International Negotiations: United States vs. North Korea International Negotiations: United States vs. North Korea It’s no secret over the last ten years that relations between the United States and North Korea have been anything but friendly. North Korea-specifically Pyongyang-has had a history of controversy; particularly their “use of nuclear brinkmanship and reports of violations of human rights and general disregard for the well-being of the North Korean people, as exemplified by its decision to develop a nuclear program while the country suffered from widespread famine. (2009). Most notably, the biggest controversy from the North Koreans has been their threat of a nuclear weapons program and how they have been so defiant in disregarding the policies implemented by the United Nations on such programs. Throughout the course of this paper, a detailed synopsis will be reported on a specific article pertaining to the written testimony of Robert J. Einhorn, Senior Adviser, Center for Strategic and International Studies, (2003) about the negotiations with North Korea back in March, 2003.
This paper will also analyze the implications of globalization and technology on negotiations with North Korea. This article starts with Mr. Einhorn discussing the recent impasse of the (then) current negotiations between the United States and North Korea on Pyongyang’s intentions of keeping nuclear weapons or the option to give up the program for “security assurances and other benefits. ” He continues by stating that in order for the U. S. to stop North Korea from acquiring and retaining a nuclear weapons program, the time for negotiation is now.
He then goes on to discuss how his testimony will provide some suggestions on how to get the negotiations started. Einhorn suggests that because of North Korea’s refusal to negotiate with the United Nations Security Council, the U. S. should consider negotiating on two separate “tracks”. The first track should be between the U. S. and North Korea; on a bilateral level so that they can engage on the issue of nuclear capability. The second track-Einhorn suggests-should include a multilateral group; such as Japan, Australia, the two Korea’s, and the E.
U. which “would serve primarily as a mechanism in which the U. S. could consult the others on its approach for handling the nuclear issue in the bilateral talks. It might enable the U. S. , in some sense, to represent the views of the others in its talks with North Korea and to discuss solutions with the North in which the others would play a significant role. ” (Einhorn, 2003). Another suggestion made by Einhorn is that because of both sides having preconditions, it is in their best interests to meet halfway.
For example; if North Korea will permit the International Atomic Energy Agency full access to their facilities then the U. S. will promise not to engage in any future military actions against them. The U. S. could also pledge to not support the sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. Einhorn states that by presenting North Korea with a clear choice of a brighter and better future without nuclear facilities will help them to realize what their future will hold; as opposed to one with pure defiance and nuclear threats. Einhorn (2003) says that “the U.
S. , North Korea’s neighbors, and the rest of the international community should be sending the message now that, if Pyongyang chooses the wrong path – the path of acquiring nuclear weapons – then it can expect to be the target of a concerted multilateral effort to ensure that it will pay a high price for its choice. ” The next item on the list of the negotiating agenda for the United States is to forge a common approach between the U. S. and South Korea to help dissolve any future or current anti Americanism within their country.
In other words, if the United States wants South Korea to be an ally against North Korea’s nuclear threats, then the U. S. Has to do everything they can to reshape the perception that most countries in Asia have about the United States. Technology will play a big part in this reshaping process-especially communication media. The need to understand the impact of communication media on the negotiation process is rapidly growing as technological advances offer negotiators more options in communication. Such technologies as a computer or video conferencing can be beneficial to negotiation because of the rapid response capabilities they possess.
The same can be said about cell phone technology and the stage and how it can impact of negotiation on a global scale. On the other hand, certain media technologies can also have negative impacts on global negotiations as well. Relations between United States and other countries for example; not all media coverage in the world today is beneficial. It is important to realize that there’s a difference between media communication and media propaganda which is one of the native impacts that globalization and technology have a negotiation process. References Einhorn, R. (2003, March 3). Negotiations with North Korea. Retrieved May 20, 2010