Argument: North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers

North Korea is an irrational and irresponsible regime that can’t simply be ignored. As the United States National Security Council spokesman Tonny Vietor said in response to the 12th December 2012 missile test “This action is yet another example of North Korea's pattern of irresponsible behavior.” As a power that is willing to defy international sanctions and resolutions such as “Resolution 1874, which demands the DPRK not to conduct "any launch using ballistic missile technology" and urges it to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme"” [1] it is essential that there is engagement to prevent the regime breaking more international norms.

It is impossible simply to ignore a regime with such a propensity to engage in provocative actions when it borders you, as is the case with China and Russia, or when it has tested missiles that can potentially hit targets 6000km away, so most of Asia, including numerous US bases. [2]

[1] ‘North Korea rocket: International reaction’, BBC News, 12 December 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20690762

[2] ‘North Korea’s missile programme’, BBC News, 12 December 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17399847

Candidate 1: "Negotiations to defuse the cause of the immediate tension, and sanctions to encourage North Korea to the negotiating table are sensible, proportionate responses to North Korean actions. It is difficult to see how sanctions can be seen as encouraging even if those sanctions are then eased when North Korea climbs down."
Candidate 2: "The United States has its own interests in the North Korean question, not only does it have troops in South Korea and security guarantees to maintain with its ally but it is also concerned by nuclear proliferation. If there is a chance to get rid of North Korean nuclear weapons through negotiations, or even a peace treaty should the USA not take that when it is in the US national interest? [1]

[1] DiFilippo, Anthony, ‘Time for North Korea Peace Treaty’, The Diplomat, 11 April 2012, http://thediplomat.com/2012/04/11/time-for-north-korea-peace-treaty/3/"
Candidate 3: "While the United Nations is about creating peace that does not mean that it needs to keep trying the same failed formula. It is clear that multilateral discussions and sanctions have not succeeded in creating positive change in relation to North Korea. Trying new tactics does not mean giving up on the goal of international peace and security."
Candidate 4: "North Korea is not an irrational regime, and is certainly not going to use its missiles to hit one of its neighbouring great powers. North Korea has shown time and time again that its number one objective is regime survival [1] and its provocations are one method it uses to try and ensure such survival through getting concessions and building deterrence against any possible pre-emptive attack either by the South or the United States. [2] North Korea will therefore never invite such retaliation from the surrounding great powers. All provocations it takes are just to the extent that it thinks it can get away with them. It is notable that since South Korea altered its stance from ‘controlled response’ to ‘manifold retaliation’ in the wake of the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island [3] the provocations from North Korea have been much less provocative i.e. missile testing rather than military actions.

[1] Lankov, Andrei, ‘Weep Not for Kim Jong Il’, Foreign Policy, 23 December 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/23/weep_not_for_kim_jong_il

[2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012, http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dossier/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-military-balance-on-the-kore/

[3] Mc Devitt, Michael, ‘Deterring North Korean Provocations’, Brookings, February 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/02/north-korea-mcdevitt"
Candidate 5: "Pressure from other states acts as a force multiplier helping to show that the North has crossed a line with its actions. A lack of reaction from the Unites States, Japan, and other states around the world would show that these nations are no longer supporting the South as strongly as they were. The United States in particular has to be willing to engage with North Korea in order to present a united front with its South Korean ally."
Candidate 6: "So far engagement has done little to resolve the situation in North Korea either; the regime is practically immune to pressure from those states that are willing to pressurise it. There are occasional hopes that China will put more pressure on North Korea but so far these have proven to be false hopes, and indeed China is investing heavily in North Korea, for example creating a port at Rason to serve Manchuria. [1] When the Korean question is resolved it will be through the collapse of the regime, something that is as likely to come about through ignoring it as engaging with it.

[1] Bloomberg News, ‘North Korea Investment Zone Promoted to Chinese as Next Shenzhen’, Bloomberg, 13 September 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/north-korea-investment-zone-promoted-to-chinese-as-next-shenzhen.html"

North Korea is not an irrational regime, and is certainly not going to use its missiles to hit one of its neighbouring great powers. North Korea has shown time and time again that its number one objective is regime survival [1] and its provocations are one method it uses to try and ensure such survival through getting concessions and building deterrence against any possible pre-emptive attack either by the South or the United States. [2] North Korea will therefore never invite such retaliation from the surrounding great powers. All provocations it takes are just to the extent that it thinks it can get away with them. It is notable that since South Korea altered its stance from ‘controlled response’ to ‘manifold retaliation’ in the wake of the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island [3] the provocations from North Korea have been much less provocative i.e. missile testing rather than military actions.

[1] Lankov, Andrei, ‘Weep Not for Kim Jong Il’, Foreign Policy, 23 December 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/23/weep_not_for_kim_jong_il

[2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012, http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dossier/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-military-balance-on-the-kore/

[3] Mc Devitt, Michael, ‘Deterring North Korean Provocations’, Brookings, February 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/02/north-korea-mcdevitt
