either the ethical or material dangers of the North's nuclear armament. Findings indicate that value framing did not directly shape opinion about government policy on North Korea. However, news framing produced a more subtle set of effects on the way people make decisions. Participants' opinions about how to respond to the nuclear crisis were closely aligned with their general political attitudes. As hypothesized, this pattern was more pronounced when participants were exposed to the ethical frame. Implications for understanding of value framing and public opinion are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the democratic setbacks in dealing with the issue of denuclearization in the Korean peninsula. The U.S. policy over the nuclear programme of North Korea has been changed since the 1994 agreement under the administration of then-U.S. president Bill Clinton and the declaration of North Korea as part of the "axis of evil" by the administration of then-president George W. Bush in 2003. It notes that the policy of the Bush administration toward North Korea demonstrates the example of a democratic setback.

The article focuses on the perspectives of South Korea to counter the North Korean nuclear issue which is considered to be a stumbling block to its peace and prosperity policy toward the country. It has been emphasized that there should be a complete denuclearization and selective engagement of the Korean peninsula. Another approach is the cooperative threat reduction that would cater a minimum political-military confidence among North Korea, South Korea and the U.S.

The Bush Doctrine has important implications for China. It challenges principles that Beijing holds dear with respect to state sovereignty, multipolarity, and the role of international organizations. Continued American primacy in international affairs marginalizes China's importance. In addition, key elements of the Bush Doctrine such as preemption, missile defenses, and a growing U.S. military presence as a result of the war against terrorism directly affect Chinese national security interests. However, while Beijing has a very negative view of the Bush Doctrine, its responses have been more measured and pragmatic. China recognizes its own limitation and the need to avoid direct confrontation with the United States. Its leaders also believe that the Bush Doctrine will have limited application to only a few exceptional cases simply because unilateralism cannot be sustained long in the face of domestic and international opposition. Instead, Beijing seized the opportunity provided by 9-11 and the changing focus of U.S. security policy to expand areas of common interest while minimizing, the impact of differences. How the Bush Doctrine will affect China's interests in the future will depend on how well the two manage their increasingly complex relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ever since North Korea's admission in October 2002 of the existence of a highly-enriched uranium program, the North Korean nuclear problem has gone from bad to worse. Prospects for a peaceful resolution seem dim. North Korea has undertaken a series of brinkmanship measures in response to the staunch American attitude. Both actors are now locked in a dangerous game of chicken without a dear route to a compromise. Why this collision course? Most critical to the issue has been the advent of the Bush Doctrine, which signals a major paradigmatic change in American foreign and defense policy. Its moral absolutism, hegemonic unilateralism, offensive realism, and focus on weapons of mass destruction and global terrorism have radically changed the terms of American engagement with North Korea. This article examines the impact of the Bush Doctrine on the North Korean nuclear problem by showing how it has affected the rise and evolution of the problem, delineates future scenarios of the crisis, and draws some implications for its peaceful resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]