I. Coercive Diplomacy
Using coercive diplomacy to avert North Korea’s nuclear proliferation and prevent further action is extremely necessary but it is not efficient enough. I think a more successful way is to create a regimen so that North Korea has no choice but to denuclearize. Schelling states “coercion requires finding a bargain, arranging for him to be better off doing what we want-worse off not doing what we want-when he takes the threatened penalty into account.”1 The goal of coercive diplomacy is to not only stop North Korea but to reverse their nuclear proliferation as well. To take the approach of coercive diplomacy the adversary has to believe the threat given to them is potent enough so that they can stop what they are doing. America …show more content…
Pyongyang blantly expressed he had no desire to stop his nuclear program so the only option for the safety of others is to make him stop by using coercion. I also think it would be a good idea to involve other states to help influence Pyongyang’s irrational behavior “geopolitical consideration also required the United States to bring China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia. These partners would enhance strength of coercive measures and inducements.”10 It is important that when the sanctions are imposed relatively quickly so it more likely to be successful and for future threats to be deemed credible. Sanctions that are targeted to weaken Pyongyang’s economy and military have to significantly hit the ruling class to make them give up the nuclear program. The ruling class is mostly party leaders, military officials and bureaucrats “the regime provides a wide spectrum of selective rewards to its ruling elites in return for loyalty, including residency and special housing benefits in Pyongyang, better and more food, and access to scarce goods such as luxury cars, jewelry, and electronics.”11 Focusing on the ruling class would be very influential because some even get revenue from the sanctions so once they stop receiving an incentive they will no longer want to support Pyongyang. Taking action to impose sanctions first is better than bombing because it is more ethical and will cause less of a disaster or war. Author Pekson states“It may be unrealistic to expect that Kim Jong-un will give up his nuclear program as it is perceived to be a vital deterrent to external military threats and a security guarantee for the survival of the regime.”12 The sanctions serve
Using coercive diplomacy to avert North Korea’s nuclear proliferation and prevent further action is extremely necessary but it is not efficient enough. I think a more successful way is to create a regimen so that North Korea has no choice but to denuclearize. Schelling states “coercion requires finding a bargain, arranging for him to be better off doing what we want-worse off not doing what we want-when he takes the threatened penalty into account.”1 The goal of coercive diplomacy is to not only stop North Korea but to reverse their nuclear proliferation as well. To take the approach of coercive diplomacy the adversary has to believe the threat given to them is potent enough so that they can stop what they are doing. America …show more content…
Pyongyang blantly expressed he had no desire to stop his nuclear program so the only option for the safety of others is to make him stop by using coercion. I also think it would be a good idea to involve other states to help influence Pyongyang’s irrational behavior “geopolitical consideration also required the United States to bring China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia. These partners would enhance strength of coercive measures and inducements.”10 It is important that when the sanctions are imposed relatively quickly so it more likely to be successful and for future threats to be deemed credible. Sanctions that are targeted to weaken Pyongyang’s economy and military have to significantly hit the ruling class to make them give up the nuclear program. The ruling class is mostly party leaders, military officials and bureaucrats “the regime provides a wide spectrum of selective rewards to its ruling elites in return for loyalty, including residency and special housing benefits in Pyongyang, better and more food, and access to scarce goods such as luxury cars, jewelry, and electronics.”11 Focusing on the ruling class would be very influential because some even get revenue from the sanctions so once they stop receiving an incentive they will no longer want to support Pyongyang. Taking action to impose sanctions first is better than bombing because it is more ethical and will cause less of a disaster or war. Author Pekson states“It may be unrealistic to expect that Kim Jong-un will give up his nuclear program as it is perceived to be a vital deterrent to external military threats and a security guarantee for the survival of the regime.”12 The sanctions serve