To what extent has the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change provided the basis for international cooperation over climate change?

 As we are going to see, the United Nations has participated as one of the main actors to fight against the global warming, to make the population be aware about the dangers of this process, and also as a main player to set up international institutions to gather all the information, share it with other countries and debate about them in order to get solutions and compromises form the countries. Therefore, important cooperative platforms for politicians and scientists. During this essay we are going to see how this global warming problem started, what implications it has, and the attempts of the United Nations to establish a global governance and different convention to fight against it.

During the process of industrialization that started in the United Kingdom during the second half of the 19^th Century, the human being have been using coal, and later oil, as a source of energy for their machines. These energy sources release a large amount of C02 (among other gases). This pattern of energy is the responsible, according with different scientists, to the rise of the global temperatures and other effects in the climate of different regions on the Earth.

This idea started to be accepted among the society during the second half of the 20^th Century and a feeling that something must be done to stop it started to be spread among the population of the developed countries. Also, during the 60s and 70s of the past Century the first signs of the global warming started to be visible, like less snow cover during the winter, retreat of the glaciers, irregular pattern of rainfall, more number of floods and torrential rain, and in the Gulf of Mexico, increased number of hurricanes (and the same for the typhoons in Eastern Asia).

But, the worst observed effects of the global warming have been in Africa. The consequences of the global warming do not have been more severe in Africa than other parts of the World. The truth is that neither have been soft (floods, long droughts, heat waves...). But they have had a terrible effects because they have been suffered by countries with a weak preventing systems and by poor persons that could not, and cannot, fight against these factors in a proper way. For example in the African region of the Sahel, there has been a drought that has lasted for many years, provoking the failure of the agriculture and leaving thousands of persons without a food supply.

With the appearance of post-materialist movements in the 70s in the developed countries, linked with the war of Vietnam, neo-liberal governments and the reduction of the welfare systems (in the United States (Ronald Reagan), the United Kingdom (Margaret Thatcher), and, in a smaller way in France and Germany). There was an increase in the studies of this field and the first applications of the newly technologies to save energy. This studies and number and sophistication of technologies and applications will be increasing in an exponential way with the pass of the years.

Among this new concern of the global warming and starting debate the United Nations tried to be an agenda setter actor. This institution tried to lead the debate through the creation by different UN agencies, jobs about applications, regulations and awareness of the effects of the global warming (for example the Food and Agriculture Organization boosted the debate about the global warming and its consequences). And later by organizing international conventions inviting NGOs, Governments and other main actors involved (like companies) to debate about how to control and regulate the global warming. With this conventions, the United Nations was trying: to make the public opinion aware of this problem, boost the cooperation of different governments, enhance the investigation on the scientific way and also on the policy-making side, and build a final common opinion and set-up of objectives.

With these previous mentioned actions the United Nations as a global institution, approached to the concept of global governance. Trying to mediate among the countries and suggesting solutions, unifying policies and efforts to attack the problem in an effective way.

Added to the conventions, that we will explain in some lines ahead. The United Nations, through the General Assembly, created the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in 1988, this is a board of scientists in charge of advice the governments about weather and climate change issues. And is the responsible for a great number of investigations and models of where is the global warming going. The IPCC has been one of the most successful measures taken by the United Nations, as it has founded a big support among the countries and has led a big number of discussions among scientist and policy-makers of the governments involved, resulting in importance recommendations for further measures awaiting to be taken by the governments; and numerous documents used by researchers at Universities and other institutions.

The first convention was “The United Nations conference on the Human Environment” in 1972. With the innovation that the environment was seen as a source of health and well-being for the human being and that every person have the right to enjoy it. This set up the bases for new policies more respectful with the citizens and, for example, pushed up the numbers of national parks in the developed countries. Although, in the undeveloped countries nothing changed. But the gap North-South was bigger, and increasing, in term of social progress, economic performance and respect and quality of the environment.

The next summit in 1992 went a little bit forward. This summit, called “The Earth summit” in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) included more sustainable measures, like promoting the use of public transport more respectful with the environment or the use of alternative energies instead of fossil fuels.

The Rio de Janeiro summit produced and international treaty that would be used as the base for future protocols: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This framework convention stated a reduction of greenhouse gases. But it did not establish any number nor objective. This was left for future updates of the objectives in specific areas.

An important part of this United Nations Framework is that there is an assumption of responsibilities by the countries. But not all the countries are responsible in the same way. Here is made a differentiation among developed countries, developing countries and undeveloped ones. The developed countries are the ones with bigger responsibility because during the way to arrive to this status they have pollute in a great quantity, and even currently they are doing so. On the other hand the developing countries are increasing they rates of pollution in an exponential way, specially China and India. Finally the undeveloped countries, because of their situation do not pollute much, although their economic activities have an important impact in the environment because they do not respect the ecological standards. To this Framework was added at the “annex” part the level of emissions of some countries in order to use them as a reference for objective targeting of future agreements. (Davenport 2008: 51)

Also in the United Nations Framework it was adopted the “Precautionary Principle” that means that, despite we do not know with certainty what is going to result of the increase of greenhouse gases, this does not mean that we are not going to avoid it. (Davenport 2008: 51)

Another relevant agreement was the adoption of sustainable development, translated by someone as “change the World without changing the Planet”, highlighting the idea that we can live in a better planet without destroying the Planet and changing the environment. This principle will influence in a great way the policies of several countries, as Spain, whose energy is now generated in an average of 30% by renewable energies (Méndez, 2010) (Davenport 2008: 51)

It also establish the compromise of the developed countries to reduce the level of emissions by the numbers managed in 1990. This a crucial point, although no legally binding, because separates the developed from the developing countries. With this the progress of the developing countries will not be compromised by the emissions objectives, as, it can be said, that they started to pollute many years after the developed ones. (Davenport 2008: 51)

This Framework also establish the compromise of the developed countries to help the developing ones to reduce the emissions by transition of technologies and financial assistance. This mechanism is intended to reduce the pollution prize of the developing countries. (Davenport 2008: 51)

All these agreement points, although not legally binding, will have an important influence in future conventions and agreements, as they will be used as a base for future improvements and bigger ambitions. And also at the national level in new policies and attitudes towards the environment.

One of these future treaties (or agreement) that will use the UN Framework will be known as a protocol, and is the Kyoto Protocol, a legally binding part of the treaty that established a reduction of the greenhouse gases lower than the 1990 level. But, it was only legally binding for the developed countries, as it is considered that they have a bigger part of the global warming responsibility.

It was signed and ratified by all the countries except for the US and Canada. Although the other countries did not succeed in a great way with the accomplishment of the objectives.

The Protocol of Kyoto established targets of reduction of greenhouse gases in a five percent lower than the ones released in 1990. But there was also some mechanism of flexibility like a market of rights of emissions. For example, if an economy is going to grow in a greater way than expected (the economic growth is always linked with more emission of gases) can buy rights of emission to a third country that is not going to use them.

But, there is not a political willingness to respect these agreements. This is known because in 2010 there was a reduction in the number of rights to pollute of 5% according to the figures of the World Bank, but the pollution was increased in a bigger rate in the same year. (Balsells, 2011)

Linked with this breach of the treaty are many reasons like:

The first one is that this treaty will affect the performance of the most developed economies and that the developing economies should also pay for their pollution (over all India and China; as they have the financial strength to do it). This is the reason why the United States officially refuse to ratify the Protocol of Kyoto.

Another reason is the lobby done by the conventional energy companies (like Chevron in the United States) o heavy industries like the aluminum (like the also American Alcoa). Because this Protocol represents millions of dollars in industrial reconversion.

The Kyoto Protocol was effective from 2005 to 2012. But as there was not willingness of the Governments, and in the middle of an economic crisis, neither the companies were up to face additional loses for polluting. Then, they started a campaign to stop the negotiation of another substitute of the us-by-date Kyoto Protocol. These are one of the main causes why the Copenhagen Convention failed to achieve a substitute in 2009. In this convention the European Union was the only developed country that was defending the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol

During the Kyoto Protocol and after it was clear that there is a split between producers and exporters of oil. Because, it is assumed that, generally, the OPEC countries are not interested in the reduction of greenhouse gases. (Davenport 2008: 50) As it is known, the only possibility that a climate change succeed is including in the agreement the members that are not so worried about this problem because their economies are based in carbon exports like Russian and the already mentioned countries that are the main producers of oil. (Victor, 2011: 265)

In this situation. And with the blockage of the Conventions, the United Nations has demonstrated itself to be unable to continue leading the “global governance” over this topic, because the other actors involved are pursuing their own national objectives without negotiating with the international community. This is the idea of the United States, which is in the pursuit of an stable economic growth, and leaving the threat of recession and the economic crisis behind, without taking into account that this growth is provoking an increase of emissions of greenhouse gases and this is affecting to the other persons in the world.

Summarizing, we can affirm that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was a key agreement that led to the well-known Kyoto Protocol. It set-up the bases for a bigger cooperation among countries, and also among regions, trying to reduce the emissions and also helping each other with the transition of technology, and the financial aid when it was needed. But, because of the blocking and inactivity of some vital players, this cooperation was mainly reduced to the European Union and some undeveloped and developed countries. With this unwilling attitude of the great polluters the reduction objectives were almost impossible to reach. If Russia, China, India, the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico were have been more committed to this task, then the outcome would have been different, and not like today, with the negotiations for another protocol blocked. The framework for the cooperation it is already built, with norms and agreements that cover all the stages, the only thing left it is political willingness.

But the United Nations has to find another way to impose, or at least unblock the situation where the conventions are. Because the next global warming convention that is going to be held soon in Doha it is expected that is going to be closed without any improvement or agreement. Another solution would be look for another system that could substitute the figures of Conventions (with many actors and interests involved), like the proposal of the United Kingdom to include the climate change as a threat to the world, therefore it could be deal by the Security Council of the United Nations (the reason why the United Kingdom proposed this is because they defend that the global warming can be the cause of future wars because of the rise of seas and shrinking of resources. This was known as green helmets peace-making missions) (Goldenberg, 2011). The UN has helped to provide a Framework for the cooperation of the governments to fight against this problem. But further social transformations are needed to make the transition from fossil fuels to other sources easier and also reducing the groups of interest that depend on this business and currently are helping to block the negotiations of the Conventions.

Biography:

Méndez, Rafael, 2010 Las renovables baten otra marca y ya producen el 35% de la electricidad. El País, 28^th December. Available at:

http://elpais.com/diario/2010/12/28/sociedad/1293490802_850215.html

Balsells, Ferrán, 2011, Kioto languidece y la ONU prevé aún más calentamiento. El País, 2^nd of June. Available at:

http://elpais.com/diario/2011/06/02/sociedad/1306965610_850215.html

Goldenberg, Suzzane, UN Security Council to consider climate change peacemaking. The Guardian, 20^th July. Available at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/20/un-climate-change-peacekeeping

Victor, David G., Global Warming Gridlock, 2011. Chapter 8.

Davenport, Devorah, Turning down the heat, 2008.

Bradley Jr., Robert L., Climate Alarmism Reconsidered, 2003. Chapter 5.

Victor, David G., The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the struggle to slow global warming, 2001.

Is the enlargement the EU's only effective foreign policy instrument?

The European Union's enlargement process is the one where the Union accepts a new country as a member. In this procedure the Union extends its institutions, legal frame, policies, rules, economic legislation, and even the currency; towards the country.

This process is a complex one, as it represents the a reduction of the national sovereignty in areas, in favour of the European Union. And also it means a change for national, economic, defense and foreign policy. As the country belongs to an International Organization, or more appropriately, to a supranational organization, with its owns policies for these areas.

This enlargement process is not immediate. The five enlargement waves carried by the European Union have taken different number of years depending, mainly, on the advanced stage of the legislation implementation, and harmonization, and the process of reducing the level of economic differences of the applicants and member states. In some cases, like Finland, it took 2 years and 9 months (because this country had previously implemented the European Union directives regarding trading in order to be able to have an intense economic relation with the EU members). But in other cases like Portugal, it took 8 years and 9 months. (Miles, 1995:25)

The enlargement process has demonstrated to be a really effective instrument in foreign policy. The reasons of this effectiveness can be find in the fact that the EU is the most powerful economic block in the World, and gaining access to this singles market, with no trading barriers, is always profitable. Also, the EU membership represents a strong boost to the economy and social improvements, and a strengthened negotiations capacities for the member in the international arena. It is true the fact that, this accession to a single market, without barriers can damage the competitiveness of the national industry, if the applicant country is less developed in economic terms than the EU members, but the EU has tools to like the cohesion funds policy that tries to help the SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) to develop. This policy cohesion is oriented to the economy but also to the social field. The aim of the policy cohesion is to put a the EU's average all the regions and countries of the Union.

The EU has used this previously mentioned advantages to performance a normative power. This means allowing countries to gain access to the EU's membership as long as they implement the necessary legal reforms to be a democratic country, improver economic aspects, reform the economy to gain competitiveness, liberalize the economy (reducing the public enterprises), liberalizing public services (like the energy) if they are under government's control. In few words, the EU, using the tool of the enlargement, is spreading to its neighborhood the liberal-democratic model of governance, and the applicant's memberships is conditioned to their success in the application of all these changes. But, there are also political interests that makes each enlargement process different:

The first enlargement occurred with the membership of United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland the first of January 1973. The United Kingdom saw the EEC (European Economic Community) as an important market for the British exports, and also a way to keep its influence in the European affairs. Denmark and Ireland joined to the community because of their intense economic links with the United Kingdom. For the EEC this first accession helped to revitalize the alliance due to the integration of a big economy and influential partner. This first expansion did not suppose a big challenge as the incoming countries were mainly at the same economic level as the members, and their political systems were also liberal-democracies.

The 80s expansion were a big challenge as it saw Greece, Spain and Portugal gain their EU membership. These countries were at a disadvantage in terms of economy (poor industrial competitiveness, lower Gross Domestic Product, higher inflation, etc.) and in social development. Together the previously mentioned problems, these countries were facing politic transitions from authoritarian regimes to liberal-democratic systems. The reasons why this enlargement was done can be found in a brilliant way in the next quotation of Lee Miles in the book Enlargement of the European Union ‘the EU Commission in its January 1976 Opinion actually advised against accession of Greece on economic grounds, but was overruled by the EU Council. Their accessions [of Greece, Spain and Portugal] were accepted for political reasons and in spite of economic reservations. The Union viewed the support of their fledgling democracies through EU membership as more important.’ With this, the EU was using the enlargement as a foreign policy tool to support and boost countries in transition by letting them accede to the Union in exchange of multiple programs to reform almost all the policies of the country. Greece (first of January 1981) and Spain and Portugal (first of January 1986). (Kaiser et al., 2004)

This accession meant the big start of the social policies, as the three countries increased the social disparities inside the European Union. The social policies were materialized with the Economic and Social Cohesion and Structural Funds, all included inside the Treaty of the European Union. (Miles, 1995: 10) This enlargement process set the bases for future processes where the incoming states were at a lower economic and social level.

The third enlargement was a consequence of the end of the Cold War. Without this conflict Sweden, Finland and Austria did not have to remain neutral towards the conflict that involved the two superpowers. Therefore they saw an opportunity to join to the Single European Market, after harmonizing the European directives and adapting the industrial sector, for example reducing and adapting the size of the Swedish defence industry, to the EU's requirements. This enlargement was not a big problem for the EU as it saw the accession of countries with living standards equal or higher to the EU's average but small in population terms. Sweden, Finland and Austria gained their EU membership the first of January of 1995.

We cannot avoid to mention the reunification of Germany in 1990 that is related to this period, and supposed the accession to the EU for another “new state”.

The fourth enlargement wave was the most important as in one year the population of the EU grew by 29%, the area by 34% and the Gross Domestic Product by 9% (Schimmelfennig, 2003: 56). This enlargement was also politically significant because it saw the accession of Eastern countries that, more less 15 years ago belonged to the Warsaw Pact and were governed under a communist regime. The countries acceded in this wave were: Malta, Cyprus, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. All the first of January 2004. Not all the member states were interested in the same way to allow this enlargement. On one side the United Kingdom was more interested supporting the Turkish membership. Also the UK is more interested in the enlargement rather than in the integration (in other words, expanding the single market rather than giving more parcels of sovereignty to Brussels). But on the other side Germany was keen to accept the entrance of Central Europe into the European Union. In fact Germany enjoyed 25% of the benefits the new comers created, on the contrary Italy, Portugal, Spain and Greece were the most affected as their factories had to compete with cheaper labour force. (Schimmelfennig, 2003: 57) (Hughes et al., 2001:19). But Germany is more keen to accept the enlargement of the EU only if this represents a further integration process. This is because the enlargement process always has an impact inside Germany because of the freedom of goods and persons of the EU. (Hughes et al., 2001: 14)

The fifth enlargement wave occurred in the first of January 2007 with Romania and Bulgaria, expanding the borders of the European Union to the Black Sea. This expansion is similar to the previous one as it represents the union of two members in a situation of lower GDP and social level than the EU's average, and also a necessity to reform the state, as it comes from an authoritarian past.

As we can see, the enlargement represents an important tool to make foreign policy. In addition to the waves of enlargement seen before (that represents the culmination of this foreign policy) there are other actions related to this instrument that we are going to see some lines ahead, and that have had a great impact provoking changes in third countries. The effectiveness of this is related to the fact that is performed with one voice (this is, the European Union bodies interacting with the candidate country). One region targeted by the European Union as a key part of its policies is the region of the Balkans, which were a source of problems and instability inside the European continent. Even with a war with criminals against the Human Rights. And, after the European Union mediation and its setting of conditions (political reforms, respect of the minorities and equal rights, arrest of war criminals, economic reforms, etc.), the region reached a sustainable level of economic growth and social improvements that made possible an adhesion to the EU in foreseeable future. All these preconditions were set by the European Union as a previous phase to the accession to the Union and the single market. Some countries have introduced all the necessary reforms and have achieved all the objectives set by the EU, like Croatia, which solved all the territorial disputes with its neighbours (one of them Slovenia, country which could have vetoed its membership); it has also reached economic and institutional stability, adopted the European directives and harmonization of the law, and one of the most important things in this region, it has turned all the war criminals to the International Court of The Hague. (Traynor, 2011)

With the enlargement process it is also interesting how the countries upload their own political interest to be performed by the EU. Like the United Kingdom with Turkey. At this moment, the UK is one of the main supporters for the adhesion of this country (Hughes et al. 2001:12). The reasons are mainly because the UK is more interested, as mentioned before, in the extension of the EU and its Single European Market, and Turkey represents a dynamic market with a numerous population. But it is also because Turkey and the UK share the same points of view in many foreign affairs like the conflicts in the Middle East. The same happens with Sweden, more interested spreading the European Union influence in the Baltic region, this country was one of the major defenders on the enlargement of this territories, because of cultural and economic tights.

Related to the enlargement there is another foreign policy tool of the European Union. This is call the normative power. One of the “goods” the EU exports are norms, primarily to its neighbours. The EU does this mainly by trade treaties or with humanitarian aid. The European Union has different treaties with its neighbours, some are about trade, and depending on the country the EU will ask, in exchange of allowing the entrance of some type of products to the single market, the implementation of a reform. The same modus operandi with the humanitarian aid. The EU usually does this actions in the Mediterranean Basin (Elgström et al. 2006: 136) and the East of Europe. The reason why the EU does this is because it feels that, as it is in a position of power to impose its views, it has the moral obligation to help the citizens of other countries to bring them the benefits of living in a democratic and liberal state. So, it can be said that the EU is “exporting” the democratic and liberal order to other countries. This action is called the “soft power”, instead of the “hard-power” of the US. (Schimmelfenning 2003: Chapter 4)

Another foreign policy instrument at European Union's disposal is the trade. As mentioned at the beginning of this essay, the European Union is the biggest trade block in the world. And it is represented, and this is an exception for the Union, with one voice in the World Trade Organization in Geneva (Elgström et al., 2006:189). The EU holds the seat in the organization representing all the member states position with a common one. Through the trade the EU also performs its foreign policy, blocking it with some countries because a decision of the EU presidents (like with Iran and Syrian in recent times). Also using the trade as a consequence of interior policies, like the Common Agricultural Policy and the unequal treaties with the Third World, where the European Union sign with Third World countries trade agreements of free trade for European goods, but, the main products of these countries (agricultural ones) are locked in the EU's market because of the CAP policies to protect the primary sector in Europe. The only goods allowed are the ones that cannot be produced in Europe because of the weather. This protectionist attitudes at the same time as it is trying to open free trade zones with third countries are seen as neocolonialist and have received many critics inside and outside the European Union borders.

The European Union has different ways of negotiation of trade treaties. Its primary objective is to negotiate trading treaties with the regional economic organizations like ASEAN or Mercosur and trying to get free trading zones.(Gualdoni et al. 2010) With this bodies the agreements are usually even, but with single countries the European Union usually uses its economic power to impose its conditions, this is why sometimes it is criticized .

But this is not the only European Union's foreign policy instrument. The EU, since the Lisbon Treaty was accepted enjoys a proto-diplomacy service called the European External Action Service, created under the umbrella of the High Representative, with embassies spread all around the world (as it uses the national embassies of the EU member states, although in some countries, usually regional key countries, it has its own embassy). But there are some problems with this External Action Service. Firstly it has budget problems, as it does not have an entry, so it has to be financed by the Commission. Also its size is too small to fulfill all the objectives (a diplomatic service as big as the Netherlands' one). Among the operative problems as it does not have a clear duty to do because there is not a clear foreign policy position among the member states, so the EU is unable to speak with one voice. This is because the member states does not want to give up with the foreign policy and because the member states have different interest because of their History. Some were imperial powers like Spain, Portugal, France and United Kingdom; others belonged to the Warsaw Pact like Romania and Hungary; others were neutrals like Sweden, Finland and Austria; and others are micro states like Malta. One consequence of this is that these countries are more focus in one region of the globe than the others, for example Spain is more interested in the Hispanic America affairs rather than in the Oceania affairs. These makes so difficult to merge the common foreign policy in one single opinion to be defended in the international organizations. But, it is hoped that, with the further merge of these countries in economic terms and a bigger budget to be able to give a faster answer, finally the European Union will be able to merge all the opinions into a single one.

To continue with the foreign policy and the idea of the single voice. Nowadays the European Union is represented, through its member states in the main international organizations, and, in some, the European Union is also presented as an observer. In the Security Council the European Union is represented by France and Great Britain, and sometimes by the non-permanent members. In the United Nations General Assembly the European Union is represented by its 27 members and also by a European Union observer with the right to speak and submit amendments. It is also a member of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and also represented by the member states. And, to mention another relevant organization, in the WHO (World Health Organization) the European Union participates as an observer. But, as said before, because of the absence of one voice (nowadays there is the High Representative, the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission and the national Governments) and the weakness of the materials given to the External Action Service, the European diplomacy currently cannot be performed in a proper way.

To summarize all the ideas mentioned below, we can affirm that the most effective foreign policy of the European Union is the enlargement tool. Although the foreign policy throughout the trade it is also effective but it is seen as a neocolonialist attitude and have received many critics. Also the European External Action Service might work in the future with further funding and a clearer role. Another problem for this Service is that the member countries are not committed with the idea of giving up with the foreign policy sovereignty because they are afraid that their country interests are going to be underrepresented. Due to the operative difficulties, unclear role and absence of one voice the European diplomacy is problematic to be done by this body. Therefore, the only way the European Union has succeed performing foreign policy and where more milestones have been achieved is by using the enlargement of the Single European Market and the of the European Union. The exit can be seen in a continent that have enjoyed a large quantity of years of peace, economic dynamism, social progress, political stability and free movement of persons and goods. (Jeffery, 2002) And each decade going further from the core of the founder countries.

Biography:

1- Traynor, Ian; 2011, Goran Hadzic capture a milestone for Yugoslav war crimes tribunal, The Guardian, 20^th of July. Available at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/20/goran-hadzic-capture-war-crimes-milestone

2- Hughes. Lippert and Grabbe and Becker, British and German interests in EU Enlargement, 2001.

3- Schimmelfennig, Frank, The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe, 2003.

4- Tonra, Ben and Christiansen, Thomas, Rethinking European Union foreign policy, 2004.

5- Elgström, Ole and Smith, Michael, The European Union's Roles in International Politics, 2006.

6- Kaiser, Wolfram and Elvert, Jürgen, European Union Enlargement, a comparative history, 2005. Chapters 4, 5 and 6)

7- Gualdoni, F. González, M. and Calderón, V., 2010, La UE y Mercosur se apresuran para cerrar un pacto de libre comercio este año. El País, 17^th of May. Available at:

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2010/05/17/actualidad/1274047207_850215.html

8- Miles, Lee, Enlargement of the European Union, 1995

9- Jeffery, Simon, 2002, EU Enlargement,. The Guardian, 12^th of December. Available at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/12/qanda.eu

10- Tatham, Allan F., Enlargement of the European Union, 2009. Chapters 2, 3, 5.

The relevance of modern warfare for the United States defined: Global War on Terror.

 Firstly, to asses in a proper way the relevance of the modern warfare we have to explain what modern warfare is. This concept is used to explain the progress of the army, its technologies, tactics, ways of organization and threats that this group has to face with. Usually it is assumed that the modern warfare appeared after World War Two. And it is characterized because the victory is not expected from the clash of two armies. Though facing and suppressing the threat of “subversive groups”, such as guerrillas or terrorist groups. A good example of this is the Algerian War during the 50s, when the French Army, of 300,000 soldiers, outnumbered the independent irregular army of an estimated 30,000 members. (Trinquier. 2006: 5)

Since the World War Two the majority of the conflicts the countries had to face with were asymmetric, as they were fighting enemies with less operative capacities and strength. These conflicts usually were intra-estates and, often, in the European colonies and post-colonial states.

The challenge these conflicts represent are that the conventional army is not going to be able to fight face-to-face with this elements. As this would supposes the annihilation of the enemy. Thus, the numeric advantage of the army is reduced. Also, as the enemies are hidden among the population, the army cannot lunch and attack because of the civil casualties this may represent. With this, the armed forces have to engage in a fight with an “invisible” enemy which is attacking to the state in an unconventional way (bombs, ambushes, high jacking, etc.). Always with somehow, support of the population, as they need to be hidden, and they need members to participate in these operations.

Because of all the characteristics mentioned above. The army needs a re-configuration or re-adaptation in order to deal with this problem.

One of the adaptations has been the training of small special forces. These are small groups of highly skilled soldiers, well-armed, that are trained to adapt themselves to a lot of different situations and to infiltrate into the networks of this subversive organizations. And later, dismantle them. Sometimes, the special forces are used in conjunction with the air force, targeting objectives that are later bombed by the aircrafts.

Therefore, there is no sense to have big units to fight a guerrilla when you cannot deploy them. Small units are more maneuverable, adaptable. And the possibilities to cause collateral damages are minimized. Also, the cost of the soldiers deployment are reduced.

The previous characteristics are related to the Army. But, the other branches of the armed forces have also suffered and adaptation to counter terrorism and counter subversive operations. As the air force, that gives to the state an important advantage as it can be used in multiple operations and reduces the risk of casualties in a greater way. Although it is less effective only used by its owns, and has to be used in collaboration with the navy or the army(targeting objectives or taking control of them)

One utility of the air force is the use of drones for vigilance and bombing tasks. These are remote-controlled small planes that can carry missiles, are less noisy than the other planes and are non-tripulated, reducing the risks of the missions.

There is also an adaptation of the navy, as the sea represents a 70% of the earth’s surface. This branch participates with the transport of troops, materials and air crafts. And with new capacities developed years ago like lunching cruise missiles. Like the Tomahawk missiles lunched from ships of the United States and United Kingdom that weakened the Taliban defenses.

Related with these three branches we have a key player that are the Intelligence Services. That participate in this asymmetric fight gathering information, making recommendations and even infiltrating into the spied organizations.

But, in modern warfare, with military, there is not only technology and organization improvements. There is also a new concept known as “gain the hearts and minds” that it has the effect in the participation of the army in reconstruction and social improvements in the areas where they are deployed.

After the terrorist attacks of the 11^th of September 2001, the United States saw the terrorism as a real security threat and a big issue for the national security, as the president George W. Bush stated in his Address to the Nation in January 2002 (pg 170 Before and After). Therefore started a campaign to pursue the objective of eliminate all the terrorist groups, starting with the authors of the 9/11 attacks. For this task the United State will use all the improvements and tactics mentioned above, while also deploying occupation troops, as this War on Terror has multiple faces, as we will see below.

The War on Terror began on the 7^th of October 2001 (when the invasion of Afghanistan started). This invasion started with the aim of capturing Osama Bin Laden, who was the mind behind the attacks on the United States, and suppressing the terrorist network al-Qaeda, based in multiple countries and regions on the globe. The campaign started in Afghanistan because it was believed that the fundamentalist regime that have been governing this country since 1996, the Taliban, have been helping this terrorist group with training camps, and even, Bin Laden could be there. With combined actions of the intelligence services and air strikes of aircrafts departing from carrier ships and Tomahawk missiles launched from ships in the Indian Ocean. And later with the deployment of United States and United Kingdom special forces supporting the Northern Alliance (an opposed group of the Taliban) the Taliban quickly started to lose the control of great parts of the country. Starting from the North with Mazar-i-Sharif to Kabul the 13^th of November 2001 (AGENCIA, 2001). During the first part of the war, the modern warfare demonstrated to be so effective against the Taliban (Cox et al. 2008: 413), who mostly practiced a guerrilla fighting. Although the international coalition and the Northern Alliance did not find much opposition of the Taliban fighters, except for some battles. When the coalition controlled the greater part of the country, the Taliban started a war of guerrilla, with small attacks and an intense use of bombs and mines. These actions caused mostly of the victims (civilians and military of the conflict). Attacking sensitive buildings such as hospitals, schools, police offices, army headquarters, markets, etc. Rapidly new insurgent groups appeared, and the coalition started to lose the control of the situation and showed itself as unable to deal with it. The answer of the international coalition was to deploy more soldiers (100,000 international soldiers in 2010 (Reuters, 2010)). And an operation for reconstruction of the country, in order to avoid the impoverishment of the citizens, and therefore the enrollment into the insurgency lines. With this massive deployment of troops, the Taliban and other insurgent groups moved they operation areas to the borders of the country, specially the border shared with Pakistan (a suspicious player, as some intelligence services assume Pakistan is helping the Taliban, or at least, it tolerates their presence in the region) (Densenlow, 2008). From these borders they have been launching several attacks in almost all the provinces of the Afghan territory. But, the conjunction of allied ground attacks with air strikes, and, with more pressure in the Pakistan's border (Burke, 2009) have put more pressure on the insurgency, with the consequent decrease in the number of casualties after year going up. Even, there are recent rumors of a letter received by Obama from the Mullah Omar (Ryan, et al. 2012) (former “president” of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban government) asking for negotiations. Although, according to Reuters, the US government is studying the letter and the real intentions of the Taliban to decide further movements. However, this can be considered a sign that, in the military side, with the deployment of a big number of troops (Reuters considers the final number in 130,000) linked with a big pressure of special forces on the ground and constant air strikes and in the socio-economic side, the reconstruction and education plans (to gain the hearts and minds) have reduced the number of volunteers that want to join the Taliban, and the Taliban resources cut from the opium. All these factors have added great pressure to the Taliban and the continuity of their actions. But, still a long way to the total pacification of the country.

The Iraq War, also belonged to what George W. Bush called “Global War on Terror” as it was thought that this country supported and held training camps of al-Qaeda, sponsored terrorism in Palestine against Israel and were trying to get Weapons of Mass Destruction (although, at the moment, anything can have been proved as true). At the beginning of the campaign inside the action against “the axis of evil” (twentieth of March 2003) the the coalition faced little resistance. (Cox et al. 2008: 415) But, after the fall of Saddam's Government the occupation troops faced a large number of casualties due to the insurgency against the Westerners. This is because the vacuum of power left by the Government and the Ba'ath Party was filled by Islamic groups and al-Qaeda that wanted to extend the terrorist actions from Afghanistan to Iraq. This increase of the violence obligated the international coalition to deploy more troops on the ground not only to secure the vital points of the country (like the oil pipelines), but also to start attack operations against the insurgency. Several urban battles were held in order to regain some districts out of control because of the numerous insurgency attacks, the most fierce battles occurred in Basra, Sadr City and Baghdad during the Spring of 2008 against shia militias supported by Iran (in a moment with increasing tensions of the international community with this country because of the nuclear program that was being carried on). After securing the normalization of the political process like presidential elections and the role of the political parties, and also the oil production (pillar of the economy) and the training of the country's security forces. The pacification seems to be a reality, and so the withdrawal of the coalition troops from the country. (Steele, 2011) Linked to this process of pacification of the country there is also being produced a swift in foreign policy of Iraq towards good relations with Iran.

One of the biggest problems faced in Iraq and Afghanistan was not in the military side (as the armies present there enjoy the most technological advanced armaments in the world, and the enemies were armed mostly with old soviet arms), the problem lies in the relation with the native population. Religious differences boosted by the conflicts have provoked a lot of scandals and awful actions, linked with some miss targeting military actions that made civil casualties have fueled the hate to the occupation troops, and therefore boosted the insurgency movements. The most significant actions with bigger repercussion are the Mohammed Caricatures, the Abu Ghraib prison, the Quran burnings or the recently killing of Afghan civilians by a US soldier (AGENCIAS, 2012). To restore the credibility of the allies there is a need to show that they are doing their duties to bring them security. Also by strengthening the local government and building infrastructures to make the government action operative. Losing the support of the population can become a great mistake, as it would strength the insurgency. As it happened to the Soviets with the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan during the invasion of this country. (Arreguín-Toft, 2005:19)

The subcontinent of South America was other target of the United State Global War on Terror. This region has been characterized by insurgent movements spread in many different countries. Some (supported by the United States and the Soviet Union) ended at the end of the Cold War; but others remain fighting against the governments. Some, as they do not have the financial support of the previously mentioned superpowers entered into the drugs trafficking business. Which main regional destination is the United States. Many of these insurgent groups are considered by the United States, the European Union and some other countries as terrorist groups. Among these countries in troubles, the most affected is Colombia.

Since the middle of the 20^th Century Colombia lived a situation of great insecurity in some areas of the North-East, East and West, as well as some areas of the Center of the country. This is caused by some guerrilla groups that have threatened the correctly performance of the government, its institutions and the economic life of the country (for example, the tourism is lower than the surrounding countries). The country suffers, and suffered, the insurgency of some groups like the M19 (Movimiento 19 de abril, Movement 19^th of April), autodefensas unidas de Colombia (paramilitary groups), FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and FNL (Frente de Liberación Nacional, National Liberation Front); among the bigger ones. Nowadays the most active one and the one which represents the biggest threat are the FARC. These guerrilla is considered as a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union. Its activity are small raids against military groups of the Colombian Army and terrorist attacks like bomb cars, assassinations of relevant bureaucrats, among others. These guerrilla has an strong support among the impoverished and social excluded peasants of the remote countryside. Places where they were exploited by big landlords and where they could not enjoy of any benefit granted by the government, like a proper education or health care. At the beginning of the 21^st Century the Colombian Government was unable to fight against the FARC, which were gaining influence in more departments of the country. But, the international cooperation to help Colombia started. The US Government started to give bigger funds for the “Plan Colombia” (a plan that started in 1996 by Bill Clinton to help Colombia fighting against the drugs trafficking by both social and military means; all inside a bigger plan for the subcontinent). A great part of the funds granted by the US to Colombia are for military aspects (characteristic that has received large critics because of the belicism and the major influence the US is seeking to have in the region), the remaining are for social actions (percentage increased by the George W. Bush government). These plan included new military material, training of troops, new strategies to manage them and opportunities for a different development (to avoid people join the guerrilla and the drugs dealing) and help to the displaced persons.

This help provided by the United States was increased dramatically (from $243million in 2001 to $402million and $621million in 2002 and 2003) after the terrorist attacks of 2001 and the engagement of George W. Bush with the War on Terror, seeking to fight the global terrorist, not only al-Qaida; his Address to the Nation in January 2002. The outcome of these actions have been positive for Colombia, as now is able to answer to any threat anywhere over the country with soldiers ready to be deployed in a short period of time. Also, with the help of the intelligence services and high sophisticated technology it has been able to target important objectives and accomplished them in a short period of time, like the night aircraft bombing on the border inside Ecuador (close to the Colombian border) were a high-profile commander of the FARC was killed and a lot of important information was obtained. (AGENCIAS, 2008). Since that event occurred the first of March 2008 the FARC has lost a lot of power and has suffered new major loses like the killing of the Commander Alfonso Cano the fifth of November of 2011(Neira, 2011).

Therefore, regarding all the facts previously mentioned before about Colombia, we can say that the modern warfare is helping the country to fight the guerrilla, as they are able to secure most of the country and at the same time perform attacks to vital interests of the insurgency. Also, the military victories have allowed an economic recovery of the country, have attracted major foreign investment and therefore, there is greater economic progress and greater employment opportunities, although the population below the poverty line remains high. All of these have helped to reduce the number of persons willing to join the guerrillas.

The modern warfare has demonstrated to be an effective way to fight the asymmetric conflict that represents the so called “Global War on Terror”. But, as seen in the conflicts explained below, it needs a massive use of troops, commandos and aircrafts, as well as use of the intelligence services. This is because, to fight the insurgency or terrorist groups, following the model used in the previously mentioned wars, a big part of the army is needed to secure the cities, villages and transport links, as well as industrial places, in order to give an impression of security to the civilians, that allows them to continue with their economic activities that let the economic progress to continue, thus, gaining support from the population, enabling the adversaries continue their operations (a problem faced by the Soviets in Afghanistan, where they were fighting an enemy popular among the population, and also supported by the US). Also you need other soldiers to cut the income cash-flow of these organizations by destroying their installations or enabling them to continue with their “business” (enabling them to continue with their military activities and paying to their members). And the rest of the military is used to face the insurgency directly. But it is not an efficient method, because of the large amount of military and financial resources needed to deal with this type of asymmetric war. And also the time it takes until the country reaches the victory.

Biography:

1- Bennis, Phyllis, Before and After, US foreign policy and the War on Terrorism. 2003.

2- Trinquier, Roger, Modern Warfare, A French View of Counterinsurgency. 2006.

3- Reid, Julian, The biopolitics of the war on terror. 2009.

4- Cox, Michael and Stokes, Doug, US foreign policy. 2008.

5- Weiss, Thomas G., Crahan, Margaret E. and Goering, John, Wars on Terrorism and Iraq. 2004.

6- Arreguín-Toft, Ivan, How the Weak Win Wars. 2005.

7- AGENCIA, 2001, Operación libertad durareda: Los antitalibán preparan la conquista de Kabul tras extender su ofensiva al noroeste afgano. El País. 10^th November. Avalible at:

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2001/11/10/actualidad/1005346802_850215.html

8- REUTERS, 2010, Los soldados de EE.UU. En Afganistán ya superan a los de Irak. ABC, 25^th May. Avalible at:

http://www.abc.es/20100525/internacional-/soldados-irak-afganistan-201005250007.html

9- Densenlow, James, 2008, Getting Pakistan wrong. The Guardian, 1^st October. Avalible at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/01/usa.johnmccain?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

10- Burke, Jason, 2009, Pakistan's offensive in Waziristan will succeed or fail depending on what local tribes decide. The Guardian, 18^th October. Avalible at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/18/pakistan-waziristan-qaida-taliban

11- Ryan, Missy and Strobel, Warren, 2012, Amid peace bid, U.S. got purported letter from Taliban. Reuters, 3^rd February. Avalible at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-usa-afghanistan-taliban-letter-idUSTRE8121M520120203

12- Steely, Jonathan, 2011, The Iraq war is finally over. And it marks a complete neocon defeat. The Guardian, 23^rd October. Avalible at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/23/us-withdrawal-iraq-defeat-bush-neocons

13- AGENCIAS, 2012, La pena capital acecha al soldado de Estados Unidos que mató a 16 afganos. El País, 13^th March. Avalible at:

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/03/13/actualidad/1331613101_901878.html

14- AGENCIAS, 2008, La muerte de 'Raúl Reyes' desencadena una crisis diplomática entre Colombia, Venezuela y Ecuador. El País, 2^nd March. Avalible at:

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2008/03/02/actualidad/1204412408_850215.html

15- Neira, Armando, 2011, El Ejército colombiano abate a Alfonso Cano, líder de las FARC. El País, 5^th November. Avalible at:

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2011/11/05/actualidad/1320462005_921751.html

The nuclear deterrence of North Korea and its possible effects.

When North Korea confirmed the 21^st of March, 2006, that was in possession of nuclear weapons, the international community answered with concern; as it meant the increase in the threat that North Korea represents for South Korea, Japan; and the stability of East Asia. But, there is another view of this issue that points in the direction that, with this new North Korean’s nuclear capabilities, the Peninsula of Korea is now more stable than decades ago.

Along this essay we are going to discuss these two points of view, and try to conclude which of these is the most correct one.

The first, and most rational, reaction, is of disquiet, as North Korea has threatened several times to start a war against South Korea; and has endangered the status quo with several military actions along the DMZ border (with attacks to US and ROK troops at Panmunjom in 1976, or the incursion of North Korean commandos in the Blue House, in 1968, in an attempt to assassinate the South Korea’s president, and several more) (Bruce & Hayes (2011) p. 71). In addition, North Korea has one of the largest number of soldiers and conventional forces in the world, with an estimated 1,400,000 million of personnel (mainly concentrated in the border with South Korea). (www.bbc.co.uk 20^th September 2011)

With the previous mentioned figures, and the latest missiles tests carried on (the last one that has been reported was the 7^th of January, 2011 (according with CNN 7^th January 2011)), there is a fear that North Korea is trying to develop Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) capable to carry nuclear heads. Also, there are some pieces of information that point to the fact that North Korea is transferring its nuclear and ballistic knowledge to potential destabilizing countries like Syria or Iran, with close ties with North Korea. Even, one jet from Israel attacked one facility in Syria that was thought to be a nuclear reactor under construction with help from North Korea (Jeffries (2010) p. 15-16).

With the previously mentioned facts, North Korea could be considered as a major threat for East Asia, and even the Western world. But the truth is that, it is a threat, but not of “big concern” as it would be thought. This can be affirmed because almost all its military equipment is Soviet technology of the 1970s, or earlier (Cha & Kang (2003) p. 53), the country suffers serious energy restrictions as its major supplier of oil and gas was the former Soviet Union, which supplied the country at subsidised prices, but now Russia is willing to do so with the condition that this service would be provided at market prices. This, linked with the fact that 60% of the pit coal mines are flooded, leaves the country in a difficult situation; and, although with the songun doctrine (all the country’s resources are destined to the army), its capability is not bigger, as it suffers petrol restrictions, and, for example, the engine vehicles cannot be used as much as it would be necessary for a proper training of the soldiers (the pilots take one training flight per month, rather than the US ones that takes 10 (Cha & Kang (2003) p. 52)). During the 1960s and beginning of 70s North Korea was in advantage in economic and military terms, but with the collapse of its heavy industrialized economic model, South Korea overtook it. And, as an illustrative example, in 1997 South Korea spent $14billion in the military budget, when North Korea spent only $5billion. (Kang & Cha (2003) p. 50).

After the Korean War North Korea recovered faster than its neighbour in the South because of the communist policies that boosted a fast industrialisation. And also because the help of the Soviet Union and China (North Korea tried to be neutral in this aspect and do not support one side against the other)

Without its ancient allies (Russia and China, that is starting to be a global actor, refusing to be involved in regional problems), North Korea is an anachronic an authoritarian dictatorship with a communist economic that is proved to have failed (and led to famines and economic recession during the 90s). In the international sphere its situation was not much better, as it only held relations with pariah states, and the United States considered this country as a real threat (in fact they still in war, because no peace treaty was signed between them at the end of the Korean War), and wanted to isolate it in order to provoke the fall of the government.

Surpassed by South Korea in economy, military (in quality terms, and backed by the US troops deployed there) North Korea was not in position to lead and impose its views in a possible unification of the peninsula, and what is more, in this conditions, its survival as a country was threatened, as it was more vulnerable to an attack.

To reach some parity in the military magnitude North Korea started to develop a nuclear weapons programme as earlier as in 1966/1967 (parity, because the US deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea after the war) (Bluth (2008) p. 148). Also, this type of arm would give North Korea the needed strength in the international meetings to ask for demands during the negotiations. In addition, it would give a higher status towards the US and South Korea. (Bluth (2008) p. 63)

The acquisition of nuclear weapons also was important for the regime in terms of reaffirmation of the authority inside its country and improving the relation with the military establishment. And avoiding with this action a possible coup d’état.

Towards other countries, it was also positive, as helped to elude a potential military joint action against the country, due the nuclear weapons act as an effective deterrent effect (Cha & Kang (2003) p. 54). This idea that the leaders of the regime had about the nuclear weapons was boosted by the Iraq war (Bluth (2008) p. 116) and later by the Libyan civil war, where Gadhafi gave up with his nuclear programme, and at the first opportunity was removed of his charge with the support of the Allies.

What is true is that the nuclear weapons gave stability to the North Korean regime. With North Korea in possession of them, South Korea and the US would not try to start a risky adventure to change the regime.

These, among other reasons, are why North Korea did not cooperated in the progress of the Six-Party Talks meetings about the denuclearisation of the country. It did not want to give up with one of the last resources it has left for a negotiation, and for asking for aid, while keeping the deterrent force.

Also, somehow, this nuclear programme was profitable for South Korea, and even China and Russia. Since North Korea was closer to collapse (because of the economic problems, the deteriorating situation of the army, and social problems like the famines that suffered the population), this collapse could have had a devastating effect. This could have produced a massive migration to South Korea that could not have been absorbed (China, since the 1950s, has received an approximated number of 500,000 North Koreans (Jeffries (2010) p. 71), provoking an economic and social crisis. And if South Korea would have had to annex North Korea it would have needed a large amount of money to do so, as this economy only represents, in economic magnitude, a mere 3% (approx.) of the South Korea’s GDP. (Cha & Kang (2003) p. 48). The cost of a reunification it is estimated between $250 billion and $3.5 trillion (Jeffries (2010) p. 545)

Also, the outcome of a North Korea without nuclear weapons could have meant an inside rebellion that could have destabilized the balance of powers in the region. Involving Russia, China, the US and Korea in a conflict that could be so expensive in terms of money and causalities.

To avoid the sudden collapse threat, South Korea started the sunshine policy, which is focused in promote good relations with North Korea, based in aid, economic deals, and a gradual approximation; always avoiding any confrontation or provocation. In addition, South Korea wants a further engagement with North Korea, through having closer economic ties. With this economic dependence, this country will not be willing to continue with the military actions against the South, and, with this links and their effects, it is hoped that will help to change the economy and the society of this country. (Bluth (2008) p. 190)

In general, all the main players in East Asia, want a denuclearised North Korea, due to the fears of an arms race in the region (financial times 11^th October 2006 p. 15) (Jeffries (2010) p. 5). But not all the countries share the same opinion. China would like to see a North Korea free of arms, and a more open regime, but, as it wants to keep the current status quo, is providing oil and an important quantity of food to help maintain the regime. This is because China do not want to have a collapsed North Korea, as this would represent a security and refugees problem, and also it would mean US troops in the border with China, as South Korea (an important ally of the US) would take the control of the country.

Japan tried to have friendly relations with North Korea and supported the engagement economic policy towards this state, in fact, it participated with the supply of resources. But its posture has become harder because several threats to the Japanese security, like the ballistic tests and the nuclear weapons acquisition. The same position is shared by the US, which sees the nuclear programme and ballistic projects as a threat to its troops deployed in South Korea and Japan, a to the West Coast.

Russia was an important ally for North Korea in the past. But now it shifted to South Korea due to economic reasons (a bigger economy were to export its natural resources). Otherwise it wants to keep the status quo because it does not want a pro-US unified Korea. And Russia does not want severe sanctions, because they could destabilize the regime and provoke security problems in the region (this is why, along with China, is voting for softer sanctions in the Security Council)

All are worried about the possibility of a conflict as it is thought that, if the North Korean regime sees itself too weak and nearly the collapse, it would try to take any advantage by a military action, as they would not have anything to loose. That is why they are trying a gradual transformation of the country, and continue giving resources to the country.

Summarizing, the nuclearisation of North Korea has positive aspects as, with this current situation, all the players would act with more responsibility. Also, the nuclear capabilities are not as large as it would have with only conventional arms, because the stockpile is not big, and the bombs not so powerful (Jeffries (2010) p. 5). It could be said that this is a more political than military advantage. In addition, the nuclear weapons can be considered the last attempt of the regime to survive; and it is thought that it would not try any irrational action, as the previous actions demonstrate that it wants to survive in its current political system and continue being an independent and sovereign state. That is why is trying to enter in the international community, like its attempts to enter in the IMF, Asian Development Bank and other international institutions.

Bibliography:

Bluth Christopher, Korea, 2008

Cha, Victor D. & Kang, David C., Nuclear North Korea, a debate on engagement strategies, 2003

Jeffries, Ian, Contemporary North Korea, a guide to economic and political developments, 2010

Q&A: “North Korea nuclear talks”. BBC. 20^th September 2011.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699

CNN World: “North Korea reportedly test-fire missiles”. Paula Hanckocks. 7^th January 2011.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-07/world/north.korea.missiles_1_test-fires-missiles-short-range-missile-north-korea?_s=PM:WORLD