Name: Yiguangjiao  Student ID：s07286
Research paper supervisor:Dr.Seku Conde
Minzu University of China
2007-2008 Academic Year
 
 
Abstruct
Foreign policies of the USA government towards North Korea is one part of its global strategy. The problem between these two countries is nuclear problem to some extent, the North Korea nuclear issue is a critical factor which affect the relation of them. So, foreign policies of the USA government towards North Korea have focused on the nuclear issue. There were four nuclear crisises before Bush became the president of USA in 2000. Bush is a Republican, the Republican Party has been affected by the Conservatism to some extent. Conservatism is one of major ideologies in the world today, it has a long history and can be traced back to the era of Plato and Aristotle. The conservatists conform to the ideas of ‘return to traditional morality, return power to people’ and ‘national interests above everything else’, so extreme egoism and unilateralism become their basic political ideas. After Bush was in power, a series of policies and proposals have emerged, such as ‘axis of evil’, ‘pre-emptive strike’ and so on, all of these hinted that conservatism resurged again. So, it is meaningful to study the foreign policies of the Bush administration towards North Korea. This article contains three parts, the first section present the judgements of the Bush administration about the world situation and its reaction. In the second part, the critical factor——nuclear issue is illustrated. Different attitudes towards nuclear issue and the present situation is given in the final part briefly.
 
Key Words: Conservatism; Forieng Policies; Nuclear Issue
 
Introduction
Conservatism, liberalism and socialism are three major ideologies in the world today. conservatism has a long history, it can be traced back to the era of Plato and Aristotle, then gradually develop in Europe particularly in Britain and France and other countries.
The end of the Cold War, ended the confrontation between the East and West, it is also accelerete the expansion of the world market economy. Globalization has deepened the relation among different countries and strengthened the ties of mutual interest among them, globalization is also a suppression on the coutry which want to challenge other countries in the world, because it cost too much. The expansion of the world market economy caused the emergence of the middle class, which will eventually lead to the expansion of democracy, then the possibility of wars among democratic countries decreased. This idea accepted by the westen world, it is the essence of ‘theory of interdependence’and ‘theory of democratic peace’. Clinton administration have been affected by this idea profoundedly, so their foreign policies are consistent with this idea, they touched with North Korea. During this time, conservatism converged, but conservatists still wait for opportunities, they still conform to the ideas of ‘return to traditional morality, return power to people’ and ‘national interests above everything else’, so extreme egoism and unilateralism become their basic political ideas. After Bush was in power, a series of policies and proposals have emerged, such as ‘axis of evil’, ‘pre-emptive strike’ and so on, all of these hinted that conservatism resurged again.[①]
 
1 Official judgements about the world situation and reactions
  The resurgence of conservatism in the United States is relates to the judgements about the world situation, it is neccesary to explain the judgements.
 
1.1 Official judgements about the world situation
The resons why conservatism resurged in the United States concerning with the judgements about the world situation of the USA government, these judgements are completely different from past, they are as following: 
First, The world full of danger and uncertainty. The Bush administration belived that ‘period of strategic opportunities’ has gone, the world full of danger and uncertainty even after the end of the cold war. ‘During the Cold War, threat assessment was relatively easy. The enemy was known, its military capability was identified and its intentions understood – or so it was believed. This confidence has, however, disappeared’. In the world today, the kinds of dangers we faces are very different from the traditional thrent we met before, they often lack ‘an identifiable actor, a hostile intention or the prominence of military capability’. [②]It is the fact that we even do not know who or what will be the most serious threat in future, take terrorism for an example, terrorists have no address where we can find them, they just a network at sometimes. As a network, they may have a leader who give them resource and orders , such as weapons, information or when and where to break out a boambing and so on, but they have no government, no territory, no ambassador and no people. Terrorist networks are barely institutionalized, and their differentiation and organizational logic work horizontally rather than vertically. [③]
Second, the challengers of the USA have changed. After the end of the cold war, challenger as strong as Soviet is not exist, but it doesn’t means the USA is safty. New challengers such as terrorists, religious organizations challenge the safty of America, the 9·11 is a good example. The United States believed that America is the most powerful country in the world before 9·11, there are no countries can touch the United States after the end of the cold war, but 9·11 terrorist attack completely changed the ‘self-identity’ of the United States. [④]  
Third, the spread of weapons threaten security of USA, especially the spread of nuclear weapons. More and more countries equipt with advanced weapons, missiles of them can arrive at America directly. Some countries neglected the international regulation, they developed their nuclear weapons, what’s more, they declared nuclear weapons to other countries. As a result, more and more countries own nuclear weapons. These owners are less rational compare with Soviet. Rumsfeld alleged that America has come into a ‘New danger era’. [⑤]
 
1.2 The reactions of the USA government
The reactions of the USA government have been affected by its judgements about the world situation. Because of uncertainties of the world situation and challengers, the USA government believes that ‘the reactions would not be ‘threat-based’, but they would be directed against potential threats on ‘capability-based’ reasoning’. [⑥]The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001 prompted the Bush administration to change its foreign policies. This change was firstly articulated in the State of the Union address of 2002, in which Iran, Iraq and North Korea were identified as forming an ’Axis of Evil’. President Bush declared that the United States had the right to use pre-emptive self-defence against any regime developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), particularly if that regime had links with terrorist groups.[⑦] Take Iraq war as an example, a few weeks before the  war broke out, US Vice-PresidentDick Cheney (2003) argued that giving the inspectors more time would be wrong, as more procrastination would increase the military risk posed by the Iraqi regime: ‘The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action.’ This thought served as central rational for the military preventive strike: military action was essential now to prevent future potential loss. This reasoning was also behind the ‘pre-emptive strike’ doctrine. [⑧]
 
2 Nuclear issue——the critical factor
 
2.1 The neccesaties to check the nuclear aspirations of North Korea
The growing nuclear arsenal in North Korea is a security disaster to the United States for several reasons, including the likely domino effect on proliferation. But the most important reason is the possibility that a North Korean nuclear bomb will end up in one of US cities, not delivered by a missile, but by a truck or freighter. More chillingly, as reported by Graham Allison (2004), they have stated that they have a mission to kill 4 million Americans in revenge for specific wrongs that they believe the United States has inflicted on Muslim people. So, some American believe that they must take the consequences of such a terror group gaining access to nuclear weapons seriously. The only plausible avenue for gaining nuclear weapons is to buy or steal them from a nuclear power, if North Korea proceeds unchecked with building its nuclear arsenal, the risk of nuclear terrorism increases significantly. Of course, terrorists setting off a nuclear bomb on US soil would not be equivalent to the nuclear holocaust threatened during the cold war. But it would be the single worst catastrophe this country has ever suffered. Just one bomb could result in more than one hundred thousand deaths, and there could be more than one attack. The direct economic losses from the blast would be hundreds of billions of dollars, but the indirect economic impact would be even greater, as worldwide financial markets would collapse in a way that would make the market setback after 9·11 seem mild. The social and political effects are incalculable, especially if the weapons were detonated in Washington or Moscow or London[⑨]. For all of these reasons, checking the nuclear aspirations of North Korea should be a top security priority for the United States.
 
2.2 Retrospection of the first four nuclear crisises between the USA and North Korea
The first nuclear crisis with North Korea broke out during [...]

If you want to read the full article, you need to ask for permission from Sekou ( ). If you have the permission, you can login now.