American Realism and the Denuclearization of the North Korean State by Zachary Henry

             As of late, North Korea has been stirring up problems in the world political sphere. They have been a thorn in the side of almost everyone, and they do not abide by the rules and norms of international politics. Many of these problems have occurred in nuclear threats that have been pointed toward the U.S., and others surrounding the peninsula. America has responded in a certain means of foreign policy under the Trump administration. The United States practices realist policies toward the North Korean state during the Trump administration.

            The relationship of power and how it is perceived in this relationship between these two states is pivotal in dictating the Realist politics each state will employ. Recently under the Trump administration, the United States has taken a very staunch, non-negotiable stance with North Korea and its nuclear weapons program. The United States will only accept negotiable terms on the denuclearization of the North Korean state, almost disregarding the U.S. image that is being sent to some of the other larger powers in the area, China and Russia. This steadfast stance also exhibits the current administration’s policy of non-negotiation. This stance is a very realist stance because it resembles a sense of trying to display dominance over another state. The two sides place a very heavy emphasis upon military power and might. Most realists would agree that such military dominance is necessary when dealing with this other state. The U.S. has been moving troops and military supplies closer to the surrounding waters of the Korean peninsula as a show of might and strategic importance. Not only have the United States been moving assets, joint-military drills continue to happen between the U.S. and its allies near the area like Japan and South Korea. This strategic localization of military might and resources along with publicized drills portray clear realist policies, especially those that emphasis the importance of the military. The same focus is exerted on the economic sanctions that U.S. wants to impose onto the North Koreans for becoming a nuclear state. These sanctions are very resource based, and strategically done to hurt and effect the North Korean’s ability to continue operating in stable way. These sanctions are used as a way for the U.S. to increase its relative power, along with undermining the power of the North Korean military due to its lack of resources.

            The current U.S. policies in this situation have also reflected a sense of urgency involving the state’s security. Ensuring the security of your state is a very realist outlook on politics. This survival instinct is a very prevalent theme to the state of affairs. The administration sees the North Korean nuclear program as a threat to the survival of the U.S. and its culturally democratic ways. This is a clear example of the security dilemma, where one state’s security is another state’s insecurity. The security of the North Korean regime to have military power and a heard voice on the global stage is the insecurity of the U.S. for fear of being attacked. This security is tied together with a national interest to prevent things from escalating to actual attacks and to reduce North Korea’s power. The intent of enforcing a National Interest abroad is a very realist point of view, even more so when it is tied to the idea of security for a state.

            The United States and the current policies it practices when pertaining to the North Korea Situation display a very solid from of realism. A focus on direct power of military and resources combined with the importance of ensuring the security of the state are classic realist beliefs. The realist methods there are used to try to create these two things are employed heavily by the United States under the Trump administration.