North Korean Nuclear Threat (UNSC)

Fictional, set in the present day. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) has for decades pursued its nuclear ambitions to the dismay of both Western countries and its neighbors in East Asia. It recently announced the successful launch of a satellite from a three-stage rocket, and U.S. and allied intelligence services conclude that North Korea now possesses the reentry technology for an intercontinental ballistic missile that could reach the North American west coast. The director of national intelligence has concluded that the missile launch, combined with North Korea’s ongoing nuclear tests and its mastery of warhead miniaturization technology, means the country is capable of following through on past threats to fire a nuclear-armed missile against the United States. The president has called an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to present this new intelligence and discuss an international response to North Korea’s enhanced capabilities.

U.S. intelligence officials now believe, based on debris recovered from a recent North Korean satellite launch, that North Korea has the technology needed to reach the west coast of North America. The launch came days after Kim walked away from nuclear negotiations with the United States. Kim cited concerns over proposed inspections of its nuclear sites. The U.S. director of national intelligence has concluded that the launch means that the country is now capable of following through on past threats to fire nuclear-armed missiles at the United States. The United States has requested a meeting of the UN Security Council to present this new intelligence and discuss an international response to North Korea’s enhanced capabilities.

CFR Education extended simulations use a variety of pedagogical tools to create an effective, meaningful, and memorable learning experience for students that builds their global literacy. Students will develop crucial skills such as critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. Students will complete authentic assessments that feel relevant: instead of five-paragraph essays and book reports, students will write policy memos and participate in a role-play of a meeting of a foreign policy–making body. There are no right or wrong answers in actual policy deliberations, and there are none here, either; students will walk away from this experience with an appreciation for the complexity of policy questions.

In this simulation, students will learn about the UN Security Council, as well as meeting these learning outcomes specific to this simulation:

Concepts

Issues

North Korea’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons program is motivated principally by the desire to develop a deterrent against an attack by external forces, particularly the United States or South Korea. North Korea’s threats have been directed primarily toward the United States and its allies. The Kim regime regards the U.S. military presence in South Korea (which hosts nearly 28,000 U.S. troops as of September 2023) as an obstacle to a North Korea–led unification of the peninsula. It also sees the United States as the most dangerous military threat it faces. 

The most important priority for the UN Security Council on this matter is eliminating North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. The Security Council is a core part of global efforts to stop the spread, or proliferation, of nuclear weapons. Among other things, it is charged with responding to violations of the NPT. Most frequently, the Security Council acts by imposing sanctions on any country or group that violates the treaty. Since North Korea’s withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, the Security Council has been at the center of international efforts to halt the country’s nuclear development. After Pyongyang’s first nuclear test in 2006, the Security Council unanimously approved a series of sanctions that have grown increasingly severe in response to tests.

North Korea already has the capability to hit South Korea and Japan with nuclear missiles. Advancements in its nuclear technology and missile capabilities could pose a serious security threat not just to the United States but also to its allies. Furthermore, the capabilities could pose a threat to the Asia-Pacific region more broadly. A nuclear attack by North Korea on one of its rivals could destroy cities and kill millions of people, potentially triggering a devastating conflict in the region. 

North Korea’s nuclear progress and the failure of international responses could encourage other countries to acquire nuclear weapons. Countries such as Japan and South Korea could face domestic political pressure to respond to acquire nuclear weapons of their own to deter North Korea. Such pressure would be a defeat for global nonproliferation efforts. Likewise, it would make any conflict in Northeast Asia far more destructive. 

Any response to North Korea’s nuclear development will need the approval of all five of the Security Council’s veto-wielding permanent members (P5). Although the Security Council has been unanimous in its past condemnations of North Korea’s nuclear endeavors, the diverging interests of the P5, especially of China, Russia, and the United States, could get in the way of any new action. China has offered only a mixed record of supporting and upholding sanctions against North Korea. It values North Korea as a buffer between itself and the thriving capitalist democracy of South Korea. Russia has increasingly seen North Korea as a strategic partner, especially since the war in Ukraine began. Both countries have reasons to oppose harsh penalties against North Korea. 

With those concerns in mind, the Security Council has a few options it could pursue in response to the North Korean nuclear threat. 

Condemn testing and call for negotiations to resume. 

The UN Security Council could adopt a resolution condemning North Korea’s latest missile test.  This resolution could also call on it not to test or use missiles or nuclear weapons in the future. This resolution could also outline consequences if North Korea does not comply. Potential consequences include additional sanctions. The Security Council could further call for North Korea to return to negotiations over its nuclear program. In exchange, such negotiations could offer sanctions relief, economic aid, or a formal peace treaty ending the Korean War. Such negotiations could take place between the United States and North Korea alone, under the previous framework of the Six Party Talks, or in a new format. If an agreement is achieved, the Security Council could also call on North Korea to admit outside inspectors to monitor the agreement’s progress. 
This is the least ambitious option, but it is the most likely to pass. If successful, this option could reduce the threat of North Korean nuclear missiles and avoid rising tensions or even war. However, this option cannot guarantee any results. North Korea has ignored similar resolutions. Past negotiations have failed or led to broken promises from North Korea. The Security Council risks giving North Korea aid or sanctions relief and receiving nothing in return. At best, failed negotiations would result in no change to the situation. At worst, they could lead to the Kim regime increasing its nuclear development, damage the United Nations’ reputation, and bring the world closer to nuclear conflict. 

The Security Council could choose to pursue negotiations first; should they prove unsuccessful, it could then resort to one of two other options.

Adopt new sanctions. 

The UN Security Council could adopt a new round of sanctions against North Korea. This could further limit the country’s access to fuel, raw materials, and luxury goods. The Security Council could also call for states to crack down on North Korea’s illegal activities abroad to restrict its access to funds and nuclear materials. 

Expanding sanctions would be driven by the assumption that the best path forward is to isolate North Korea until its government collapses or changes. The Security Council has approved sanctions in response to past nuclear tests, but so far these have not stopped North Korea’s nuclear development. Stronger sanctions could finally produce change. However,  there is no guarantee that sanctions will have the desired effect. Sanctions have already put North Korea’s economy in a dire situation. Additional pressure on the economy could lead to further worsening conditions for North Koreans rather than any policy change on nuclear weapons. Moreover, sanctions take time to have an effect. During this time, North Korea’s nuclear program would continue to pose a threat.

Authorize preventive military strikes. 

The UN Security Council could adopt a resolution calling on North Korea to denuclearize and authorize member states to enforce that resolution by force. This would lead the United States and possibly its other allies to launch a preventive military strike. This strike would be aimed at destroying as many missile and nuclear–related sites and as much equipment as possible. Even if these strikes could not completely eliminate North Korea’s nuclear program, they could set it back for the foreseeable future. Given the current phase of North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, this option would likely require a large-scale military operation to succeed. 

This option offers a crucial benefit. It could reduce the threat of North Korea’s missiles and nuclear weapons for years to come. Preventive strikes would also demonstrate a strong international commitment to nonproliferation. They could further send an effective warning to North Korea and others against developing nuclear weapons in the future. 

However, China borders North Korea and has signed a security treaty with North Korea. It is unlikely to allow any military action by the United States or its allies. Moreover, a military intervention comes with significant risks. A preventive strike cannot guarantee the destruction of all North Korean nuclear capabilities. A military strike also risks a North Korean retaliation that could escalate and have devastating results. South Korea’s densely populated capital, Seoul, is particularly vulnerable to North Korea’s military because of how close it is to the border with the North. Even limited retaliation by North Korea could lead to many deaths and a high level of destruction in Seoul. Moreover, if North Korea fears losing its nuclear weapons, it could also decide to use them first.

CFR Education extended simulations are project-based learning activities. Project-based learning (PBL) leads to better learning outcomes and improves skills, and is more fun than traditional instructional methods. The website that students will navigate throughout the simulation is divided into several parts:

In the UNSC Guide, students will learn about the UN Security Council, the body they will be simulating. Included are details on its history, how it works, who its major players are, and more. There is also a video interview with experts who have served on the body.

In the Case Notes, students dive into the actual situation they will be trying to solve in their simulation. At the beginning is a clear decision point: the question that students will debate during the role-play. This is followed by detailed background material and a discussion of the role that the United Nations plays.

Preparation and Role-Play includes details on the various roles students could take on, guidelines for the draft resolution clauses they will write, as well as an outline of how the discussion will flow during the role-play.

The Wrap-Up is an important part of the project and includes reflection questions and guidelines for reflecting in a class discussion and in a second memorandum. For historical cases, this section also includes a short description of how the decision point was addressed by policymakers in real life.

The simulation also includes Student Resources, which include a reading list to support research, additional directions and exemplars for writing assignments, and other tips students may find helpful.

Once students have read the simulation and prepared their draft clauses, here is how we recommend structuring the role-play:

Tips for the President of the UN Security Council
In Round 1, you will chair a formal session. Make absolutely sure that every country gives their opening statement before any country is allowed to speak a second time. You will also have to use your judgment about when to move into the more informal meeting of Round 2. Give enough time for students to flesh out their positions and to identify potential allies, but do not wait too long—the most productive negotiations happen in informal meetings, so you want to save time for those in Round 2.

In Round 2, you will call on speakers one at a time. The time limits on speeches are a little looser, so pay close attention to make sure everyone is included and no one dominates. Deciding whether to grant a break for negotiations is a matter of balance. Negotiations can be advanced in small-group discussions, but it is also important for the whole body to be updated on what goes on during the breaks. You will want to strike a balance between breaks for negotiating, and informal meeting time for giving updates and rounding up support for resolutions. It is often helpful to set a deadline for the end of Round 2 to encourage negotiators to come to agreements in a timely manner.

In Round 3, completed draft resolutions will be presented, discussed, and voted on. Before starting, make sure you are clear on the order in which the resolutions were submitted and who is sponsoring each one. When it comes time to vote, it will be helpful to remind everyone of the unique voting rules of the Security Council. If none of the resolutions passes, you can allow further debate and attempt to vote again, or you can move on and guide the council through debate on a presidential statement. Use your judgment about which process is more likely to be successful.

Tips for Online Classes

We suggest conducting the role-play in three rounds and that three-round structure is a helpful way to approach chunking the role-play for online learning as well. You can conduct each round synchronously or asynchronously.

In round one, participants present their positions.

In round two, participants debate the various policy options.

In round three, debate begins to coalesce around the draft resolutions that have substantial support.

To add spice or challenge to the role-play, partway through the discussion throw in one of the following flashpoints—additional hypothetical developments that fit within the case’s existing decision point—or create your own. 

After introducing a flashpoint, you might want to help students refocus their discussion by considering critical questions such as these:

Each CFR Education extended simulation involves writing assignments that help students think through policy options and reflect on their learning experience.

In UNSC cases, there are two types of writing assignments.

Simulations have instructions for written assignments (found under the Student Facing Simulation), rubrics, and samples for each of these writing exercises. 

Samples:

Below are sample rubrics for your use in assessing the writing students will do as part of this extended simulation.

These are single-point rubrics. Jennifer Gonzalez, who writes the blog Cult of Pedagogy, has a great explainer, but the bottom line is that single-point rubrics are relatively easy for students to digest but still have all the advantages of giving structure to instructors’ feedback.

UN Security Council Draft Clauses Rubric

UN Security Council Written Reflection Rubric

Downloadable rubrics are available here: