Chapter 6 the United States the Trump Administration's National
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Chapter 6 The United States The Trump Administration’s National Security Policy Hiromu Arakaki (lead author, Section 1) Ryo Kiridori (Section 2) Shigeo Kikuchi (Section 3) n January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President Oof the United States. One of the primary factors affecting the Trump administration’s Asia-Pacific policy is the threat of North Korea’s nuclear and missile development program. To address this issue, the administration is pursuing a policy of “strategic accountability,” in which it increases diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea under the three pillars of additional economic sanctions, increased international pressure, and stronger efforts for nonproliferation. On the other hand, in response to repetitive provocations by North Korea, the Trump administration showed the policy of strengthening military pressure on the country. That pressure peaked from April to June, and from October to November, but at the same time, the administration’s attempts to prevent inadvertent escalation or misconceptions were also seen. Although some progress was made in the ballistic missile defense (BMD) flight tests in 2017, challenges for the US Navy’s BMD posture in the region remain, among them the fact that two BMD-capable ships based in Japan had to leave the front line due to collisions. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is steadily maintaining or reinforcing the programs advanced by the previous administration in Guam, Southeast Asia, and Australia, showing continuation of US military presence in the Western Pacific. The Trump administration positions the rebuilding of the US Armed Forces as its most important policy challenge. Along with restoring readiness, which had eroded under the budget cuts, while further working to meet the requirements of military operations underway in Iraq and other locations, it aims at “growing force structure at the maximum responsible rate.” Symbolic of such efforts are expanding the navy to a 355-ship fleet and restoring the end strength of the army which has been decreasing under the previous administration. In order to support this expansion of military capabilities, the Trump administration is indicating the policy of cutting non-defense funding in its federal budget to make up for an increase in national defense funding. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s Department of Defense inherited its predecessor’s threat perception formulated in its final days as the “four-plus-one.” The administration is also in substance carrying on with concepts such as the Defense Innovation Initiative and Third Offset Strategy, which the previous administration, in face of the military modernization by China and Russia and proliferation of military technologies, had advanced to secure US military East Asian Strategic Review 2018 superiority into the future. In December, the Trump administration released its first National Security Strategy (NSS). The Trump administration positioned its NSS as one that “puts America First,” but it in essence raised the policies of previous administrations: the leadership role of the United States in the international community, commitment toward its allies and partners, and support for various international institutions that have supported the post-war international order. 1. Responding to Escalating Tensions in East Asia (1) Response to the North Korean Threat The foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, which was established on January 20, 2017, is full of “uncertainty” and “unpredictability” due to statements made by the president himself, frequent personnel changes in the White House, and the fact that many of the key positions in the State Department and other parts of the government are still unfilled. Amid such circumstances, addressing the problem of North Korea’s nuclear and missile development has become one of the major factors defining the Trump administration’s Asia Pacific policy. In 2017, North Korea conducted a total of fourteen ballistic missile launches. Since the start of the Kim Jong Un regime in December 2011, there have been thirty-eight ballistic missile launches by North Korea. A dramatically increasing trend can be seen when this is compared to the one time under Kim Jong Il and five times under Kim Il Sung.1) Notably, the ballistic missiles used in the tests of July 4 and 28, and November 29, are presumed to have been a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)2) that presents a more serious threat to the region and international community. Following this, on September 3, North Korea conducted a nuclear test—its sixth since its first successful test in 2006—estimated to have the largest yield ever of 160 kilotons. In response to such actions for nuclear and missile development by North Korea, the Trump administration has repeatedly expressed its intentions to shift away from the approach of 184 The United States dismantling North Korea’s nuclear program taken by the previous Barack Obama administration. On March 17, 2017, during his visit to the South Korea, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that the Obama administration’s “policy of strategic patience has ended,” and that “all options are on the table,” including the use of military force on North Korea.3) During the joint press conference following the US-South Korea Summit meeting on June 30, President Trump stated, “The era of strategic patience with the North Korean regime has failed. ... Frankly, that patience is over.”4) The Obama administration’s policy line toward North Korea, which was dubbed the policy of “strategic patience” as described by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is said to have included the elements of: (1) commitment to close talks with Japan and South Korea, (2) adherence to the objective of denuclearization of North Korea, (3) stronger efforts for counter-proliferation, (4) bolstering of tailored deterrence against North Korea’s provocations, and (5) while continuing economic sanctions, maintaining the possibility of dialogue under the condition that North Korea takes actions toward denuclearization.5) There was, however, much criticism toward this policy as it was unable to deter North Korea’s nuclear and missile development.6) The Trump administration revealed that it will pursue a policy of “strategic accountability,” in which diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea is strengthened to achieve the “complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” and to dismantle its ballistic missile programs. According to Susan Thornton, acting assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, in her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on September 12, 2017, the pillars of the administration’s strategy are: (1) pursuit of additional economic sanctions against North Korea, (2) stronger international pressure on North Korea, and (3) stronger use of authorities granted in domestic law and initiatives for nonproliferation. In parallel with such efforts, she clarified the US commitment to the defense of Japan and South Korea to deter and counter North Korea, and that deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to South Korea and other necessary measures will be taken. On the other hand, Tillerson, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and other senior government officials have been strongly reiterating that US policy toward North Korea does not seek “regime change” or “collapse.” With regard to stronger additional economic sanctions, on June 15, 2017, the 185 East Asian Strategic Review 2018 US Department of Justice filed a complaint with the US Attorney’s Office seeking forfeiture of some $1.9 million from Mingzheng International Trading Limited, a Chinese trading firm, on the high suspicion of money laundering for the Foreign Trade Bank of North Korea. On June 29, the US Treasury Department announced the banning of transactions between US financial organizations and China’s Bank of Dandong due to its involvement in North Korea’s money laundering.7) Furthermore, on August 22, the department announced the freezing of assets and other sanctions against Russian and Chinese companies for their involvement in North Korea’s nuclear and missile development programs. Trump issued a presidential executive order on September 21 to the relevant departments for imposing additional sanctions with respect to North Korea. To that end, on September 26, the United States announced sanctions against eight North Korean banks and twenty-six individuals with North Korean citizenship for their use of financial systems to advance North Korea’s development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles and for their violations of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. On October 26, it was announced that as sanctions against serious human rights abuses by the Kim Jong Un regime, the assets of designated senior North Korean officials within US jurisdiction will be frozen. On November 20, it was revealed that North Korea would be re-designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, and on the following day, additional sanctions, including that concerning a Chinese businessman, were announced. Moreover, on December 27, the Treasury Department announced sanctions against two senior North Korean officials for their involvement in the country’s nuclear and missile development. Meanwhile, the Trump administration, as part of strengthening international pressure, also sought the adoption of a resolution by the United Nations Security Council