Throughout these last few weeks, tensions between North Korea and the United States have reached a new high, bringing out fear and proliferating anxiety among individuals across the globe. While the U.S. and North Korea have had a strained relationship since the Korean War, the different presidential administrations have created a historical timeline with a wide array of stances regarding international relations. The Bush administration labeled North Korea as part of the “axis of evil” in 2002, according to a Dec. 19, 2011 article by ABC news. Since then the U.S. has chosen a policy of strategic patience, where the U.S. administration attempts to diplomatically end North Korea’s nuclear program, as it poses significant threats to the U.S. mainland, but also because this conflict has the ability to endanger crucial allies in South Korea and Japan where thousands of U.S. troops are stationed. Seeing the historical trends in the relationship between the U.S. and Iran in regards to nuclear power, the regime of Kim Jong-un is attempting to prevent history from repeating itself by advancing the nuclear weapons program, because it understands once these weapons are developed they will gain a hegemony in a region that is critical to U.S interests. Thus, while the U.S. could strategically target the regime of Kim Jong-un, the repercussions of such a strike are what makes this foreign policy dilemma extremely complex.

On Jan. 2, upon news that North Korea was aiming to test another series of intercontinental missiles, President Donald Trump issued a response on Twitter in which he both attacked China for their lack of intervention and claimed that North Korea’s development of a nuclear missile with the ability to hit U.S. mainland “won’t happen,” according to a Jan. 3 CNN article. The North Korean regime is heavily abusing the transition of power in the U.S., as well as South Korean instability as a result of the impeachment of South Korea’s president. From February to April, North Korean military officials conducted a series of tests, the fourth of which was conducted on April 5 on the North Korean East Coast while President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping were meeting for a summit, according to an April 28 ABC News article. Though symbolic, the act was unimpressive with the missile flying only 60 miles before falling into the ocean, according to an April 5 BBC article. The day after, much of the media covered President Trump’s strike on Syria as a result of a chemical attack by the Syrian regime. This served not only as a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but also to North Korea. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson sent a direct message to North Korea on their nuclear weapons program in stating that the U.S will not tolerate any nations not following international law. On April 12, tensions escalated heavily when the president stated in an interview that he was sending an “armada of” Navy ships to the Korean Peninsula, forming speculation that this administration will use military action on North Korea, according to the same ABC News article. However, two days later these tensions decreased, with the administration stating they were pursuing a status-quo policy of “maximum pressure and engagement;” however, they also noted that all options remained on the table.

This statement did little to deter the regime in North Korea, evident in the military parade in honor of Kim Jong-un’s birthday, where a new KN-17 missile was displayed. According to a March 27 article in ABC News, North Korea will become the most pressing and complex foreign policy dilemma of Trump’s administration, according to the prediction of many foreign policy analysts. His black-and-white approach to such a multi-faceted issue is dangerous and ineffective. The danger of North Korea is imminent and direct, but the president’s publicity stunts are simply not going to solve this issue. Trump’s false remarks on the “armada” of ships heading toward North Korea were dangerous, as it enabled and strengthened our nation’s enemy when it was revealed these navy vessels were not heading in the direction of North Korea as the administration implied, as reported by NPR on April 18. These rash actions may give voters the false illusion of progress, but the direct consequences of not-strategically solving this issue will be disastrous. The administration fails to acknowledge the threat of the thousands of conventional missiles located on the border of North Korea, which can easily be launched to attack the capital of South Korea and destroy the U.S. military bases located close to the border. If the administration wishes to be successful, it must engage in stronger diplomatic talks with China, North Korea’s most crucial ally. These two nations must reach an accord regarding the nuclear weapons program that will enable China to pressure the regime of North Korea to cease the weapons program with a threat of economic backlash.

The issue of North Korea has been present for nearly seven decades; all past administrations have refused to preemptively strike North Korea in fear of the harm and impending destruction of both South Korea and Japan. We must demand that this administration create a more complex and strategic plan regarding this foreign policy query; not merely because it is a difficult situation to solve, but also because it is a decision which will directly impact the lives of thousands of constituents within the nation and millions of individuals in allied nations across the globe.