10/25/20151 Security community: “a group of people” integrated by a “sense of community,” = “a belief on the part of individuals in a group that they have come to agreement on at least this one point: that common social problems must and can be resolved by processes of ‘peaceful change,’” which was in turn defined as “the resolution of social problems, normally by institutionalized procedures, without resort to large-scale physical force.” Basic types: 1)an amalgamated security community (such as the USA) which emerges when two or more previously independent political units form one larger unit with one common government; 2)a pluralistic security community (such as the USA with Canada) consists of formally independent states. In International Relations studies, we deal almost exclusively with pluralistic and not amalgamated security communities.

10/25/20152 Phases of security community development: 1) nascent “the minimal definitional properties and no more: a transnational region comprised of sovereign states whose people maintain dependable expectations of peaceful change,” “mutual aid,” “a system of rule that lies somewhere between a sovereign state and a regional, centralized... government; that is, it is something of a post-sovereign system, endowed with common supranational, transnational, and national institutions and some form of a collective security system” 2) ascendant “increasingly dense networks; new institutions and organizations that reflect either tighter military coordination and cooperation and/or decreased fear that the other represents a threat,” deepening of mutual trust and the emergence of collective identities, building of institutions leads to increased social interaction, promoting shared identities and mutual interests 3) mature (loosely or tightly coupled) “regional actors share an identity and, therefore, entertain dependable expectations of peaceful change,” “mutual aid” and consultation becomes a matter of habit, the norms at its heart become embedded or internalized by its member states

10/25/20153 Requirements: “shared identities, values, and meanings.” “Socially constructed,” “imagined,” or “cognitive” region, whose borders may or may not coincide with traditional geographical borders. Essential conditions: 1)“the capacity of the participating political units or governments to respond to each other’s needs, messages, and actions quickly, adequately, and without resort to violence” 2)“compatibility of major values relevant to political decision- making.” Requirements: 1)shared identities, values and meanings 2)many-sided direct interactions 3)reciprocal long-term interest

10/25/20154 Players integrated by the sense of clear and present danger of North Korea’s WMD, thus taking them on to one point of agreement that North Korea’s nuclear program must be resolved “Security with” approach that included the presenter of the danger, North Korea, in the league. In a way, this reflected a strange way of a “sense of community.” All the states coordinated their activities to achieve a peaceful, diplomatic way to make the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons.

10/25/20155 According to the September 2005 pact, Pyongyang would eventually abandon its nuclear program, rejoin the NPT, and allow IAEA monitors to return. In exchange, North Korea would receive food and energy assistance from the other members. The statement also paved the way for Pyongyang to normalize relations with both the United States and Japan, and for the negotiation of a peace agreement for the Korean peninsula. Increase in networks among all members, and, for once, this Talks succeeded in decreasing fear of the threat represented by North Korean nuclear weapons program for it agreed to shut down its nuclear facilities in the third phase of the fifth round of talks. The fuel aid and steps towards the normalization of relations with the US and Japan in exchange for the North Korea shutting their program marked the mutual interests of the parties involved. Six Party Talks = “ascendant” stage of security community.

10/25/20156 No other concepts of security community could be applied in the Six Party Talks. No same identity: -China is despised because they were communists. Japan and Korea also hate China since they had experienced China’s occupation (Japan since the 7 th century and Korea since the 13 th century). -Japan is despised for their colonialism (1905 to 1945) in Northeast and Southeast Asia. -North Korea is despised for their communist government, totalitarian dictatorship, belligerent and provocative behavior. -South Korea is relatively not so despised as much as the others, but some might resent the fact that they’re so much under the influence of the US. -The US and The Russian Federation have a very long history of enmity even before the Cold War. “The US and the Russian Federation hate each other; China hates Japan, Japan hates South Korea, South Korea hates North Korea and North Korea hates them all.”

10/25/20157 No shared values: the US, Japan and South Korea’s government = liberal democratic China and North Korea’s government = communist. the Russian Federation = representative democracy since 1991 but has a long history of being the leader of international communism The fact that Russian Federation, China and North Korea don’t hold the liberal values is another reason to be pessimistic about the capability of Six Party Talks to denuclearize North Korea.

10/25/20158 Interactions between the parties involved not very good. Since the Bush administration took office in the US ( ), North Korea labeled them as hostile and accused them of planning to overthrow the North Korean government by force after Bush named North Korea as part of the axis of evil in his 2002 State of the Union Address. The US also had at times disagreed and at times agreed to North Korea’s demand of normalization of diplomatic relations as part of the bargain. The US placed financial sanctions on North Korea for uncooperative behavior to denuclearize and China froze the US$24 million assets of North Korea in Macau's Banco Delta Asia. Only the Russian Federation seemed to have been open for business with North Korea despite the nuclear impasse. No reciprocal long-term interest: While South Korea sought gradual integration and reunification of the two Koreas, the US remained the main obstacle to this plan for their adherence to tailored containment.

10/25/20159 A