By Priscilla
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United States’ Track II Diplomacy During the Second North Korean Nuclear Crisis (2002-2008) by Priscilla Kim A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Central Lancashire February 2019 STUDENT DECLARATION FORM Concurrent registration for two or more academic awards I declare that while registered as a candidate for the research degree, I have not been a registered candidate or enrolled student for another award of the University or other academic or professional institution Material submitted for another award I declare that no material contained in the thesis has been used in any other submission for an academic award and is solely my own work Collaboration Where a candidate’s research programme is part of a collaborative project, the thesis must indicate in addition clearly the candidate’s individual contribution and the extent of the collaboration. Please state below: This research programme was not part of a collaborative project Signature of Candidate ____ ___________________________ Type of Award ____ Doctor of Philosophy ____________________________ School ____School of Languages and Global Studies______________ Abstract In the realm of academia and US government, scholars and policymakers argue that diplomacy is no longer a viable option towards dismantling North Korea’s nuclear program. I, however, argue that it is too early to declare diplomacy as a failed solution, due to the lack of research on Track II diplomacy between the US and North Korea. While there is a large amount of literature on US foreign policy towards North Korea, there is little literature that seeks to explain United States Track II diplomacy towards North Korea. My research, therefore, makes an original contribution to the study of US foreign policy towards North Korea. My dissertation questions why influential United States non-governmental organizations (NGOs) initiated and pursued Track II diplomacy with the North Korean government during the United States administrations of George W. Bush (2001-2009). It argues that non-governmental organizations pursued Track II diplomacy because they believed that Track II diplomacy could compensate for the shortcomings of US Track I, or official, diplomacy that took place between the Bush administration and North Korean government. To demonstrate my argument, I examine three cases of US Track II diplomacy to North Korea: Track II diplomatic conferences of the National Committee of American Foreign Policy; the New York Philharmonic Orchestra’s visit to Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea; and US science diplomatic activities to North Korea, which include the Stanford delegation’s visit to the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center and the Nautilus Institute’s DPRK Energy Experts’ Working Group. The analysis demonstrates that each case of US Track II diplomacy partially compensated for the US delegation to the Six Party Talks’ inability to fulfil a normal function of diplomacy. This study concludes that the Bush administration limited its practice of official diplomacy concerning the North Korean nuclear issue, hence the vacancy for Track II diplomacy. Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Demonstrating the Research Gap ................................................................................... 1 Disconnect between International Relations theory and study of diplomacy ................ 2 Literature on US diplomacy is atheoretical.................................................................... 6 Dominant themes of literature on US foreign policy towards East Asia ..................... 10 Lack of literature on Track II diplomacy between US and DPRK .............................. 14 Research question .......................................................................................................... 26 Thesis ............................................................................................................................... 28 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 29 Chapter outline ............................................................................................................... 31 Chapter 2 Analytical Framework ..................................................................................... 34 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 34 Analytical framework .................................................................................................... 35 Core elements of classical literature on diplomacy ..................................................... 37 Diplomacy is conducted by the state............................................................................ 38 Negotiation is a core element of diplomacy................................................................. 42 Limitations of the classical literature on diplomacy ................................................... 50 Non-state actors play a role in diplomacy .................................................................... 51 Track II diplomacy ....................................................................................................... 58 Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 69 Chapter 3 American Moral Exceptionalism as a Constraint on US diplomacy .......... 70 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 70 The Debates: Exceptional or Not? ................................................................................ 72 American exceptionalism: historical phenomena versus normative prospectus ..... 79 American exceptionalism as a historical phenomena .................................................. 80 American exceptionalism as moral superiority ............................................................ 85 The diplomatic isolation of non-democratic states...................................................... 91 American moral exceptionalism and Track II diplomacy ......................................... 97 Chapter 4 Bush administration diplomacy towards the DPRK: Constraints and limitations ........................................................................................................................... 99 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 99 The underlying philosophy .......................................................................................... 100 The self-understanding of Bush administration foreign policy ............................... 102 The embeddedness of moral exceptionalism in policies towards North Korea ...... 105 North Korea must be free ........................................................................................... 107 The 2003 North Korea Democracy Act ..................................................................... 109 The 2006 North Korea Nonproliferation Act ............................................................. 111 The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 ........... 112 Bush administration foreign policy towards the DPRK ........................................... 113 Diplomacy with the DPRK .......................................................................................... 116 The 2002 Pyongyang meeting.................................................................................... 118 The process ................................................................................................................ 121 Inadequate gathering of information about the nuclear issue .................................... 126 Lack of effective communication between the United States and the DPRK ........... 128 Complicating factors .................................................................................................... 131 Lack of a consistent and coherent US foreign policy towards the DPRK ................. 132 The lack of trust between the US and the DPRK ....................................................... 134 The Bush administration’s overreliance on the Chinese government........................ 135 The role of the DPRK ............................................................................................... 137 Opening the space for Track II diplomacy to the DPRK ......................................... 138 Chapter 5 Explaining the NCAFP Track II Diplomacy on the North Korean Nuclear Crisis .................................................................................................................................. 141 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 141 Data ............................................................................................................................... 143 Problem-solving workshop: An approach to conflict resolution ............................. 146 Assumptions that inform Kelman and Cohen’s model of the problem-solving workshop ...................................................................................................................