Denuclearizing North Korea Utilizing Economic Incentives

Abstract 

Global security remains one of the most significant aims of international bodies and the United States. It is in this regards that many nations showed their commitment towards adhering to international statutes and laws. Out of the many provisions, denuclearization has been a major consideration for countries in a bid to enhance global peace and stability. North Korea has however maintained its defiant stance that it would continue manufacturing and testing these weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Initially, the Agreed Framework and the Six-Party talks were able to convince Pyongyang to dismantle the production of the weapons. All along, North Korea was hell-bent on adhering to the provisions on condition that it received economic incentives. Although the previous engagements never succeeded as planned, the international body and the US have a critical role to play in stopping the illicit behavior. With many untapped economic potentials in North Korea, the country could receive economic incentives and in exchange conduct the denuclearization as a payback. The focus of the paper will be on highlighting how the economic incentives could be used to lure North Korea into ending its years of investment in lethal weapons. 

Introduction 

North Korea, previously known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) continues to have active and sophisticated nuclear weapons including a ballistic missile program. The country is also believed to be in possession of biological and chemical weapons. North Korea withdrew from organizations such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 2003 (Massingame, 2009). It also parted ways with the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). As such, it has had the leeway to conduct approximately six complex nuclear tests since 2006. In doing so, North Korea has defied the international community which has in return imposed sanction against the country for its illicit behavior in advancing the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) activities. North Korea has continued to receive backlash from various national and international communities with the most notable one being the United States. In the wake of military advancement, North Korea has faced perpetual economic difficulties. Its previous administrations, including the current one headed by Kim Jong-un, have devoted much of the gross domestic product (GDP) on arming the country more than any other nation (Clemens, 2016). However, diplomatic ties with the US have shown some signs that North Korea is ready to renege on its nuclear weapon programs. Denuclearization in North Korea will be achieved through a combination of leveraging the economic viability of the country, economic reforms, and external aids from other countries. 

Background of the Issue 

Clemens, (2016) pointed out that the nuclear ambition of North Korea started in the 1950s during the Korean War. However, they only came to the limelight after it was discovered that the nuclear activities were more extensive than had earlier been reported. The exposé was done by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As a result, Hirsh-Pasek & Becker, (2005) assert that North Korea effectively withdrew from the IAEA in 1994. However, the US was not happy with the move and began negotiations with North Korea to prevent another possible exit from the NPT. The two countries came to an agreement that saw North Korea agreeing to freeze its nuclear activities in exchange for energy assistance and the light water reactors. However, the agreement crumbled in 2002 (Massingame, 2009). North Korea eventually withdrew from the NPT which prompted countries including China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and the US engaging in more dialogue in the hope of reaching a long-lasting solution regarding the nuclear program. However, the talks also crumbled in 2009 setting a center-stage for future engagements. The increased nuclear activity in North Korea has been interpreted as a huge security concern not only in the Northeast Asian region but also in the rest of the world. It is in this regard that ways must be formulated to ensure that North Korea abides by the international provisions on the WMD. 

The Nuclear Challenge in North Korea 

In 2009, North Korea performed its second nuclear test. The long-range missile test embodied the looming instability in the Northeast Asian region (Clemens, 2016). The move was interpreted as North Korea's quest to assert its strength and remain defiant in the face of the international disapproval. For almost two decades, the issue of nuclear weapons has headlined the security issue in the region. Despite the change in leadership in North Korea and the US, the problem has remained the same (Beal, 2005). The significant challenge has revolved around ending the nuclear program and convincing North Korea to open its borders for international interactions. In almost over fifty years, North Korea has formed a significant part of America’s foreign policy. It started during the 1950-1953 divisive war through to the Cold War era and now in the nuclear crises. The only problem is that the US has hardly made any significant progress in its foreign policy involving North Korea (Beal, 2005). 

In the latest impasse involving nuclear weapons, Beal, (2005) asserted that the US had shown determination to kick-start the denuclearization that ensures that North Korea opens to the rest of the world. The process will depend on economic revitalization, social reforms, and respect for human rights. However, the significant challenge has been on the best strategy or approach to utilizing as regards the denuclearization. The first suggested approach has focused on using the external world as bait towards the change in behavior. On the other hand, the second one has centered on coercion and the casting of aspersions on the negative behavior demonstrated by North Korea. Also, questions have been posted as to whether the US has the capacity to end the nuclear program in North Korea. Although the previous regimes remained stubborn on the nuclear advancement projects in the country, the current president Kim Jong-un has demonstrated the willingness to engage in talks that would eventually lead to the complete denuclearization. However, history has shown that North Korea has a history of rescinding on the deals as witnessed in the previous instances such as the Agreed Framework and the Six-Party Talks. 

In the Agreed Framework, Pyongyang showed its commitment towards the freeze of its illicit plutonium program in exchange for economic help. The Agreed Framework was essentially built around the economic frailties of North Korea. On the part of North Korea, it was required to put an end to its nuclear advancements in the broader Northeast region. However, the US was required to supply North Korea with fuel oil as it prepared to construct the reactors. In a bid to implement and cement the provisions of the agreement, a body was formed known as the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO). However, the Agreed Framework only managed to have temporary success by limit plutonium production by North Korea and confining it within the realms of IAEA. However, in 1998, North Korea performed a Taepodong Nuclear test prompting the Clinton administration to perform a policy review which agreed upon creation more provisions to bolster the Agreed Framework (Massingame, 2009). However, before the actualization of the new deals, President Bush came to power thereby opening a new chapter on the US-North Korea policies. Before the commencement of the new negotiations, the intelligence department in the US found out that North Korea had started a new centrifuge program that sought to use technology to advance the uranium enrichment program. 

Another series of negotiations that failed were known as the Six-Party Talks attended by six countries including Japan, China, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, and the US. The purpose of the meeting, just like the Agreed Framework, was to dismantle the nuclear program by North Korea (Hirsh-Pasek & Becker, 2005). The talks took place in China. In the talks, North Korea preferred a non-aggression policy by the US which would be characterized by the normalization of relations. Without this important criterion, North Korea remained determined that the nuclear program would not end. On September 19, 2005, North Korea pledged that it would abandon the nuclear weapon program in what appeared to be a successful end of the talks. However, in 2009, North Korea called off the talks and showed its lack of interest in the engagement (Clemens, 2016). Therefore, from a historical point of view, North Korea has shown genuine efforts to stop its engagement with nuclear weapons. However, the talks have always failed because of the failure of the other parts to understand the intrinsic needs of the country critically. In the Agreed Framework, the US capitalized on the economic deficiencies of North Korea as an incentive in ensuring that it stops the illicit behavior of advancing the deadly weapons of mass destruction. 

Economic Challenges of North Korea 

According to Roehrig (2017), North Korea remains one of the countries that experience some of the most chronic economic problems. The economy is centrally placed and least opened. The many years of underinvestment have taken to the capital stock to almost beyond repair. The large scale military investment has been cited as one of the country's biggest economic challenges. The nuclear program, coupled with the ballistic missile endeavors have contributed to the loss of resources that could be used in other sectors of the economy. Other areas of the economy that have since been impacted include the industrial and power outputs. Chronic food shortages and weather-associated crop failures have been an ongoing problem for years. The food shortage in the country has also been caused by a host of factors including the inadequate arable land, poor quality of soil, and a lack of fertilization among other pertinent issues. The period between the 1990s and the 2000s was marked with widespread famine and starvation (Han & Tae-hern, 2013). As a result, the international community sought to provide food aid to the people of the country. 

However, with time, the food assistance programs continued to dwindle. Although the domestic rice and corn production bolstered in recent years, the supply is not enough to cover the growing demands of the people. It is in this regard that a huge part of the population continues to show signs of malnutrition and deteriorating living conditions. Since 2002, the government has been in the process of promoting semi-private markets and allowing them to sell a vast array of goods. As such, this has allowed the North Korean people to compensate for the inefficient public distribution system. The country has also attempted to revitalize its position by enhancing changes in the management of communal farms in a bid to improve agricultural output. Pyongyang has also suffered significant problems with inflation. It is in this regard that in 2009, the country reacted by suggesting a currency reform program which suffered significantly. The use of foreign currency was also mentioned as one of the causes of inflation in North Korea. The hyperinflation episodes began in 2009. It however peaked by early 2010 with a reported rate of about 926%. Despite the challenges faced by North Korea, it has shown determination to improve its economic position through an economic reform (Clemens, 2016). 

The government of North Korea has taken several steps in ensuring that it improves its economic viability. For instance, in 2016, it engaged in a mass mobilization exercise aimed at spurring production and ensuring that all the unfinished projects in the country are completed. In May 2016, the government released an economic development program that is supposed to run for five years (Roehrig, 2017). It is aimed at increasing economic growth across different sectors. However, with a lot of government resources being channeled to nuclear projects, there is little evidence to show that the economy of North Korea will regain its value. Also, in a bid to punish it for its inappropriate behavior, the country has received sanctions that have further deteriorated its economic position in relation to its peers. Several countries including the international bodies have openly declared sanctions against North Korea for their nuclear weapon program. Many of the sanctions began after it had completed one of its tests in 2006. Although many of the sanctions especially by the US began in the mid-1950s, they have since eased with the Pyongyang's determination to engage in talks that would eventually lead to an end to the nuclear issue. 

Other than the US, China remains one of the biggest powers to declare sanctions against North Korea. In 2017, China declared that it would ban all the coal imports from the country. It has also banned the export of petroleum products and the import of any textile product from the country. The "Trading with the Enemy Act," created in 1917, restricted trade between the US and North Korea from 1950 to 2008. The death of an American tourist known as Otto Warmbier in 2017 led to the US government banning its citizens from traveling to North Korea without any special validation (Roehrig, 2017). The Executive Order 13810 by the US president Donald Trump meant that any company that engaged in a business endeavor with a business from North Korea would face significant economic ramifications including the freezing of their assets. In 2010, South Korea followed suit after one of its ships was sunk by North Koreans (Han & Tae-hern, 2013). Some of the bans included restricting any ships from North Korea from accessing the territorial waters of South Korea, trade, and any intercultural exchanges. Others countries or bodies that followed in this trend included Japan, Australia, and the European Union. 

Despite its advances in the nuclear energy sector, North Korea continues to suffer significantly in the energy sector. For a city that is supposed to act as the capital of the nation, Pyongyang is uncharacteristically dim, especially during the night. The apartments reflect light that is normally dimmer compared to the one provided by the moon. The energy deficiency has led the country to rely on solar panels as a potential source of energy which is unfortunately not enough for a country like North Korea. Officials in the country have acknowledged the deficiency of electricity in the country. According to statistics by the World Bank, hardly one in three North Koreans has electricity. As a result, the authorities have resorted to the rationing of electricity based on the priority. The problem with energy production has meant that North Korea is not in a position to run the industrial activities of the country in the best possible way. This has a direct implication on the economy of the country. Also, this has affected businesses in the streets and residential areas with the constant rationing which renders many people without electricity. 

The relationship between Economic Problems and the Nuclear Project 

Despite the citizens having to battle with lack of food and blackouts due to insufficient energy, North Korea has shown relentlessness in bolstering its military force. According to statistics, the country consumes approximately 20% of its GDP on the military (Roehrig, 2017). The overemphasis on militarization especially in the area of nuclear weapons has meant that citizens in other areas of life will continue to suffer. It, therefore, beats logic to find out that the country has endeavored to spend almost a third of its national income in building its forces despite having a struggling economy. During the time of Kim Jong-Il, the policy was simple. In what he referred to as "songun," Jong-Il was guided with a principle stating that the military came first. He put the defense of the country ahead of the moribund closed economy. According to a report compiled by the Korea Institute of Defense Analyses (KIDA), the country has continued to spend steadily on the military since the 1990s despite the economic crises it has experienced during this period. However, the disparity in the economy has largely been as a result of poor and selfish leadership that the country has had since its inception. 

Experts that supported the move to treat the military preferentially to other sectors of the economy say that it is a necessary move to protect the interest of the population from the threat posed by enemies such as the US. The country, therefore, continues to pump its limited resources to the military to advance the nuclear weapon project. The move has brought it at loggerheads with the US which feels that the disproportionate investment in the military sector is a threat to their existence and the peaceful coexistence of the rest of the world. In the wake of the economic sanctions, North Korea has shown determination in its quest to strengthen its defense. The international sanctions have done little in convincing the leadership in North Korea that it cannot survive as a state that prioritizes nuclear weapons. The country under its current leadership has shown interests in advancing both the economic and nuclear development. The leaders have also assumed that they can contain all the economic costs that emanate from nuclear development. However, as previously shown, North Korea continues to suffer in various areas including famine, energy, and hyperinflation. It, therefore, shows that the dual management of the economy has failed to achieve its goals. 

Scholars and literature from articles have shown that North Korea can grow if it reverts to a normal economy where it spends its money proportionally with a keen consideration on all the sectors of the economy. It, therefore, means that the constant refusal to denuclearize will continue causing North Korea to lose billions of dollars and this will only increase with time. The development of nuclear weapons has been characterized by scare-mongering and the notion that Pyongyang wants to create a center of power to compete with countries such as the US. It has also built a mentality that North Korea is an aggressive nation hell-bent on toppling its enemies and asserting its dominance over Northeast Asia. As a result, it has created a negative atmosphere where potential investors have moved out of the country or diverted elsewhere due to the fear of the unknown. Although countries such as the US also have exorbitant expenditure in the militaries, they do it based on the strength of its GDP and the economic viability. In the eyes of the international community, North Korea does not have the best interests of the world as seen through its illicit behavior. 

In emphasizing the desire of the country to bolster its military, North Korea’s leadership has incorporated the nuclear accomplishments in its constitution. With each incoming administration, the focus has been on how well the nation can leverage its ability to remain astute and strong in its defense. The leadership of the country feels that this remains one of the ways that it can enhance safety. The international sanctions imposed against Pyongyang have angered her thus contributing to the growing impetus to strengthen its forces basing arguments on a one versus all narrative. The current administration has however softened its stand on the denuclearization as seen with the growing engagements with the government of the US. With the deteriorated economy, international bodies can use several economic incentives in and out of the country to lure North Korea out of the dangerous practice of developing nuclear weapons. Historically, this moved worked temporarily leading to the Agreed Framework. However, this time around, the focus should be placed on enhancing a sustainable economy by leveraging internal opportunities and opening up North Korea to the rest of the world. The consequences of the denuclearization will have a far-reaching positive impact on global peace. 

North Korea’s Natural Resources 

The first step towards economic leveraging would be the identification of the available resources that the country can harness in exchange for giving up their illicit nuclear program. As previously noted, North Korea has adopted a closed but centralized economy beginning in the early 1940s (Choi, Kim, & Merrill, 2003). The country has shown dependence on the industrialized economy whereby 50% of the GDP is generated from the industries. North Korea has a nationalized economy where the state subsidizes essential aspects including food, housing, education, and healthcare. In Asia, North Korea remains one of the countries with the highest amount of resources. The country remains one of the biggest producers of coal and is also a major producer of minerals such as zinc and iron. Sources have indicated that the resources that North Korea sits on could sum up to a value of $10 trillion. Today, North Korea is the 22nd biggest coal reserve in the globe (Choi et al., 2003). It, therefore, relies on the export of the coal to the neighboring Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan among others for industrial use. However, with the sanctions North Korea has been receiving, the country has had to limit its exports only to sympathizing countries. 

Despite the wide array of resources, North Korea has continued to receive criticism as one of the poorest Asian countries. However, the country has the potential of becoming a global leader if it can leverage some of the opportunities that it has at its disposal. The minerals that South Korea has been worth about $6 trillion (Kwak & Joo, 2014). Some of these minerals include gold, iron, limestone, graphite, and molybdenum. The bedrock of the nation is endowed with metals that could be used in the development of smartphones and other technological items. The only problem that the country has is the ability to take advantage of these precious minerals. Although the country has the technology, it lacks the much-needed investment and capital to turn the resources into economic opportunities. The mining sector remains one of the most crucial aspects of the economy. Experts have claimed that the money acquired from the mining has significantly been used in enhancing military spending. China has been one of the biggest markets for North Korean products. The nuclear weapon program also remains a major reason as to why Pyongyang has had difficulties in capitalizing on natural resources. It has received global condemnation for its emphasis on a program that goes against the welfare of global security. 

It is in this regard that in March 2017, the United Nations extended the sanctions imposed on the country in an effort to coerce it to renege on the program. China has since responded by banning imports such as gold from North Korea (Kim & Cohen, 2017). On the other hand, China has blocked the exports in the form of jet fuel and oil products that were initially sent to Japan. Since 2006, the UN has taken necessary steps in a bid to block the entry of necessary technology into Pyongyang that would, in turn, further the development of the ballistic missiles. In 2017, Kim & Cohen, (2017) asserted that President Donald Trump also called upon all the countries in the world to impose sanctions against North Korea. Therefore, this has offered the country a plethora of challenges in its effort to benefit from the host of resources it has. Ideally, a peace deal with the US and the rest of the world would significantly work for North Korea. The first case scenario would be the lifting of the bans and sanctions which would revitalize the economy of Pyongyang. North Korea would regain the ability to bolster its electricity and manufacturing capacity. As such, it will be able to mine and utilize the reserves fully. 

However, the reputation of North Korea continues to leave much to be desired. Other than being regarded as a rogue nation, North Korea has gained a reputation as an abuser of human rights. It, therefore, means that the country has a huge chance of remaining within the realms of the sanctions. For the economy, this will have negative ramifications because the gold reserve it sits on will not be utilized. However, the US will keep a close eye on the resources and in the event of war; it could capitalize on it hence denying North Korea an opportunity towards receiving economic emancipation. Therefore, it is incumbent upon North Korea to retreat on its hard position in a bid to realize its potential as an economical astute country. The leadership of Pyongyang must weigh the benefits between advancing its military force but remaining poor or vice versa. The US is on record as having helped North Korea regain its economic viability, and as such, this prospective opportunity will bring more benefits to the people. The onus is therefore on the current crop of leaders headed by Kim Jong-un to make wise decisions and dismantle their nuclear program for their own benefit. 

Economic Incentives 

After assessing the natural resources that North Korea is endowed with, it remains significant to assess the various incentives that the US and the rest of the international body could give Pyongyang in luring it to surrender the deadly business of nuclear weapons. First, it should be noted that Kim Jong-un’s most significant policy focuses on regime survival. As a result, it adopted an economic principle known as the “parallel policy of economic construction and nuclear development” (Choi et al., 2003). Here, the government focused on the bolstering its nuclear capabilities. However, the president, in what seems to be a change of tact, has shown determination towards the prioritization of the economic development policy. Kim has shown an increasing awareness that without the provision of better livelihood to the people; the military development would only make little sense to the people. It is in this regards that the nation has shown a propensity towards economic revival in exchange of the denuclearization process. First and foremost, the US and the international bodies must consider easing the sanctions and enhancing bilateral economic trade between North Korea and potential partners such as Japan, China, the US, and South Korea among others. The importance of this is that it will open North Korea to the rest of the world thus allowing the investor to come and invest in a wide array of resources such as the gold mines. As a result, jobs will be created, and the country will bolster its GDP. 

The second economic incentive will involve the intervention of the UN Security Council which has in the past dealt North Korea significant blows in terms of trade and business. The Security Council has in the past limited any trade that seeks to benefit North Korea, directly and indirectly, due to the nuclear policies. Examples of the sanctions that have significantly affected Pyongyang include the ban on the importation of crude and refined oil products. As discussed in the economic challenges facing North Korea, a significant factor identified was the energy shortage. The energy shortage experienced the country necessitates the importance of oil and petroleum products. When the UN ban is lifted, the country will significantly benefit as it will have the much-needed energy sources to drive its industrial-based economy. According to Kang, (2013), the UN will also, in turn, allow the country to export some of its products including coal and textile products. However, to ensure that North Korea shows determination to its denuclearization agenda, the bans will be lifted on a temporary basis. Any backsliding by Pyongyang on its deal will lead to the reapplication of the deal. In the wake of the economic benefits, North Korea must demonstrate an increased sense of responsibility. They will have to show that the newly acquired economic freedom will be of significant importance compared to nuclear advancements. Most fundamentally, they must show cognizance of the importance of peace and global coexistence. Lastly, North Korea will be in an increasingly better position to appreciate the value of its natural resources including the vast array of minerals it has. 

The third economic incentive that North Korea will appreciate in the denuclearization deal includes the receipt of monetary assistance. Allow the Glenn Amendment in the US prevents it from funding any country that conducts nuclear tests, international bodies such as the UN and the EU can take this mantle. The funding will enable North Korea to focus more on the improvement of its infrastructure and investment endeavors. As previously shown, the country has largely depended on its industrial economy most of which has been used in the funding of the military. With the denuclearization, North Korea will receive funds that will trigger its potential in various ways. For instance, the country is sitting on a gold mine that is estimated to cost billions. The funding from international bodies and other donors will be a good starting point in the exploitation of the resources. Other than the directive receiving of the funds, North Korea can be admitted into various international economic institutions. Pyongyang can receive membership in various bodies including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Bank among others. Through such engagements, it will be possible for North Korea to get the necessary ideas that it could use to leverage its natural resources and improve on its deficiencies (Kwak & Joo, 2014). The bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank could provide it with the much-needed finances to revive its economy by bolstering trade and increasing production in various sectors. 

Mining remains a major industry in North Korea. However, it has been significantly affected by the unavailability of funds as almost a third of the country's GDP is spent on militarization. The lack of appropriate mining equipment and the buyers for the minerals has made it hard for the country to benefit from its natural resources. Therefore, through bilateral trade associations with different countries, North Korea would be in a better position to benefit from its natural resources. However, as shown in the previous cases, this will only be achieved once it has committed towards denuclearization. For many years, China has North Korea as a potential market for precious metals. The country sits on rocks that could be used in the creation of smartphones and other technological elements (Kwak & Joo, 2014). Although North Korea has the technology, it lacks the investment capital and the know-how to benefit from the resources. The denuclearization process will be the first step towards enhancing bilateral trade relations between North Korea and the likeminded partners. Through the bilateral trade agreements with China, North Korea will have the impetus to acquire resources and manpower from China who will work to bolster the mining industry. Kang, (2013) pointed out that the denuclearization process is not an isolated issue. It will come with extra advantages including a repair of the country's reputation. With this newly acquired status, North Korea will attract investors and experts from across the world that will help it in advancing not only the mining industry but also energy production and other sectors of the economy. 

In an attempt to revive the economy of the country, financial aid will also play a significant role. It should be remembered that during the negotiations that led to the initial ceasefire in the production of the weapons was the promise that the US made to North Korea regarding the provision of both financial and material aid. Although this was subsequently reneged upon, it is undeniably true to note that financial aid will also have an impact in improving the situation of Pyongyang. The aid will serve to facilitate the pilot project in the wake of economic reforms in the country. For instance, electricity shortage is a major problem affecting North Korea to this day. It is affecting both the industries and small businesses across the nation. Aid in the form of finance will act as a trigger by identifying new sources of electricity that will provide power to the ever-growing population. The only problem that has been identified with the aids of this nature is the fact that they are not self-sustaining. In essence, they cannot happen from time to time, and if not properly utilized, North Korea could go back to its old habits. Amidst all these changes, several strategies should be taken into place to ensure that the denuclearization process becomes permanent. Learning from history, militarization has almost become part and parcel of the North Korean culture. Therefore, the international bodies and donors must remain aware of the uncertainties and seal the loopholes using any viable strategy. 

How Economic Reform Will Be Reinforced 

The first step to reinforce the economic reform is to identify the areas of the economy that of the most important to North Korea. The mining industry will receive precedence because the country is endowed with a plethora of minerals and precious stones. Therefore, the incentives should first highlight the areas that would provide the maximum benefits through employment and improvement in GDP. The second areas of the economy that will be assessed include the sectors that have historically suffered the most. Electricity and energy shortages have been perennial problems facing North Korea. Therefore, it would only be critical if priority is given to the two areas. Other than prioritizing the most deserving areas, the second focus should be placed on creating an oversight authority that will ensure the implementation of the denuclearization process. The committee must be composed of members from the international bodies, stakeholder countries such as the US and China, and the North Koran leadership. With the economic incentive going to require effort, time, and resources from the relevant bodies, North Korea must, therefore, be compelled to adhere by the rules. An oversight committee should be put in place to ensure that the deal comes to fruition without which the leadership of the country will be held liable through an international litigation process. 

Also, the change in mentality must remain a major consideration in advancing the deal. The leadership of North Korea has long held philosophies that prefer militarization to the advancement of domestic economies. As the economic reforms continue, a paradigm shift needs to be initiated by challenging the citizenry of the people to elect leaders of character who have their best interests at heart. Although military strength is important for any power in this age and time, it should not be done at the expense of international peace, regional security, and most importantly, the economic wellbeing of the people. Although this will be slow, it will have a long-lasting effect on the politics of North Korea and further ensure that future leadership learns to obey international statutes. Nuclear weapons are classified as WMD based on the impact they could have on the enemies. Their constant testing is a threat to global peace and stability. North Korea should be made to understand that any action that undermines global peace and stability by any country will be dealt with whatsoever. It should hence show true commitment in this new endeavor. Such information should be communicated to the country before the initiation of the economic reforms. 

Conclusion 

Denuclearization in North Korea will be achieved through a combination of leveraging the economic viability of the country, economic reforms, and external aids from other countries. The nuclear ambition of North Korea started way back in the 1950s. The country has continued with the endeavor until today. However, several talks that have involved a host of countries mainly the US have attempted to end the impasse. Although North Korea often complied, it reverted to the norm hence stamping its philosophy of nuclear weapon advancement. Despite being one of the nations with the highest amount of resources, North Korea has suffered tremendously due to famine, inflation, and shortage of electricity among others. Some of the economic opportunities include mining, industrialization, and trade among others. However, the recent sanctions and overspending on the military have denied the country an opportunity to explore and leverage its potential. Therefore, international bodies and the US will exploit these important economic facets with North Korea engaging in denuclearization in return. Through this move, Pyongyang will benefit immensely by reviving its economy and improving the state of living of the people. On the other hand, it will be a positive impact on global and regional security of the region. 

References 

Beal, T. (2005).  North Korea: The struggle against American power . Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com 

Choi, E. K., Kim, E. H., & Merrill, Y. (Eds.). (2003).  North Korea in the world economy . London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon. Retrieved from 

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com 

Clemens, W. C. J. (2016).  North Korea and the world: Human rights, arms control, and Strategies for negotiation . Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com 

Han, J., & Tae-hern, J. (Eds.). (2013).  Understanding North Korea: Indigenous perspectives . Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com 

Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Becker, J. (2005).  Rogue regime: The continuing threat of North Korea . New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com 

Kang, J. (Ed.). (2013).  Assessment of the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea . New York: Springer. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com 

Kim, S. C., & Cohen, M. D. (Eds.). (2017).  North Korea and nuclear weapons: Entering the New era of deterrence . Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press. Retrieved from 

Kwak, T., & Joo, S. (2014).  North Korea and security cooperation in northeast Asia . Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com 

Massingame , S. P. (Ed.). (2009).  North Korea: Issues and U.S. policy . New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com 

Roehrig, T. (2017).  Japan, South Korea, and the United States nuclear umbrella: Deterrence after the cold war . New York: Columbia University Press. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com