South Korea Plus United States Minus North Korea

8/8/2019 South Korea Plus United States Minus North Korea

1/29

SOUTH KOREA PLUS UNITED STATES MINUS NORTH

KOREA: THE ADVENT OF NUCLEAR ERA

_____________________________________________________

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO THE

SOCIAL SCIENCES DIVISION

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES IN THE VISAYAS

CEBU COLLEGE

LAHUG, CEBU CITY

_____________________________________________________

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR POLITICAL SCIENCE 182

_____________________________________________________

SUBMITTED BY:

REJUSO, JOVELLE CARMEL E.

ROSALES. MELODY S.

SAYSON, GERLYN MAE C

____________________________________________________

SUBMITTED TO:

PROF. MAE CLAIRE JABINES

_____________________________________________________OCTOBER 19, 2009


2/29

2 | P a g e

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

RATIONALE

South Korea, North Korea and United States of America have a very complicated

relationship. The relation of South Korea with US dated back to 1948. It was the time of Cold

War and Korea was divided into two- the North and the South. US supported South Korea to

protect it from Communism which rapidly spread in North Korea and to gain an ally. Up to now,

US and South Korea still continue to cooperate for the past few years, they have been trying to

have a talk with North Korea but failed. North Korea continued to close its doors.

Since the Korean War, North Korea has been viewed as a potential threat (because of its

nuclear proliferation) not only by the United States, but also by several major countries in

northeast Asia. It is US long adversary since 1948. US maintained a fifty year economic

sanction to North Korea because of the latters connection to Russia. Nevertheless, North Korea

became a useful demon to US- it became a justification on the need of US troops to maintain in

South Korea and increase in the military budget.

Compared to the negative relationship of North Korea to the United States, South Korea

has a positive and a closer relationship with US. This relationship started since 1948. According

to the US Library of Congress (internet copy), the relation was perhaps inevitable because South

Korea was primarily established by the United States and was saved from a total collapse in the

course of the Korean War (1950-53) by the United States-initiated, United Nations-sponsored

rescue operation.


3/29

3 | P a g e

Regarding on North Korea and South Korea relationship, although there are efforts to

reunite the two Koreas they were not able to reach a compromise. North Korea always have this

feeling that South Korea is deceiving them- that somewhat a kind of discrimination will exist

because people in the North are poor compared to the industrialize South. Also the reunification

of the two Korea, on the perception of the US- she cannot say that he will approve it o not and

usually she intervenes the negotiation happen between the two Korea.

Now, the threat posed by North Korea because of its regain nuclear building is

affecting the South and US wherein the latter is feeling that the nuclear proliferation of North

Korea is for world domination and the start of a new war. US is facing a security dilemma

because she is unaware if North Koreas nuclear arm would be for defense or offense. With that

she will be more watchful to North Korea and always prepare for anything.

The researchers have made this as their topic so as to know how the nuclear proliferation

of North Korea would affect US and other countries that surrounds it as well as it affects South

Korea. In here we can see the theory of realism in which the interrelation of the state and the

system is espoused.

According to Robert Jervis (Jervis, 1973: 146) , the main point of the security dilemma is

that an increase in one states security decreases the security of others. In line with this theory,

the researchers would want to know if the nuclear proliferation of North Korea is for defense or

offense purposes and to explain the implications that this will make in the international system.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This research aims to give answers to the problems presented below:

1. Is the nuclear proliferation of North Korea for defense, offense or both purposes in


4/29

4 | P a g e

pursuit of their national interests?

2. What are the effects of North Koreas nuclear proliferation to its neighboring state,

South Korea and to the number one advocate of nuclear proliferation treaty, the US?

3. What are the dynamics of nuclear proliferation and how do this action contribute to the

trends of either tribalism or globalization?

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are as follows:

1. To know if the nuclear proliferation of North Korea is for defense or for the offense of

their national interest.

2. To present the effects of North Koreas nuclear proliferation to its neighboring state,

South Korea and to the number one advocate of nuclear proliferation treaty, the US.

3. To present and explain the dynamics of such action (nuclear proliferation) and how

they contribute to the trends of either tribalism or globalization.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

National security is embedded on a state whose protection of territorial sovereignty is a

national interest. In a system where zero-sum is the name of the game. National security is a

factor for states survival within that type of system. At its greater extent, rational security can

also dictate who will dominate who, when, and how in a system where instability and conflict are

inescapable realities.

As the world gets smaller for all existing states, territorial sovereignty is at risk. National


5/29

5 | P a g e

security can now be a reason to embrace cooperation within, making it as means. On the other

hand, it can be a reason for a state to isolate from a cooperation that threatens its sovereignty,

making national security as an end. This is what the issue between a state that enhances its

nuclear capabilities such as North Korea, and states advocating or nuclear non-proliferation such

as U.S. and its allies, South Korea as one.

This study will give the researchers a better understanding on how nuclear proliferation

can protect territory and sovereignty, and how it can pose threat to other states security. Such

threat can be reason to call for a unified response to such threat thus, making the former

susceptible to attack. Susceptibility to attack and high propensity to war defeats the purpose of

having a secured state.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The study aims to know if the nuclear proliferation of North Korea is for defense or for

the offense of their national interest; to present the effects of North Koreas nuclear proliferation

to its neighboring state, South Korea and to the number one advocate of nuclear proliferation

treaty, the US; and to present and explain the dynamics of such action (nuclear proliferation) and

how they contribute to the trends of either tribalism or globalization.

In doing the research, the researchers will focus only to three actors namely North Korea,

South Korea, and United States. The issue is focus mainly on nuclear proliferation as the reason

behind the actors actions and their effects to their own state, to other states, and in the

international system. The study will also include a historical background starting from Cold War

up to the present. The emphasis of the study will be national security but the researchers will use

social, economic, and political issues to establish the cause and to predict the effects of such


6/29

6 | P a g e

issue to the actors.

On the approach of the study, the researchers will use Realist Theory particularly the

Offense and Defense and will touch some concept of the anarchical system under Neorealist

Theory. We will also use state and system level analysis in making the analysis of the paper.

Problems faced by the researchers in making the study is mainly the insufficiency of sources

about North Korea.


7/29

7 | P a g e

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

As basis to their research and for a thorough understanding of the study, the researchers

used the theory of offense, defense and national security dilemma, the realist and neorealist

theory in studying the relations of the three countries. They also use the system and state level of

analysis. These theories, and levels of analysis are significant to explain the acts of South Korea

and US towards North Korea and vice versa. It will also explain how these acts affect the

international system.

The realist theory, at root are negative about human nature. It is the human nature that

shapes the world politics. (Rourke, 2005: 18) Like humans they also view states as an organism

that has an innate desire to dominate others. States are aggressive and selfish- the reason why

they want to overpower others and conquer territories. They are competing to be powerful and

for them to be secured. It describes the international system as a struggle among states striving

for power and have a negative view on eliminating conflict and war between states because of

their pessimistic view on human nature.

The neorealist theory compared to the realist, disregard the human nature and focused

more on the international system. According to the stand of Stephen Waltz on his article entitled

International Relations: One World, Many Theories, the international system consisted on a

number of great powers, each seeking to survive. According to Waltz, because the system is

anarchic, each state has to survive for its own by forming alliances with other countries and

choosing defensive military postures. But because there is no authoritative power that will

regulate the actions of the each states and settle the conflict that exist between states, states are

the only one to judge, act as a jury and hangmen and often, according to Rourke, resort to force

to achieve their security interest. We then go back to the realist view that it is inescapable to have


8/29

8 | P a g e

war and conflict because of the anarchical system. And since the states still pursue their national

interest in the international system, I would like to quote the statement of one scholar on

Rourkes book that says, Even in a world that is clearly becoming more interconnected, the

game is domestic politics for national policymakers who continue to make foreign policy based

on national interest. (Rourke 2005: 18). In other words, even though there are alliances and the

existence of an international organization, the state still play the rules of the game of the

domestic politics wherein the policymakers make foreign policies that are based in the national

interest which in turn lead to conflict and states were not able to reach a compromise because

they have different national interest.

As a refinement to the realist theory, the offense- defense theory of Robert Jervis will be

of great help. There are two crucial variables in this theory namely: distinguishing of defensive

weapons from offensive ones and whether the offense or the defense has the advantage. States in

this theory must determine if they will be voting for defense or offense to have security. If in

case in their security, offense has the advantage, they cannot only easy attack other state and

gain territories but also it is difficult for other states to defend themselves because it is expensive

for them to increase their defense. Also when the defense has the advantage over the offense, a

large increase in one states security only slightly decreases the security of the others, and status

quo powers can all enjoy a high level of security and largely escape from the state of nature

which is chaotic. But the problem of the state arise whether it is weak or strong is when its

enemy have a weapon that is difficult to say if it is for defense or offense. Security dilemma now

comes in. with that states must be more watchful and always be ready for what things may come.

False rumor is acceptable just to have a little info about the security status of the state.

Base on the advantage of either offense or defense, there are four possible worlds that


9/29

9 | P a g e

were identified. The first world is the worst for the status quo worlds. There is no way to get

security without menacing others, and security through defense is difficult to obtain. (Jervis,

1973:162) It is because offense is the advantage, and defense will be very expensive. Attacking

is the best route to security rather than accepting the attack. Status quo states will behave like

aggressors to protect what they have.

In the second world, the security dilemma operates because both the offense and defense

is very difficult to distinguish; but it is different from the first world because defense has the

advantage. The advantage of defense assures the state that it can maintain a high degree of

security with the number of arms lower than their enemy. Compared to the first world, attacking

is unnecessary because without acting as aggressor, the status quo state can achieve security.

In the third world, there will be no security dilemma but there are security problems.

Offense has the advantage, meaning aggression will be possible. According to Jervis, states need

not to react to states that are also armed but can wait for the warnings they would receive if the

others will deploy offensive weapons. (Jervis, 1973: 166) States will be more watchful for them

to receive and be ready for the warning. Since the offense has the advantage, defense will be

costly and it did not even decrease the security of the other states dealing on the offensive side.

The fourth world is doubly safe. The advantage is defense- the propensity to war will be

lessen and states will not be tempted to procure offensive forces. (Jervis, 1973: 167) There is a

clear differentiation of offensive and defensive forces that permits the states to be out in the

security dilemma.

To understand more about the international system, the researchers use the system and

state levels of analysis. In the system level of analysis, it adopts a top- down approach in

studying world politics. System analysts believe that each systems specific characteristics cause


10/29

10 | P a g e

its actors to behave in somewhat predictable ways. (Rourke, 2005: 58) In general sense, the

international system influences the behavior and determines the action of states. Even though the

state does not want to follow the set of international norms they have no choice because it is a

norm that be followed- it is binding. While in the state level analysis, it emphasizes the

characteristics of states, what states do and how they make foreign policy choices. According to

Rourke, the most important in this analysis is the foreign policy process- the influences and

activities within a country that cause its government to decide to adopt one or another foreign

policy. (Rourke, 2005: 70) The decision of the state affects its relations to other states and the

international system because of the emergence of interdependence between countries.


11/29

11 | P a g e

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 1.1

DATA

GATHERING

(secondary

sources e.g.

books, journals,

and internetarticles)

Dynamics of suchaction and its

contribution to the

internationalsystem

Neorealist Theory

(Anarchic Structureof World Politics)

ANALYSIS

State LevelAnalysis

System LevelAnalysis

Realist Theory

(Offense-

Defense)

Rationale of

North Koreas

NuclearProliferation

Effects of nuclear

proliferation to

actors: North

Korea, South

Korea, and US

APPROACH


12/29

12 | P a g e

The researchers wanted to present explanations of how state as primary actor in the

system make decisions and to understand the causes and effects of such decision or action to that

state, to other states, and to the whole international system where it belongs. In doing the study,

the researchers will be using secondary sources such as books, journals, and internet articles in

gathering our data. This is to supplement our understanding on how states behave and to be able

to answer the problems presented in this study.

The researchers will first provide the historical background from which the relation

among North Korea, South Korea and US has started. This is to establish a relationship which

will be the basis of interpreting their actions and response to each other. By using our state and

system level approach and the realist and neorealist theories, the researchers will present the

rationale behind North Koreas nuclear proliferation, how it will affect South Korea and US, and

how it contribute to the current trends in the international system namely disintegration

(tribalism) and integration (globalization).

DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. Alliance- an association of groups, people, or nations who agree to cooperate to achieve acommon goal (Encarta World English Dictionary & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft

Corporation. All rights reserved.)

2. Containment- a. attempt to stop spread of something: action taken to restrict the spread of ahostile element such as an enemy or something undesirable such as a disease; b. control

measure in nuclear reactions: the use of magnetic fields to prevent the reacting particles from

touching the containing vessel's walls in a reactor (Encarta World English Dictionary &

(P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)


13/29

13 | P a g e

3. Disintegration- separate from a system that threatens your culture which defines the states

identity

4. Globalization- to become adopted on a global scale, or cause something, especially social

institutions, to become adopted on a global scale

(Encarta World English Dictionary & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights

reserved.)

5. Integration- the process of becoming an accepted member of a group or community


reserved.)

6. norm- a standard pattern of behavior that is considered normal in a society


reserved.)

7. Power map- set of powerful state in the international system

8. Rogue state- outlaw nation: a nation whose leadership intentionally refuses to adhere to the

conventions of international law, does not honor established treaties, and may engage in

terrorism and warfare (Encarta World English Dictionary & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft

Corporation. All rights reserved.)

9. Security Dilemma- an approach in which weapons cannot be distinguished as offensive or

defensive thereby causes instability. (Jervis, 1992: 165)

10. System- a combination of related parts organized into a complex whole


reserved.)

11. Tribalism- act of disintegration


14/29

14 | P a g e

CHAPTER TWO

HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE STUDY DISCUSSION

US-SOUTH KOREA RELATIONS

The relationship of South Korea and US begun to the early years of the Cold War. The

Soviet Union and the US split the country into two, namely the North and the South, with the

agreement that there will be a national election but that did not happen. In 1948, the United

Nations declared the Republic of Korea, with Seoul as its capital, as the only legitimate source of

authority in the peninsula. Soviet Union opposed this assertion and on 1950, the Democratic

Peoples Republic of Korea invaded which started the Korean War. Because South is a US ally,

it was expected that US should come to its aid. The war lasted until 1953. It only stopped due to

a ceasefire stopped them at the thirty-eighth parallel.

US and South Korea signed a mutual security agreement on 1950 in which they agreed to

defend each other in times of external aggression. On the following years, both countries built up

a combined forces command in which the base is located in South Korea. For forty years, South

Korea started to become economically, politically and militarily developed. They started to

become independent from US. South Korea because they started to seek progressive partnership.

Strains then started to emerge because of the change in the relationship of US and South Korea.

Trade is one area which spiked up the strain between US and South Korea. United States

was South Koreas largest trading partner and South Korea was the seventh largest market for

US state goods and the second market for its agricultural products. Another source of strain was


15/29

15 | P a g e

security. South Korea had no qualms about US troops staying in their country. Aggressions were

impossible at the presence of US. However, the strain lied on the part of US. Rumors about their

increase of US troops in South Korea did not helped US image.

Even though there are many strains, US and South Korea maintained their cordial

relations. Their combined forces were seen when North Korea started their first nuclear testing.

US and South Korea both used their combined efforts in trying to have a diplomatic talk with

North Korea but so far, the effort was futile.

US-NORTH KOREA RELATIONS

It started at the early years of Cold War. The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea

(DPRK) has been US long-standing opposition. US helped in dividing the peninsula and then

waged war against them. Also US, for fifty years, had imposed economic sanctions on the North.

The Pentagon has inflated the North Korean threat in order to rationalize its desire for a missile

defense system, to justify a capacity to fight two wars simultaneously, and to explain the need to

maintain 37,000 troops in South Korea (and 100,000 troops in Asia overall).

http://www.acus.org/docs/070413_US-North_Korean_Relations_Analytic_Compendium.pdf

Contrary to its relations to South Korea, US did not have amiable relation with the North.

This hostile relation worsened when North Korea expanded their nuclear program and when US

considered in bombing the suspected facilities. Jimmy Carter and Kim Il Sung talked about this

and came up with an agreement. They agreed that North Korea will stop its nuclear program in

exchange of heavy fuel oil from US and two light water reactors to be built by US commissioned

builders. Also, the two leaders talked about the full diplomatic relation of US and North Korea.
http://www.acus.org/docs/070413_US-North_Korean_Relations_Analytic_Compendium.pdfhttp://www.acus.org/docs/070413_US-North_Korean_Relations_Analytic_Compendium.pdfhttp://www.acus.org/docs/070413_US-North_Korean_Relations_Analytic_Compendium.pdf


16/29


17/29

17 | P a g e

the democratic wing while the former is the Communist wing.

The disparities between the two Koreas started during the Korean War. It killed an

estimated 3,000,000 persons. US and UN came to South Koreas aid while the Peoples Republic

of China helped the North. The war ended in 1953 within the 38th

parallel. After the negotiation

of uniting the two Koreas failed, they have accepted the creation of two separate states. The

Communist North was permanently established under Soviet auspices when the Soviet Union

refused to cooperate with UN in having an election.

On June 25, 1950, North Korea planned an attack against South Korea. The UN Security

Council convened to talk about this plan of attack and all agreed to stop the North Korea from

attacking the South. The Korean War brought a great devastation to the two Koreas. Many were

killed, millions of Koreans became refugees, South Koreas indu strial plants were damaged and

North Korea was heavily damaged by US bombing campaigns.

North Koreas launching and testing of nuclear weapons furthermore enhanced the

negative relationship between the two Koreas. The nuclear launching of the North served as a

threat to the security of the South. Also, US participation in this phenomenon may or may not

help the straining relationship between the two countries.


18/29


19/29

19 | P a g e

NEOREALIST PERSPECTIVE

The alliance being formed together by United States and South Korea is also a concrete

example of how neorealist works in the system. Each state benefits from such alliance and the

benefits exceeding the cost is the very reason for the strengthening of such alliance. US benefits

in such alliance in a way that encouraging other states to support its fight to stop the nuclear

proliferation of North Korea will help them maintain their status in the system. The more

follower or supporter US can get, the more secure it will be on the top position. South Korea also

benefits from such alliance because having a powerful back up, not to mention its nuclear

capacity, means having a secured territory from a neighboring state with nuclear power.

Neorealism is manifested in the way that alliances is used in order to survive on an always-

competing international system.

Neorealism advocates cooperation between states, but it also recognizes that there is no

authoritative power that will regulate the states action and settle disputes that exist between states

and the states are the only judge and jury of their actions. With this, the action of North Korea in

nuclear proliferation will not be condemned by UN but states who feel that they are threatened

like US and South Korea will be the one to make efforts to negotiate with North Korea and

persuade other states to join in their goal to stop the proliferation of North Korea for them to feel

secure.

The absence of authoritative power in the international system was the point of neorealist

why war is inevitable not only in settling disputes but also to make states secure. But US did not

wage war to North Korea to settle security situation not because they are not capable of

instigating war but because they are suffering a security dilemma.


20/29

20 | P a g e

OFFENSE- DEFENSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY DILEMMA

Security dilemma, according to the Offense-Defense theory, states that an increase in one

states security decreases the security of others. North Koreas increase in its nuclear arms

decreased the security both of South Korea, US, and also the security of its neighbouring state.

They are obviously threatened by the nuclear arms possessed by North Korea but they,

particularly US, have not done anything yet. Neither US nor South Korea attacked North Korea

first because defense is still possible against a heavily armed force and states that really care

about self-protection would not engage in arms races.

Because US and South Korea are threatened by the nuclear proliferation of North Korea,

they in turn started to acquire and improve their weapons and warfare technologies. They even

used the Norths proliferation of nuclear arms as an excuse for deploying more military troops

and facilities in South Korea. This is US and South Koreas response to North Koreas

proliferation of nuclear arms. In this way, these two countries security relative to the North

Koreas increase in arms is increased, too. It is explained by Robert Jervis (Jervis, 1973: 147) in

his Offense-Defense theory that although that an increase in one sides arms and security will

still decrease the others security, the formers increase will be larger than the latters decrease.

So if one state increases its arms, the other state could also increase its security by just adding a

small amount of force. That is what US and South Korea are doing now.

Also, in the security situation, it has been stated above that there are four worlds existing

depending on what aspect is advantageous- either the offense or the defense. US will be placed

in the second world because of their actions. There is a security dilemma but it does not operate

strongly as in the first world because the defense has the advantage. With this, the non-


21/29

21 | P a g e

instigation of war of US will be placed in the second world because again they cannot distinguish

whether the nuclear proliferation of North Korea is for defense or offense. But the US defense

has the advantage adding to its non-instigation of war to North Korea.

US and South Korea did not attack North Korea because as defensive has the advantage,

they do not preempt since that would be a wasteful act. Instead, they prepare for the opponents

attack. Another reason is seen why there is no attack. Defense really has the primacy. Security s

relatively cheap and both sides can, at the same time, gain security in the form of second-strike

capability. Second-strike capability can also be maintained in the face of wide variations in the

opponents side. US can just adjust their actions and weapons to the changes in North Koreas

change of style. And lastly, probably the main reason why US or South Korea did not attack

North is that there are no incentives to strike first in a crisis. Why? The researchers think that

aside from waste of funds, it would not be good to attack first because of what will other states

think of it and it will create negative notions on US and South Korea and will make them the

negative to everyones eyes.

STATE LEVEL ANALYSIS

Using the state-level analysis, each action of the three actors was influenced by their

experience that can be traced back to its history which dealt on ideological conflict brought by

the Cold War. Because of their historical background, South Korea and North Korea tend to be

antagonistic with each other while South Korea tends to cooperate more with US which shares

the same ideology with them.


22/29

22 | P a g e

On the current economic and political condition, North Korea tends to strengthen its

nuclear capability and national security so as to have a way of putting themselves into power

map which they cannot do if power is based on economy and politics. Economically, they are

poor while politically, they have a communist government which diminished its power after the

Cold War.

The current economic and political power that US is enjoying after its opponents,

communist states, have disintegrated and split up is now being challenged by a communist state

whose nuclear power is rising up, leveling with USs. To secure their survival as a powerful

state, they have to oppose a rising one.

The current situation of South Korea which is geographically the closest state to North

Korea, a rogue state, instills fear to its people since they are sleeping with nuclear weapons

hundred of steps away from them. Its decision to seek support from allies is being justified by the

nature of the state to protect its very existence.

SYSTEM LEVEL ANALYSIS

Each actors (states) operate in the same system. In this system there are social norms and

trends being set which then became the basis of its states decision and action towards other

states that are part of the system.\

Accepting the fact that respecting the existence of other states, acknowledging its

sovereignty and the states ability to pursue its national interest as the international systems

norm states then will follow the norms of the system no whether they like it or not. They have


23/29

23 | P a g e

free will but because of the set norms their choice will be predictable which is in accordance to

the norm of international system.

North Koreas action of nuclear proliferation, leads to the strengthening the alliance of

US and South Korea because it has been perceived by US that such action is violating the norm

of international system. The alliance of US to South Korea (being the closest state to North

Korea) meant that US can monitor the activities of North Korea by posting military bases.

It is not only US and South Korea that are threatened but also the stability of the

international system- basing on the trend of security, protection of world peace, international

stability and order.

With North Koreas action, it is evident that it has disintegrated itself from the system. It

had separated from the international system and isolated itself from other countries. The action

then is different from US and South Korea that calls for integration to the international system.

They open themselves to globalization which results to interdependence between them and other

countries. The disintegration of North Korea to the international system strengthens the alliance

of US and South Korea and their campaign to persuade other countries to integrate in the system.


24/29

24 | P a g e

CHAPTER THREE

SYNTHESIS

The main topic of this research is the nuclear proliferation of North Korea which

threatens the security of United States and South Korea. Using the realist perspective, to settle

this security problem, US and South Korea must then attack North Korea. While in the neorealist

perspective, US will seek an alliance to gain benefits by adding more troops to South Korea

and monitor the activities of North Korea, to persuade other states to be on their side in fighting

against this nuclear proliferation and lastly to have allies whenever they will resort to wage war

against North Korea. But in the offense- defense theory (which is a refinement to the realist

theory), US and South Korea did not wage war to North Korea because, as it is being classified

in the second world, it is suffering a security dilemma with defense as the advantage. Since they

did not know if the nuclear weapon of North Korea is for defense or offense, US and South

Korea is just being watchful and focus on their defense and by making moves to have peace talk

to North Korea but the latter declines this peace talk because they do not agree on six- party

talks. North Korea only wanted to talk to US, not any other state.

Such action of North Korea does not only affect the other states behavior towards them

but also the international system. The stability of peace and order is being threatened creating

fear to the countries which are part of the international system. With this, it is expected that the

norm that these countries (especially US) will follow, is to protect the stability of the

international system by any means either increasing its offense or increasing its offense. They


25/29

25 | P a g e

will not only protect the stability f the system but also for them to feel secure.

CONCLUSION

Given the analysis of the study, the researchers conclude that North Koreas nuclear

proliferation is for defense because of their disintegration from the international system, and

isolation from other countries. North Korea was driven by paranoia. Their action can be

explained with the belief that We are neighbors but we are not friends and anytime you can

attack me. You threaten the security of my country. Before you could attack me, I must be ready

to accept that attack.

Such action of North Korea challenge the ever adversary US and threaten its neighboring

state, South Korea. The impact of this nuclear proliferation is that it tends to lower the

superpower status of US by challenging the monopoly of US in nuclear proliferation and supply

nuclear arms to other Asian states such as Iran. Given that North Korea is economically poor and

politically weak because Communism ideology is declining based on the happenings in the

international system wherein globalization is the dominant trend, it is a big insult to the part of

US. It is like hearing US saying, How come you can create more bombs to challenge us and

threaten world peace while you cannot even feed your people.

On the part of South Korea, the nuclear proliferation of its neighboring state threatens

their national security. Its effect to South Korea is that instead of pursuing a good relationship to

North Korea given that they came from one race and one kingdom, the gap between them widen

since South Korea opt to ally with US to protect its very existence. It strengthens the US- South


26/29

26 | P a g e

Korea alliance and the possibility of diplomatic relations between the two Koreas remains a

dream.

North Koreas disintegration in the international system shows the possibility for the

spread of tribalism in Asia. Its being fundamentalist contributes to tribalism wherein they isolate

themselves to any call of globalization, interaction and interdependence between states. This act

of engaging in tribalism helps them protect their culture and the survival of their own state and

their own identity. They want to exist as a state having their own identity and not dictated by

uniformity brought by globalization where US and other Western countries are the standards.

South Korea- US alliance is a manifestation of integration. Integration which is a process

of becoming an accepted member of a group or community is manifested in South Koreas

action of becoming a US ally, following the standards set by US that aim for economic

cooperation for development and international cooperation for world order. This standards

and goals became binding to all countries making an integrated community.


27/29

27 | P a g e

CHAPTER FOUR

RECOMMENDATION

The researchers recommend the future researchers:

1. To have an in depth research applying the liberal and neo-liberal theories and the individuallevel of analysis in understanding even more the behavior of US, South Korea and North

Korea.

2. To look at the reason why North Korea remains an isolationist state.The researchers also recommend to US that it must limit its intervention to North- South

Korea relations. US must stop acting as if they are the international police and thinking that it is

their burden to settle any conflict that exists between states most especially if it threatens the

international stability.

To South Korea, the researchers recommend that they must not rely their national

security to US. They should learn to be independent in protecting their own survival.

To North Korea, the researchers recommend that they must consider the six- party talks

for the other states not to feel a single threat. They must also distinguish if their weapons are for

offensive or defensive so that the anarchic system will not be threaten. They must consider

economic cooperation for the sustainability of its domestic economy.


28/29

28 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOK:

Art, Robert & Jervis, Robert. International Politics: Enduring Concept and ContemporaryIssues. Harper-Colins.1992.

Rourke, John T. International Politics on World Stage, 10th

ed. New York: McGraw-Hill

Companies, 2004.

MAGAZINE America and South Korea: The Ambivalent Alliance. Current History Sept, 2003: 279

284.

INTERNET

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm

Access on 17/10/09

http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol4/v4n15nkor.html

Access on 17/10/09

http://www.acus.org/docs/070413_US-

North_Korean_Relations_Analytic_Compendium.pdf

Access on 17/10/09

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11459/ussouth_korea_alliance.html

Access on 17/10/09

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm

Access on 17/10/09

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htm

Access on 17/10/09

http://countrystudies.us/south-korea/80.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htmhttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htmhttp://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol4/v4n15nkor.htmlhttp://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol4/v4n15nkor.htmlhttp://www.acus.org/docs/070413_US-North_Korean_Relations_Analytic_Compendium.pdfhttp://www.acus.org/docs/070413_US-North_Korean_Relations_Analytic_Compendium.pdfhttp://www.acus.org/docs/070413_US-North_Korean_Relations_Analytic_Compendium.pdfhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/11459/ussouth_korea_alliance.htmlhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/11459/ussouth_korea_alliance.htmlhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htmhttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htmhttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htmhttp://countrystudies.us/south-korea/80.htmhttp://countrystudies.us/south-korea/80.htmhttp://countrystudies.us/south-korea/80.htmhttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htmhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/11459/ussouth_korea_alliance.htmlhttp://www.acus.org/docs/070413_US-North_Korean_Relations_Analytic_Compendium.pdfhttp://www.acus.org/docs/070413_US-North_Korean_Relations_Analytic_Compendium.pdfhttp://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol4/v4n15nkor.htmlhttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm


29/29

Access on 17/10/09

http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/countryprofile1/a/dprkdiplomacy.htm

Access on 17/10/09

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/03/koreas.military/index.html

Access on 17/10/09

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/0702qnorthkorea_southkorea.pdf

Access on 17/10/09

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/kilo/korean1950.htm

Access on 17/10/09

http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2569/newsletter_info.htm

Access on 17/10/09

http://thormay.net/koreadiary/northsouth1.html

Access on 17/10/09
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/countryprofile1/a/dprkdiplomacy.htmhttp://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/countryprofile1/a/dprkdiplomacy.htmhttp://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/03/koreas.military/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/03/koreas.military/index.htmlhttp://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/0702qnorthkorea_southkorea.pdfhttp://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/0702qnorthkorea_southkorea.pdfhttp://www.onwar.com/aced/data/kilo/korean1950.htmhttp://www.onwar.com/aced/data/kilo/korean1950.htmhttp://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2569/newsletter_info.htmhttp://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2569/newsletter_info.htmhttp://thormay.net/koreadiary/northsouth1.htmlhttp://thormay.net/koreadiary/northsouth1.htmlhttp://thormay.net/koreadiary/northsouth1.htmlhttp://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2569/newsletter_info.htmhttp://www.onwar.com/aced/data/kilo/korean1950.htmhttp://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/0702qnorthkorea_southkorea.pdfhttp://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/03/koreas.military/index.htmlhttp://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/countryprofile1/a/dprkdiplomacy.htm

Documents

South Korea Plus United States Minus North Korea