This book explains the origin and historical development of North Korean nuclear weapon dated from the aftermath of World War II. The story of North Korea's nuclear program began when the United States dropped atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 which led to Japan's immediate defeat. Surprised by the speed of Japan's surrender, North Korea's founding leader Kim Il-sung vowed to secure nuclear capability to avoid suffering the fate of its eastern neighbor. Based on the author's extensive experience in the academia, government, and intelligence circles, the book traces how the nuclear program has evolved since and explores wide-ranging issues including the positive function of nuclear weapon in Pyongyang's local politics, the history of negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang, the prospects of denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula, the diplomatic and military options presented to US President Donald Trump in dealing with the nuclear threat, and the future scenarios of the North Korean regime and the possibilities of a reunified Korea.With the nuclear weapon crisis likely to persist in the foreseeable time, is it feasible for South Korea to achieve reunification in the Korean Peninsula? Will the six-party members like the US, China, Russia and Japan agree with reunification without denuclearization? Can the issues of nuclear weapon and unification be settled simultaneously in the future? The book seeks to address these questions and more.

Six institutions in five countries that have key interests in North Korea's future undertook a collaborative effort to determine ways in which the North Korean system could move toward modernization. The effort produced illustrative plans, a consensus plan, and a tool kit for constructing alternative plans for stimulating the modernization of the North Korean system.

North Korea is officially described as a socialist republic governed according to the ideology of Juche (loosely, "self-reliance"). Kim Il-Sung, the founder of North Korea, was the country's first and only president; in the North Korean constitution he is described as the Eternal President of the Republic: "The DPRK and the entire Korean people will uphold the great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung as the eternal President of the Republic." The de facto head of state and government is Kim Jong-Il, who is Chairman of the National Defence Commission. The legislature of North Korea is the Supreme People's Assembly, or SPA; the current President of the SPA is Kim Yong Nam. The other senior government leader is the Premier, currently Pak Pong-ju. North Korea is a single-party state. The governing party is the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, a coalition made up of three smaller parties, the Workers Party of Korea, the Korean Social Democratic Party and the Chondoist Chongu Party. These parties nominate all candidates for office and hold all seats in the Supreme People's Assembly. North Korea seems to delight in its self-appointed role as an international trouble-maker, rogue state and budding nuclear power. Much of the world seems to regard it as a lose cannon -- but a potentially dangerous one rather than simply an irritating tiny, poverty-stricken, isolated country led by a short person with tall hair. This book focuses on the flurry of activities engaged in by North Korea.

North Korea is perilously close to developing strategic nuclear weapons capable of hitting the United States and its East Asian allies. The volume contributors contend that the time to prevent North Korea from achieving this capability is virtually over; scholars and policymakers must turn their attention to how to deter a nuclear North Korea.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) joined the rank of nuclear powers in October 2006 after exploding its first nuclear device. The test was not fully successful yet it unequivocally demonstrated North Korea's nuclear weapons capability. North Korea under the leadership of Kim Jong-il remains as unpredictable and mysterious as ever. This comprehensive study brings together leading scholars in the field to examine the country's current foreign policy under Kim Jong-il as well as its bilateral relations with the USA, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea.

The current research aims to provide analytical understandings on the costs and benefits of Korean unification from political, social, and economic aspects. Upon the two years of earlier works, we constructed an analytical model encompassing both spatial and temporal dimensions of the unification process, and built comprehensive architecture, ‘the Guiding Type of Unification.’ Based on this model, we have broaden the scope of the research by collecting diverse perspectives from the worldwide experts of the leading countries. We expect to observe the global trends of world governance. Indeed, the increasing importance of Group of Twenty (G‐20) countries in managing global problems reflects both political and social aspects of the changes occurring in global governance. Another reason for this would be South Korea’s diversified international relations in the recent years. Hence, it seems necessary to take a closer look on the international dimensions of Korean unification. In this vein, we requested thirteen experts of the leading countries to express their opinions on Korean unification. In order to collect international perspectives in a coordinated manner, scholars were provided with a guideline to include their perspectives on the expected effects of Korean Unification and the potential roles of their countries during and after the process. Participants were also asked to present candid implications for Korean unification. Argentina, whose food supply is abundant, laid stress on providing assistance in terms of food security during the unification. Australia, who has special concerns in Asian security, suggested a comprehensive support not only as a mediator but also as one of the U.S. alliance. Due to remote distance to Asia, Brazil is relatively less affected by the unification. Brazil, however, expressed that it has a keen interest in transmission of its experience regarding nuclear issues with Argentina. Similar to Brazil’s stance, the effects of the unification influence is indirect to Canada. Nevertheless, Canada could play a role in providing humanitarian assistance, and could be a potential destination for North Korean refugee resettlement. France, one of the most influential members in the European Union and the United Nations, made a suggestion to promote institution building in East Asia that can promote stability in the region. Germany, the only country who had experienced unification, presented its interest in participating actively in the process of Korean unification through public and private sectors. India assumed that the unification of Korea leads to the denuclearization of the peninsula, and would see this as a positive sign for stability of the region, since it would limit or end North Korea’s nuclear weapon transmits with Pakistan. Indonesia could contribute to regional peace and stability through ASEAN and its extensions as South Korea can call upon Indonesia to engage in the peace process. Italy, who especially pointed out the role of European Union as a whole, is well-poised to contribute to economic and social development with North Korea through technical assistance. Mexico can, and expressed its willingness to play an active role in the unification process through international organizations. South Africa, who had been successful in national reconciliation and denuclearization, is very likely to provide its experience and can be a strong voice for the NPT and arms control in the international society. Advocating South Korea’s policy in Korean unification, Turkey explicitly mentioned that it will side with Seoul if there is a possible conflict in the peninsula. The author emphasized that the international community must be well-informed on how Korean unification will take place. Last but not least, the United Kingdom author suggested that Koreans will have to resolve emotional conflicts for reconciliation. Considering how both Koreas have dealt educational matters concerning the division of the peninsula, this may face a major challenge in the future generation. Thirteen countries’ diversely manifested positions on the unifying process are indicative of perceptual change that the issue of Korean unification is no longer a regional issue, but an international one, in which multiple actors have their own stakes within. Upon the previously suggested implications, we categorized the countries into three groups: bystanders, supporters, and interveners. This categorization reflects the assertiveness of each country, or coercive level of each country’s assistance instrumented towards the two Koreas during the unifying process. In the conclusion, based on our final analysis, we provided recommendations for the policy makers. First, diversified diplomacy creates an amicable international environment for unification policies beyond the power politics of the Four Powers. Second, activation of leading countries’ roles is strategically advantageous to activate the meaningful roles of these leading countries to minimize the Four Powers’ concerns. Third, emphasizing the formation of multilateral system would provide leading countries with an additional motivation to actively participate in the unification process. Furthermore, multilateral efforts to achieve Korean unification are also expected to contribute to the furtherance of democratic elements in the dynamics of international relations as a whole. Fourth, it is now high time for us to conduct more public diplomacy by devising new and creative methodologies. The global research project of this kind could be one of the most effective public diplomatic tools. Lastly, the unification between two Koreas can no longer be considered as a regional issue within Northeast Asia since others, including the leading countries, conceive their national interests along the process of unification on the Korean peninsula in diverse ways. Overall, thirteen countries’ recommendations underline the significance of collective efforts in addressing the unification process and suggest South Korea to learn lessons from the experience that they have undergone in the past. Keywords: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom, Expectation, Role, Effect ------------- CONTENTS ------------- Acknowledgments Abstract Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION Ⅱ. EFFECTS AND ROLES 1. Argentina 2. Australia 3. Brazil 4. Canada 5. France 6. Germany 7. India 8. Indonesia 9. Italy 10. Mexico 11. South Africa 12. Turkey 13. United Kingdom Ⅲ. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 1. Expected Effect 2. Potential Roles 3. Classification of Leading Countries Ⅳ. CONCLUSION References Recent Publications