National Security Council
The North Korea Crisis
Aaron Gartenberg
CJMUNC 2017
1
INDEX
Summary of the Issue ............................................................. 2-4
Related Legislation ................................................................. 5
Major Aspects of the Issue ..................................................... 6-8
Actors and Interests .............................................................. 9-10
Discussion Questions ............................................................. 11
Bibliography/Research Links ................................................. 12
CJMUNC 2017
2
Summary of the Issue
A familiarization with the Korean War and its aftermath is recommended to
contextualize the matter at hand.
The “end” of the Korean War was in 1953, but in many regards (some literal)
it never ended. The conflict between North Korea (DPRK) and South Korea (ROK)
was only settled over a truce agreement, not a war-terminating peace treaty.
Diplomacy aside, the region is riddled with complex international relations and
global security issues. A conflict in the region will lead to a multiplicity of issues for
surrounding nations and the country’s respective allies.
As South Korea has rebuilt and blossomed into a loyal ally to U.S. and
independently healthy nation, North Korea has bolstered its military and ravaged its
citizens. The nation has been under rule by three generations of the Kim family. The
current Supreme Leader, Kim Jong Un, is vocal about his intentions to cause havoc
for the state's enemies. The United States, as a country publicly supporting
freedom, democracy, and basic human rights is high on North Korea’s enemy list.
As Senator John McCain recently stated, “[Kim Jong Un] is intent on having the
capability to strike the United States of America. That is the threat.”
The U.S. is bound to protect South Korea from North Korean aggression
CJMUNC 2017
3
after signing the The Mutual Defense Treaty at the end of the war in 1953:
“Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of
the Parties in territories now under their respective administrative control, or
hereafter recognized by one of the Parties as lawfully brought under the
administrative control of the other, would be dangerous to its own peace and safety
and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its
constitutional processes.” - Article III of The Mutual Defense Treaty (reference and
link below).
North Korea has conducted five successful nuclear tests with a sixth on the way.
The North Korean military has also succeeded in firing longer range missiles and
launching from submarines. The next development for North Korea is miniaturizing
a nuclear warhead to fit on their longer-range missiles. Thus far, they have not been
successful in putting the two together. Once they do, they will have the capability to
reach the United States with a thermonuclear attack. Complex diplomatic and
militaristic relationships between the actors in the Pacific leave the U.S. standing in
the middle of what could quickly become a national security crisis.
“Allowing this dictator [Kim Jong Un] to have that kind of power is not
something that civilized nations can allow to happen ... of course we don't want to
CJMUNC 2017
4
have military options employed, but we must keep all options on the table” - Paul
Ryan, U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives.
“The Simulated Electronic Launch of a Minuteman III ICBM is a signal to the
American people, our allies, and our adversaries that our ICBM capability is safe,
secure, lethal and ready.” - Col Deane Konowicz, 625th Strategic Operations
Squadron Commander
“When it comes to missile testing, the U.S. is operating with a clear double
standard: It views its own tests as justified and useful, while it views the tests of
North Korea as threatening and destabilizing,” - David Krieger, The Nuclear Age
Peace Foundation
“What is needed is diplomacy rather than military provocations. Threats,
whether in the form of tweets, nuclear-capable aircraft carrier groups, or
nuclear-capable missile launches, only increase the dangers to us all.” - David
Krieger, The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
CJMUNC 2017
5
Related Legislation
The Mutual Defense Treaty Between The US and ROK; Oct. 1, 1953 The U.S. will utilize military and intelligence resources support to protect South
Korea. The agreement goes both ways, pledging South Korea to aid in an attack on
the U.S. as well. The U.S. is positioning defense resources in South Korea
according to this agreement and currently stations 30,000 defense personnel.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kor001.asp
U.S. - Korea Free Trade Agreement - “Korea is currently our 6th largest
goods trading partner with $112.2 billion in total (two way) goods trade during
2016.”
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta#
CJMUNC 2017
6
Major Aspects of the Issue
The Nuclear Problem - North Korea has been testing nuclear weapons
since 2006. North Korea is now threatening to make pre-emptive strikes against The
United States. North Korea’s closest U.S.-related targets are the 30,000 members of
the U.S. armed forces positioned in South Korea. 3,400 kilometers away in Guam,
the U.S. military has significant bases and resources. A medium-range missile from
North Korea may be able to hit Hawaii’s densely populated urban areas. Most
troublesome is North Korea’s publicized development of Intercontinental Ballistic
Missiles, referred to as ICBMs. These ICBMs would have the range capacity to hit
at least the west coast of the U.S.
(https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uknews624cpsprodpbE3FDproduction_95456385_icbm_mi
ssiles_ranges_624.png)
The City of Los Angeles is a suspected west coast target for a North Korean
missile. The Port of Los Angeles is the largest in the nation. It’s destruction and the
immense loss of life would have serious impacts on the U.S. diplomatically and
economically. After an L.A. attack, other ports on the west coast (Portland, San
Diego) would have to be rapidly dredged and expanded while the L.A. port is
re-constructed. This is an unusual infrastructural challenge that would stretch over
CJMUNC 2017
7
years if not decades.
Nonetheless, aggression from North Korea need not reach the continental
U.S. to cause national security concern. Implications of conflict constricted just to
the Korean Peninsula have dramatic impacts on the U.S. military and trade.
China - China comprises 90% of North Korea’s trade. As a lifeline to North
Korea it is the primary reason they have been able to militarize. As of 2015, China
was the largest trading partner with the U.S. exchanging nearly $600 billion USD
both ways. For all that is shared between the U.S. financially and diplomatically,
China is the only nation to have a direct upper hand on the situation and often will
combat U.S. actions. When U.S. defense missions in the DMZ are not compatible
with China devastating retaliatory economic action is taken against South Korea.
Arming the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) & US Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense (THAAD) - To arm or not to arm is the question. Arming the DMZ
risks provoking attacks from North Korea, upsetting local South Korean citizen
advocacy groups, and upsetting China (PRC) & Russia. Most recently, the U.S.
has acted on a long-awaited plan to install missile defense pods, US Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), along the DMZ. China and Russia quickly reacted
to the installation calling them an “extremely destabilizing factor”. Chinese and
Russian disapproval shakes the political stability of the region and further
CJMUNC 2017
8
complicates attempts at diplomacy. Contrarily, having the DMZ unprotected leaves
South Korean civilians exposed and leaves soldiers (ROK & US) and resources
vulnerable. This issue is not to be over-simplified and can be considered through a
variety of national lenses. Is arming the DMZ simply provocative? Would a
preemptive North Korean attack provoke a retaliatory response even if it was
blocked by THAAD? Should the first priority be protecting South Korean civilian
lives (despite some of their NIMBY concerns)? Or protecting U.S. national interests
at any cost?
Aggressive vs. Passive Stance - The tumultuous situation in the Korean
Peninsula risks international peace in many ways. A simple attack on South Korea
could pull the U.S. into a war against the North. If China, as the North’s primary
trading partner, disagrees with the U.S. intervention (as it has with THAAD
installments) conflict can quickly escalate. Taking an aggressive approach may
spark escalation while a passive approach can be ineffective and lead to
vulnerabilities.
Domestic security risk aside, the people of North Korea are subjected to
abhorrent treatment from their government. These injustices span across political
prisons, chronic food shortages, and no personal freedoms.
CJMUNC 2017
9
Actors and Interests
The United States Government - In 1953, at the conclusion of U.S. direct
involvement in the Korean War, South Korea (ROK) signed a defense treaty with
the U.S. This agreement stipulated that the U.S. would provide defense support for
ROK against the North. This agreement is still in place. This holds the U.S.
Government responsible for defending South Korea in the event of an attack. The
U.S. is also present to maintain peace in the region with international trade and
anti-war intentions. South Korea is responsible for funding nearly one-third of the
costs for this protection.
North Korea - (Democratic People's Republic of Korea, DPRK) - The
Korean War resulted in a division of the North and South. The North has been
called a “hermit nation”. Egregious civil rights problems and aggressive international
threats are abundant in this rogue state. The government primarily focuses on
building an aggressive and nuclear military force.
South Korea (Republic of Korea, ROK) - South Korea is an exemplary
case of a war torn country rising from the rubble to standing sovereign. Since the
end of the war, South Korea has developed a strong economy, infrastructure,
political systems, and culture. Based on its size, limited resources, and complicated
CJMUNC 2017
10
diplomatic position, South Korea still receives U.S. assistance in defending itself
from the solely military-focused North Korea.
China (Peoples Republic of China, PRC) - China makes up 90% of North
Korea’s imports. This gives China tremendous power over the nation and a vested
interest in the region’s stability. In recent years, the PRC government has been
known to flag and delete derogatory statements off interpersonal messaging apps
about North Korea and its leader Kim Jung Un.
CJMUNC 2017
11
Discussion Questions
1. Should the United States take a militarily aggressive (expensive) or
diplomatically passive (America first) stance towards North Korea?
Specifically, in taking action against North Korean efforts in constructing a
nuclear tipped ICBM.
2. Should the U.S. retract, stabilize, or increase placements of THAADs along
the DMZ?
3. While navigating the Korean Crisis, how can we maintain our important and
complex relationship with China? With Russia?
4. Does the United States have a responsibility to take action against North
Korea (DPRK) based on its treatment of citizens?
5. What risks does the U.S. need to be cognizant of as the new administration
claims that the days of “strategic patience” are over? What steps can the U.S.
take to mitigate potential retaliation from these sentiments?
CJMUNC 2017
12
Bibliography/Research Links
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-usa-thaad-idUSKBN17R2VA
https://www.cfr.org/global/global-conflict-tracker/p32137#!/conflict/north-korea-cri
sis
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-17399847
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/north-korea-fires-a-ballistic-missile-as-trum
p-prepares-to-host-chinas-xi/2017/04/04/8983fa36-1988-11e7-8003-f55b4c1cfae2_s
tory.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.b18786fbc206
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/12/chinas-q1-import-value-from-north-korea-rises-18
-4-pct-from-a-year-ago.html
http://www.libertyinnorthkorea.org