Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy

More than two decades of nuclear dialogue between the United States and North Korea have not prevented Pyongyang from conducting four nuclear tests and building up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Putting the blame for the failure of this dialogue solely on Pyongyang ignores the hesitancy and confusion of...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	FARAGO, NIV [verfasserIn]

Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2016

Rechteinformationen:	Nutzungsrecht: 2016 The Author(s). International Affairs © 2016 The Royal Institute of International Affairs. © COPYRIGHT 2016 Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Schlagwörter:	Nuclear nonproliferation Nuclear industry Nuclear proliferation Nuclear energy Nuclear fuel cycle Analysis Nuclear weapons Foreign policy International relations-US Arms control & disarmament Nuclear fuels

Systematik:	PR 1000 MA 1000

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: International affairs - Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1931, 92(2016), 5, Seite 1127-1145
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:92 ; year:2016 ; number:5 ; pages:1127-1145

Links:	Volltext Link aufrufen Link aufrufen

DOI / URN:	10.1111/1468-2346.12707

Katalog-ID:	OLC1981415815

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a2200265 4500
001	OLC1981415815
003	DE-627
005	20240308150649.0
007	tu
008	161013s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1111/1468-2346.12707 \|2 doi
028	5	2	\|a PQ20170206
035			\|a (DE-627)OLC1981415815
035			\|a (DE-599)GBVOLC1981415815
035			\|a (PRQ)c1677-2874bcb26b17434d51b6449345da81e5d2e76697102341b2d4661e3d57e5ae870
035			\|a (KEY)0026331120160000092000501127washingtonsfailuretoresolvethenorthkoreannuclearco
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 320 \|q DE-600
082	0	4	\|a 320 \|q VZ
084			\|a 3,6 \|a 0 \|2 ssgn
084			\|a PR 1000 \|a PR 1000 \|q VZ \|2 rvk \|0 (DE-625)rvk/139478:
084			\|a MA 1000 \|a MA 1000 \|q VZ \|2 rvk \|0 (DE-625)rvk/122259:
084			\|a 89.70 \|2 bkl
084			\|a 89.90 \|2 bkl
100	1		\|a FARAGO, NIV \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy
264		1	\|c 2016
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen \|b n \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Band \|b nc \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a More than two decades of nuclear dialogue between the United States and North Korea have not prevented Pyongyang from conducting four nuclear tests and building up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Putting the blame for the failure of this dialogue solely on Pyongyang ignores the hesitancy and confusion of US policy. Historical evidence suggests that the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations consistently failed to prioritize their objectives and adopted an impatient and uncompromising negotiating strategy that contributed to this ongoing non‐proliferation fiasco. Identifying US policy mistakes at important crossroads in the dialogue with Pyongyang could help to prevent similar mistakes in the future. In this regard, the following analysis suggests a new approach towards Pyongyang based on a long‐term trust‐building process during which North Korea would be required to cap and then gradually eliminate its nuclear weapons in return for economic assistance and normalization of relations with the United States. Importantly, the United States might have to resign itself to North Korea's keeping an independent nuclear fuel cycle under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to accepting South Korea's request to independently enrich uranium and pyroprocess spent nuclear fuel. This would be a more favourable alternative to allowing North Korea to continue accumulating nuclear weapons. Moreover, if the United States continues on the Obama administration's failed policy path, then there is a better than even chance that the Korean Peninsula may slide into a nuclear arms race.
540			\|a Nutzungsrecht: 2016 The Author(s). International Affairs © 2016 The Royal Institute of International Affairs.
540			\|a © COPYRIGHT 2016 Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
650		4	\|a Nuclear nonproliferation
650		4	\|a Nuclear industry
650		4	\|a Nuclear proliferation
650		4	\|a Nuclear energy
650		4	\|a Nuclear fuel cycle
650		4	\|a Analysis
650		4	\|a Nuclear weapons
650		4	\|a Foreign policy
650		4	\|a International relations-US
650		4	\|a Arms control & disarmament
650		4	\|a Nuclear fuels
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t International affairs \|d Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1931 \|g 92(2016), 5, Seite 1127-1145 \|w (DE-627)129059684 \|w (DE-600)215-X \|w (DE-576)014390272 \|x 0020-5850 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:92 \|g year:2016 \|g number:5 \|g pages:1127-1145
856	4	1	\|u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12707 \|3 Volltext
856	4	2	\|u http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12707/abstract
856	4	2	\|u http://search.proquest.com/docview/1815334367
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_OLC
912			\|a SSG-OLC-POL
912			\|a SSG-OLC-HIS
912			\|a SSG-OLC-WIW
912			\|a SSG-OLC-IBL
912			\|a SSG-OPC-ANG
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_49
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2024
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2035
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2040
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2060
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2121
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2470
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4028
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4238
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4266
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4311
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
936	r	v	\|a PR 1000 \|b Zeitschriften \|k Rechtswissenschaft \|k Völkerrecht \|k Rechtswissenschaft \|k Völkerrecht \|k Zeitschriften \|0 (DE-625)rvk/139478: \|0 (DE-576)205347541
936	r	v	\|a MA 1000 \|b Zeitschriften \|k Politologie \|k Politologie \|k Zeitschriften \|0 (DE-625)rvk/122259: \|0 (DE-576)201576767
936	b	k	\|a 89.70 \|j Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines \|j Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines \|q VZ
936	b	k	\|a 89.90 \|j Außenpolitik \|j Internationale Politik \|j Außenpolitik \|j Internationale Politik \|q VZ
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 92 \|j 2016 \|e 5 \|h 1127-1145

Indexfelder

author_variant	n f nf
matchkey_str	article:00205850:2016----::ahntnfiueoeovteotkranceroudueai
hierarchy_sort_str	2016
bklnumber	89.70 89.90
publishDate	2016
allfields	10.1111/1468-2346.12707 doi PQ20170206 (DE-627)OLC1981415815 (DE-599)GBVOLC1981415815 (PRQ)c1677-2874bcb26b17434d51b6449345da81e5d2e76697102341b2d4661e3d57e5ae870 (KEY)0026331120160000092000501127washingtonsfailuretoresolvethenorthkoreannuclearco DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 320 DE-600 320 VZ 3,6 0 ssgn PR 1000 PR 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/139478: MA 1000 MA 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/122259: 89.70 bkl 89.90 bkl FARAGO, NIV verfasserin aut Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier More than two decades of nuclear dialogue between the United States and North Korea have not prevented Pyongyang from conducting four nuclear tests and building up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Putting the blame for the failure of this dialogue solely on Pyongyang ignores the hesitancy and confusion of US policy. Historical evidence suggests that the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations consistently failed to prioritize their objectives and adopted an impatient and uncompromising negotiating strategy that contributed to this ongoing non‐proliferation fiasco. Identifying US policy mistakes at important crossroads in the dialogue with Pyongyang could help to prevent similar mistakes in the future. In this regard, the following analysis suggests a new approach towards Pyongyang based on a long‐term trust‐building process during which North Korea would be required to cap and then gradually eliminate its nuclear weapons in return for economic assistance and normalization of relations with the United States. Importantly, the United States might have to resign itself to North Korea's keeping an independent nuclear fuel cycle under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to accepting South Korea's request to independently enrich uranium and pyroprocess spent nuclear fuel. This would be a more favourable alternative to allowing North Korea to continue accumulating nuclear weapons. Moreover, if the United States continues on the Obama administration's failed policy path, then there is a better than even chance that the Korean Peninsula may slide into a nuclear arms race. Nutzungsrecht: 2016 The Author(s). International Affairs © 2016 The Royal Institute of International Affairs. © COPYRIGHT 2016 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Nuclear nonproliferation Nuclear industry Nuclear proliferation Nuclear energy Nuclear fuel cycle Analysis Nuclear weapons Foreign policy International relations-US Arms control & disarmament Nuclear fuels Enthalten in International affairs Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1931 92(2016), 5, Seite 1127-1145 (DE-627)129059684 (DE-600)215-X (DE-576)014390272 0020-5850 nnns volume:92 year:2016 number:5 pages:1127-1145 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12707 Volltext http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12707/abstract http://search.proquest.com/docview/1815334367 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-POL SSG-OLC-HIS SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OLC-IBL SSG-OPC-ANG GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_49 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_2024 GBV_ILN_2035 GBV_ILN_2040 GBV_ILN_2060 GBV_ILN_2121 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4028 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4238 GBV_ILN_4266 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4311 GBV_ILN_4325 PR 1000 Zeitschriften Rechtswissenschaft Völkerrecht Rechtswissenschaft Völkerrecht Zeitschriften (DE-625)rvk/139478: (DE-576)205347541 MA 1000 Zeitschriften Politologie Politologie Zeitschriften (DE-625)rvk/122259: (DE-576)201576767 89.70 Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines VZ 89.90 Außenpolitik Internationale Politik Außenpolitik Internationale Politik VZ AR 92 2016 5 1127-1145
spelling	10.1111/1468-2346.12707 doi PQ20170206 (DE-627)OLC1981415815 (DE-599)GBVOLC1981415815 (PRQ)c1677-2874bcb26b17434d51b6449345da81e5d2e76697102341b2d4661e3d57e5ae870 (KEY)0026331120160000092000501127washingtonsfailuretoresolvethenorthkoreannuclearco DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 320 DE-600 320 VZ 3,6 0 ssgn PR 1000 PR 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/139478: MA 1000 MA 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/122259: 89.70 bkl 89.90 bkl FARAGO, NIV verfasserin aut Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier More than two decades of nuclear dialogue between the United States and North Korea have not prevented Pyongyang from conducting four nuclear tests and building up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Putting the blame for the failure of this dialogue solely on Pyongyang ignores the hesitancy and confusion of US policy. Historical evidence suggests that the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations consistently failed to prioritize their objectives and adopted an impatient and uncompromising negotiating strategy that contributed to this ongoing non‐proliferation fiasco. Identifying US policy mistakes at important crossroads in the dialogue with Pyongyang could help to prevent similar mistakes in the future. In this regard, the following analysis suggests a new approach towards Pyongyang based on a long‐term trust‐building process during which North Korea would be required to cap and then gradually eliminate its nuclear weapons in return for economic assistance and normalization of relations with the United States. Importantly, the United States might have to resign itself to North Korea's keeping an independent nuclear fuel cycle under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to accepting South Korea's request to independently enrich uranium and pyroprocess spent nuclear fuel. This would be a more favourable alternative to allowing North Korea to continue accumulating nuclear weapons. Moreover, if the United States continues on the Obama administration's failed policy path, then there is a better than even chance that the Korean Peninsula may slide into a nuclear arms race. Nutzungsrecht: 2016 The Author(s). International Affairs © 2016 The Royal Institute of International Affairs. © COPYRIGHT 2016 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Nuclear nonproliferation Nuclear industry Nuclear proliferation Nuclear energy Nuclear fuel cycle Analysis Nuclear weapons Foreign policy International relations-US Arms control & disarmament Nuclear fuels Enthalten in International affairs Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1931 92(2016), 5, Seite 1127-1145 (DE-627)129059684 (DE-600)215-X (DE-576)014390272 0020-5850 nnns volume:92 year:2016 number:5 pages:1127-1145 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12707 Volltext http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12707/abstract http://search.proquest.com/docview/1815334367 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-POL SSG-OLC-HIS SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OLC-IBL SSG-OPC-ANG GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_49 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_2024 GBV_ILN_2035 GBV_ILN_2040 GBV_ILN_2060 GBV_ILN_2121 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4028 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4238 GBV_ILN_4266 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4311 GBV_ILN_4325 PR 1000 Zeitschriften Rechtswissenschaft Völkerrecht Rechtswissenschaft Völkerrecht Zeitschriften (DE-625)rvk/139478: (DE-576)205347541 MA 1000 Zeitschriften Politologie Politologie Zeitschriften (DE-625)rvk/122259: (DE-576)201576767 89.70 Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines VZ 89.90 Außenpolitik Internationale Politik Außenpolitik Internationale Politik VZ AR 92 2016 5 1127-1145
allfields_unstemmed	10.1111/1468-2346.12707 doi PQ20170206 (DE-627)OLC1981415815 (DE-599)GBVOLC1981415815 (PRQ)c1677-2874bcb26b17434d51b6449345da81e5d2e76697102341b2d4661e3d57e5ae870 (KEY)0026331120160000092000501127washingtonsfailuretoresolvethenorthkoreannuclearco DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 320 DE-600 320 VZ 3,6 0 ssgn PR 1000 PR 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/139478: MA 1000 MA 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/122259: 89.70 bkl 89.90 bkl FARAGO, NIV verfasserin aut Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier More than two decades of nuclear dialogue between the United States and North Korea have not prevented Pyongyang from conducting four nuclear tests and building up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Putting the blame for the failure of this dialogue solely on Pyongyang ignores the hesitancy and confusion of US policy. Historical evidence suggests that the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations consistently failed to prioritize their objectives and adopted an impatient and uncompromising negotiating strategy that contributed to this ongoing non‐proliferation fiasco. Identifying US policy mistakes at important crossroads in the dialogue with Pyongyang could help to prevent similar mistakes in the future. In this regard, the following analysis suggests a new approach towards Pyongyang based on a long‐term trust‐building process during which North Korea would be required to cap and then gradually eliminate its nuclear weapons in return for economic assistance and normalization of relations with the United States. Importantly, the United States might have to resign itself to North Korea's keeping an independent nuclear fuel cycle under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to accepting South Korea's request to independently enrich uranium and pyroprocess spent nuclear fuel. This would be a more favourable alternative to allowing North Korea to continue accumulating nuclear weapons. Moreover, if the United States continues on the Obama administration's failed policy path, then there is a better than even chance that the Korean Peninsula may slide into a nuclear arms race. Nutzungsrecht: 2016 The Author(s). International Affairs © 2016 The Royal Institute of International Affairs. © COPYRIGHT 2016 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Nuclear nonproliferation Nuclear industry Nuclear proliferation Nuclear energy Nuclear fuel cycle Analysis Nuclear weapons Foreign policy International relations-US Arms control & disarmament Nuclear fuels Enthalten in International affairs Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1931 92(2016), 5, Seite 1127-1145 (DE-627)129059684 (DE-600)215-X (DE-576)014390272 0020-5850 nnns volume:92 year:2016 number:5 pages:1127-1145 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12707 Volltext http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12707/abstract http://search.proquest.com/docview/1815334367 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-POL SSG-OLC-HIS SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OLC-IBL SSG-OPC-ANG GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_49 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_2024 GBV_ILN_2035 GBV_ILN_2040 GBV_ILN_2060 GBV_ILN_2121 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4028 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4238 GBV_ILN_4266 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4311 GBV_ILN_4325 PR 1000 Zeitschriften Rechtswissenschaft Völkerrecht Rechtswissenschaft Völkerrecht Zeitschriften (DE-625)rvk/139478: (DE-576)205347541 MA 1000 Zeitschriften Politologie Politologie Zeitschriften (DE-625)rvk/122259: (DE-576)201576767 89.70 Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines VZ 89.90 Außenpolitik Internationale Politik Außenpolitik Internationale Politik VZ AR 92 2016 5 1127-1145
allfieldsGer	10.1111/1468-2346.12707 doi PQ20170206 (DE-627)OLC1981415815 (DE-599)GBVOLC1981415815 (PRQ)c1677-2874bcb26b17434d51b6449345da81e5d2e76697102341b2d4661e3d57e5ae870 (KEY)0026331120160000092000501127washingtonsfailuretoresolvethenorthkoreannuclearco DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 320 DE-600 320 VZ 3,6 0 ssgn PR 1000 PR 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/139478: MA 1000 MA 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/122259: 89.70 bkl 89.90 bkl FARAGO, NIV verfasserin aut Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier More than two decades of nuclear dialogue between the United States and North Korea have not prevented Pyongyang from conducting four nuclear tests and building up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Putting the blame for the failure of this dialogue solely on Pyongyang ignores the hesitancy and confusion of US policy. Historical evidence suggests that the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations consistently failed to prioritize their objectives and adopted an impatient and uncompromising negotiating strategy that contributed to this ongoing non‐proliferation fiasco. Identifying US policy mistakes at important crossroads in the dialogue with Pyongyang could help to prevent similar mistakes in the future. In this regard, the following analysis suggests a new approach towards Pyongyang based on a long‐term trust‐building process during which North Korea would be required to cap and then gradually eliminate its nuclear weapons in return for economic assistance and normalization of relations with the United States. Importantly, the United States might have to resign itself to North Korea's keeping an independent nuclear fuel cycle under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to accepting South Korea's request to independently enrich uranium and pyroprocess spent nuclear fuel. This would be a more favourable alternative to allowing North Korea to continue accumulating nuclear weapons. Moreover, if the United States continues on the Obama administration's failed policy path, then there is a better than even chance that the Korean Peninsula may slide into a nuclear arms race. Nutzungsrecht: 2016 The Author(s). International Affairs © 2016 The Royal Institute of International Affairs. © COPYRIGHT 2016 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Nuclear nonproliferation Nuclear industry Nuclear proliferation Nuclear energy Nuclear fuel cycle Analysis Nuclear weapons Foreign policy International relations-US Arms control & disarmament Nuclear fuels Enthalten in International affairs Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1931 92(2016), 5, Seite 1127-1145 (DE-627)129059684 (DE-600)215-X (DE-576)014390272 0020-5850 nnns volume:92 year:2016 number:5 pages:1127-1145 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12707 Volltext http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12707/abstract http://search.proquest.com/docview/1815334367 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-POL SSG-OLC-HIS SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OLC-IBL SSG-OPC-ANG GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_49 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_2024 GBV_ILN_2035 GBV_ILN_2040 GBV_ILN_2060 GBV_ILN_2121 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4028 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4238 GBV_ILN_4266 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4311 GBV_ILN_4325 PR 1000 Zeitschriften Rechtswissenschaft Völkerrecht Rechtswissenschaft Völkerrecht Zeitschriften (DE-625)rvk/139478: (DE-576)205347541 MA 1000 Zeitschriften Politologie Politologie Zeitschriften (DE-625)rvk/122259: (DE-576)201576767 89.70 Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines VZ 89.90 Außenpolitik Internationale Politik Außenpolitik Internationale Politik VZ AR 92 2016 5 1127-1145
allfieldsSound	10.1111/1468-2346.12707 doi PQ20170206 (DE-627)OLC1981415815 (DE-599)GBVOLC1981415815 (PRQ)c1677-2874bcb26b17434d51b6449345da81e5d2e76697102341b2d4661e3d57e5ae870 (KEY)0026331120160000092000501127washingtonsfailuretoresolvethenorthkoreannuclearco DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 320 DE-600 320 VZ 3,6 0 ssgn PR 1000 PR 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/139478: MA 1000 MA 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/122259: 89.70 bkl 89.90 bkl FARAGO, NIV verfasserin aut Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier More than two decades of nuclear dialogue between the United States and North Korea have not prevented Pyongyang from conducting four nuclear tests and building up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Putting the blame for the failure of this dialogue solely on Pyongyang ignores the hesitancy and confusion of US policy. Historical evidence suggests that the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations consistently failed to prioritize their objectives and adopted an impatient and uncompromising negotiating strategy that contributed to this ongoing non‐proliferation fiasco. Identifying US policy mistakes at important crossroads in the dialogue with Pyongyang could help to prevent similar mistakes in the future. In this regard, the following analysis suggests a new approach towards Pyongyang based on a long‐term trust‐building process during which North Korea would be required to cap and then gradually eliminate its nuclear weapons in return for economic assistance and normalization of relations with the United States. Importantly, the United States might have to resign itself to North Korea's keeping an independent nuclear fuel cycle under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to accepting South Korea's request to independently enrich uranium and pyroprocess spent nuclear fuel. This would be a more favourable alternative to allowing North Korea to continue accumulating nuclear weapons. Moreover, if the United States continues on the Obama administration's failed policy path, then there is a better than even chance that the Korean Peninsula may slide into a nuclear arms race. Nutzungsrecht: 2016 The Author(s). International Affairs © 2016 The Royal Institute of International Affairs. © COPYRIGHT 2016 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Nuclear nonproliferation Nuclear industry Nuclear proliferation Nuclear energy Nuclear fuel cycle Analysis Nuclear weapons Foreign policy International relations-US Arms control & disarmament Nuclear fuels Enthalten in International affairs Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1931 92(2016), 5, Seite 1127-1145 (DE-627)129059684 (DE-600)215-X (DE-576)014390272 0020-5850 nnns volume:92 year:2016 number:5 pages:1127-1145 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12707 Volltext http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12707/abstract http://search.proquest.com/docview/1815334367 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-POL SSG-OLC-HIS SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OLC-IBL SSG-OPC-ANG GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_49 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_2024 GBV_ILN_2035 GBV_ILN_2040 GBV_ILN_2060 GBV_ILN_2121 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4028 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4238 GBV_ILN_4266 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4311 GBV_ILN_4325 PR 1000 Zeitschriften Rechtswissenschaft Völkerrecht Rechtswissenschaft Völkerrecht Zeitschriften (DE-625)rvk/139478: (DE-576)205347541 MA 1000 Zeitschriften Politologie Politologie Zeitschriften (DE-625)rvk/122259: (DE-576)201576767 89.70 Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines VZ 89.90 Außenpolitik Internationale Politik Außenpolitik Internationale Politik VZ AR 92 2016 5 1127-1145
language	English
source	Enthalten in International affairs 92(2016), 5, Seite 1127-1145 volume:92 year:2016 number:5 pages:1127-1145
sourceStr	Enthalten in International affairs 92(2016), 5, Seite 1127-1145 volume:92 year:2016 number:5 pages:1127-1145
format_phy_str_mv	Article
bklname	Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines Außenpolitik Internationale Politik
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Nuclear nonproliferation Nuclear industry Nuclear proliferation Nuclear energy Nuclear fuel cycle Analysis Nuclear weapons Foreign policy International relations-US Arms control & disarmament Nuclear fuels
dewey-raw	320
isfreeaccess_bool	false
container_title	International affairs
authorswithroles_txt_mv	FARAGO, NIV @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2016-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	129059684
dewey-sort	3320
id	OLC1981415815
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1981415815</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240308150649.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">161013s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1111/1468-2346.12707</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20170206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1981415815</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1981415815</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)c1677-2874bcb26b17434d51b6449345da81e5d2e76697102341b2d4661e3d57e5ae870</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0026331120160000092000501127washingtonsfailuretoresolvethenorthkoreannuclearco</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">320</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">320</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3,6</subfield><subfield code="a">0</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PR 1000</subfield><subfield code="a">PR 1000</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)rvk/139478:</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">MA 1000</subfield><subfield code="a">MA 1000</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)rvk/122259:</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">89.70</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">89.90</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FARAGO, NIV</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">More than two decades of nuclear dialogue between the United States and North Korea have not prevented Pyongyang from conducting four nuclear tests and building up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Putting the blame for the failure of this dialogue solely on Pyongyang ignores the hesitancy and confusion of US policy. Historical evidence suggests that the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations consistently failed to prioritize their objectives and adopted an impatient and uncompromising negotiating strategy that contributed to this ongoing non‐proliferation fiasco. Identifying US policy mistakes at important crossroads in the dialogue with Pyongyang could help to prevent similar mistakes in the future. In this regard, the following analysis suggests a new approach towards Pyongyang based on a long‐term trust‐building process during which North Korea would be required to cap and then gradually eliminate its nuclear weapons in return for economic assistance and normalization of relations with the United States. Importantly, the United States might have to resign itself to North Korea's keeping an independent nuclear fuel cycle under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to accepting South Korea's request to independently enrich uranium and pyroprocess spent nuclear fuel. This would be a more favourable alternative to allowing North Korea to continue accumulating nuclear weapons. Moreover, if the United States continues on the Obama administration's failed policy path, then there is a better than even chance that the Korean Peninsula may slide into a nuclear arms race.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nutzungsrecht: 2016 The Author(s). International Affairs © 2016 The Royal Institute of International Affairs.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© COPYRIGHT 2016 Blackwell Publishers Ltd.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear nonproliferation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear industry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear proliferation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear energy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear fuel cycle</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear weapons</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Foreign policy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">International relations-US</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Arms control & disarmament</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear fuels</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">International affairs</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1931</subfield><subfield code="g">92(2016), 5, Seite 1127-1145</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129059684</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)215-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)014390272</subfield><subfield code="x">0020-5850</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:92</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1127-1145</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12707</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12707/abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1815334367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-POL</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-HIS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-IBL</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-ANG</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_49</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2040</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2060</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2121</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4028</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4238</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4266</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4311</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="r" ind2="v"><subfield code="a">PR 1000</subfield><subfield code="b">Zeitschriften</subfield><subfield code="k">Rechtswissenschaft</subfield><subfield code="k">Völkerrecht</subfield><subfield code="k">Rechtswissenschaft</subfield><subfield code="k">Völkerrecht</subfield><subfield code="k">Zeitschriften</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)rvk/139478:</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-576)205347541</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="r" ind2="v"><subfield code="a">MA 1000</subfield><subfield code="b">Zeitschriften</subfield><subfield code="k">Politologie</subfield><subfield code="k">Politologie</subfield><subfield code="k">Zeitschriften</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)rvk/122259:</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-576)201576767</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">89.70</subfield><subfield code="j">Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="j">Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">89.90</subfield><subfield code="j">Außenpolitik</subfield><subfield code="j">Internationale Politik</subfield><subfield code="j">Außenpolitik</subfield><subfield code="j">Internationale Politik</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">92</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="h">1127-1145</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	FARAGO, NIV
spellingShingle	FARAGO, NIV ddc 320 ssgn 3,6 rvk PR 1000 rvk MA 1000 bkl 89.70 bkl 89.90 misc Nuclear nonproliferation misc Nuclear industry misc Nuclear proliferation misc Nuclear energy misc Nuclear fuel cycle misc Analysis misc Nuclear weapons misc Foreign policy misc International relations-US misc Arms control & disarmament misc Nuclear fuels Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy
authorStr	FARAGO, NIV
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)129059684
format	Article
dewey-ones	320 - Political science
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut
collection	OLC
remote_str	false
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	0020-5850
topic_title	320 DE-600 320 VZ 3,6 0 ssgn PR 1000 PR 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/139478 MA 1000 MA 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/122259 89.70 bkl 89.90 bkl Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy Nuclear nonproliferation Nuclear industry Nuclear proliferation Nuclear energy Nuclear fuel cycle Analysis Nuclear weapons Foreign policy International relations-US Arms control & disarmament Nuclear fuels
topic	ddc 320 ssgn 3,6 rvk PR 1000 rvk MA 1000 bkl 89.70 bkl 89.90 misc Nuclear nonproliferation misc Nuclear industry misc Nuclear proliferation misc Nuclear energy misc Nuclear fuel cycle misc Analysis misc Nuclear weapons misc Foreign policy misc International relations-US misc Arms control & disarmament misc Nuclear fuels
topic_unstemmed	ddc 320 ssgn 3,6 rvk PR 1000 rvk MA 1000 bkl 89.70 bkl 89.90 misc Nuclear nonproliferation misc Nuclear industry misc Nuclear proliferation misc Nuclear energy misc Nuclear fuel cycle misc Analysis misc Nuclear weapons misc Foreign policy misc International relations-US misc Arms control & disarmament misc Nuclear fuels
topic_browse	ddc 320 ssgn 3,6 rvk PR 1000 rvk MA 1000 bkl 89.70 bkl 89.90 misc Nuclear nonproliferation misc Nuclear industry misc Nuclear proliferation misc Nuclear energy misc Nuclear fuel cycle misc Analysis misc Nuclear weapons misc Foreign policy misc International relations-US misc Arms control & disarmament misc Nuclear fuels
format_facet	Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	nc
hierarchy_parent_title	International affairs
hierarchy_parent_id	129059684
dewey-tens	320 - Political science
hierarchy_top_title	International affairs
isfreeaccess_txt	false
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)129059684 (DE-600)215-X (DE-576)014390272
title	Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy
ctrlnum	(DE-627)OLC1981415815 (DE-599)GBVOLC1981415815 (PRQ)c1677-2874bcb26b17434d51b6449345da81e5d2e76697102341b2d4661e3d57e5ae870 (KEY)0026331120160000092000501127washingtonsfailuretoresolvethenorthkoreannuclearco
title_full	Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy
author_sort	FARAGO, NIV
journal	International affairs
journalStr	International affairs
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	false
dewey-hundreds	300 - Social sciences
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2016
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	1127
author_browse	FARAGO, NIV
container_volume	92
class	320 DE-600 320 VZ 3,6 0 ssgn PR 1000 PR 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/139478 MA 1000 MA 1000 VZ rvk (DE-625)rvk/122259 89.70 bkl 89.90 bkl
format_se	Aufsätze
author-letter	FARAGO, NIV
doi_str_mv	10.1111/1468-2346.12707
normlink	RVK/139478: RVK/122259: 205347541 201576767
normlink_prefix_str_mv	(DE-625)rvk/139478: (DE-625)rvk/122259: (DE-576)205347541 (DE-576)201576767
dewey-full	320
title_sort	washington's failure to resolve the north korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of us policy
title_auth	Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy
abstract	More than two decades of nuclear dialogue between the United States and North Korea have not prevented Pyongyang from conducting four nuclear tests and building up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Putting the blame for the failure of this dialogue solely on Pyongyang ignores the hesitancy and confusion of US policy. Historical evidence suggests that the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations consistently failed to prioritize their objectives and adopted an impatient and uncompromising negotiating strategy that contributed to this ongoing non‐proliferation fiasco. Identifying US policy mistakes at important crossroads in the dialogue with Pyongyang could help to prevent similar mistakes in the future. In this regard, the following analysis suggests a new approach towards Pyongyang based on a long‐term trust‐building process during which North Korea would be required to cap and then gradually eliminate its nuclear weapons in return for economic assistance and normalization of relations with the United States. Importantly, the United States might have to resign itself to North Korea's keeping an independent nuclear fuel cycle under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to accepting South Korea's request to independently enrich uranium and pyroprocess spent nuclear fuel. This would be a more favourable alternative to allowing North Korea to continue accumulating nuclear weapons. Moreover, if the United States continues on the Obama administration's failed policy path, then there is a better than even chance that the Korean Peninsula may slide into a nuclear arms race.
abstractGer	More than two decades of nuclear dialogue between the United States and North Korea have not prevented Pyongyang from conducting four nuclear tests and building up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Putting the blame for the failure of this dialogue solely on Pyongyang ignores the hesitancy and confusion of US policy. Historical evidence suggests that the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations consistently failed to prioritize their objectives and adopted an impatient and uncompromising negotiating strategy that contributed to this ongoing non‐proliferation fiasco. Identifying US policy mistakes at important crossroads in the dialogue with Pyongyang could help to prevent similar mistakes in the future. In this regard, the following analysis suggests a new approach towards Pyongyang based on a long‐term trust‐building process during which North Korea would be required to cap and then gradually eliminate its nuclear weapons in return for economic assistance and normalization of relations with the United States. Importantly, the United States might have to resign itself to North Korea's keeping an independent nuclear fuel cycle under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to accepting South Korea's request to independently enrich uranium and pyroprocess spent nuclear fuel. This would be a more favourable alternative to allowing North Korea to continue accumulating nuclear weapons. Moreover, if the United States continues on the Obama administration's failed policy path, then there is a better than even chance that the Korean Peninsula may slide into a nuclear arms race.
abstract_unstemmed	More than two decades of nuclear dialogue between the United States and North Korea have not prevented Pyongyang from conducting four nuclear tests and building up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Putting the blame for the failure of this dialogue solely on Pyongyang ignores the hesitancy and confusion of US policy. Historical evidence suggests that the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations consistently failed to prioritize their objectives and adopted an impatient and uncompromising negotiating strategy that contributed to this ongoing non‐proliferation fiasco. Identifying US policy mistakes at important crossroads in the dialogue with Pyongyang could help to prevent similar mistakes in the future. In this regard, the following analysis suggests a new approach towards Pyongyang based on a long‐term trust‐building process during which North Korea would be required to cap and then gradually eliminate its nuclear weapons in return for economic assistance and normalization of relations with the United States. Importantly, the United States might have to resign itself to North Korea's keeping an independent nuclear fuel cycle under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to accepting South Korea's request to independently enrich uranium and pyroprocess spent nuclear fuel. This would be a more favourable alternative to allowing North Korea to continue accumulating nuclear weapons. Moreover, if the United States continues on the Obama administration's failed policy path, then there is a better than even chance that the Korean Peninsula may slide into a nuclear arms race.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-POL SSG-OLC-HIS SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OLC-IBL SSG-OPC-ANG GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_49 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_2024 GBV_ILN_2035 GBV_ILN_2040 GBV_ILN_2060 GBV_ILN_2121 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4028 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4238 GBV_ILN_4266 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4311 GBV_ILN_4325
container_issue	5
title_short	Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy
url	http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12707 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12707/abstract http://search.proquest.com/docview/1815334367
remote_bool	false
ppnlink	129059684
mediatype_str_mv	n
isOA_txt	false
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1111/1468-2346.12707
up_date	2024-07-04T04:54:37.288Z
_version_	1803622943063801856
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1981415815</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240308150649.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">161013s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1111/1468-2346.12707</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20170206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1981415815</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1981415815</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)c1677-2874bcb26b17434d51b6449345da81e5d2e76697102341b2d4661e3d57e5ae870</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0026331120160000092000501127washingtonsfailuretoresolvethenorthkoreannuclearco</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">320</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">320</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3,6</subfield><subfield code="a">0</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PR 1000</subfield><subfield code="a">PR 1000</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)rvk/139478:</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">MA 1000</subfield><subfield code="a">MA 1000</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)rvk/122259:</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">89.70</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">89.90</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FARAGO, NIV</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">More than two decades of nuclear dialogue between the United States and North Korea have not prevented Pyongyang from conducting four nuclear tests and building up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Putting the blame for the failure of this dialogue solely on Pyongyang ignores the hesitancy and confusion of US policy. Historical evidence suggests that the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations consistently failed to prioritize their objectives and adopted an impatient and uncompromising negotiating strategy that contributed to this ongoing non‐proliferation fiasco. Identifying US policy mistakes at important crossroads in the dialogue with Pyongyang could help to prevent similar mistakes in the future. In this regard, the following analysis suggests a new approach towards Pyongyang based on a long‐term trust‐building process during which North Korea would be required to cap and then gradually eliminate its nuclear weapons in return for economic assistance and normalization of relations with the United States. Importantly, the United States might have to resign itself to North Korea's keeping an independent nuclear fuel cycle under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to accepting South Korea's request to independently enrich uranium and pyroprocess spent nuclear fuel. This would be a more favourable alternative to allowing North Korea to continue accumulating nuclear weapons. Moreover, if the United States continues on the Obama administration's failed policy path, then there is a better than even chance that the Korean Peninsula may slide into a nuclear arms race.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nutzungsrecht: 2016 The Author(s). International Affairs © 2016 The Royal Institute of International Affairs.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© COPYRIGHT 2016 Blackwell Publishers Ltd.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear nonproliferation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear industry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear proliferation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear energy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear fuel cycle</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear weapons</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Foreign policy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">International relations-US</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Arms control & disarmament</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nuclear fuels</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">International affairs</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1931</subfield><subfield code="g">92(2016), 5, Seite 1127-1145</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129059684</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)215-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)014390272</subfield><subfield code="x">0020-5850</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:92</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1127-1145</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12707</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12707/abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1815334367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-POL</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-HIS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-IBL</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-ANG</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_49</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2040</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2060</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2121</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4028</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4238</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4266</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4311</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="r" ind2="v"><subfield code="a">PR 1000</subfield><subfield code="b">Zeitschriften</subfield><subfield code="k">Rechtswissenschaft</subfield><subfield code="k">Völkerrecht</subfield><subfield code="k">Rechtswissenschaft</subfield><subfield code="k">Völkerrecht</subfield><subfield code="k">Zeitschriften</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)rvk/139478:</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-576)205347541</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="r" ind2="v"><subfield code="a">MA 1000</subfield><subfield code="b">Zeitschriften</subfield><subfield code="k">Politologie</subfield><subfield code="k">Politologie</subfield><subfield code="k">Zeitschriften</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)rvk/122259:</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-576)201576767</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">89.70</subfield><subfield code="j">Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="j">Internationale Beziehungen: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">89.90</subfield><subfield code="j">Außenpolitik</subfield><subfield code="j">Internationale Politik</subfield><subfield code="j">Außenpolitik</subfield><subfield code="j">Internationale Politik</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">92</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="h">1127-1145</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399705

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Washington's failure to resolve the North Korean nuclear conundrum: examining two decades of US policy

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?