Donald Trump was elected as 45th U.S. President in 2016. The conventional understanding of President Trump when his administration started in early 2017 was that he had a unique personality as a politician, and therefore, the U.S. under his leadership would pursue different foreign policy goals and strategies to achieve them, distinct from his predecessors. Against this background, this study aims to address such questions as “Is he really different from his predecessors?” or “Will U.S. foreign policies under Trump be totally different from those of the past?” Especially, this study will analyze Trump's foreign policy orientations, utilizing dimensions of foreign policy analysis: security, prosperity, and community values. Based on the analysis of the fundamentals of the Trump administration's foreign policy, this study will also discuss its policy toward Northeast Asia, especially the Korean peninsula.

President Moon Jae-in has tried hard to make his efforts to restore frozen inter-Korean relations for nine years under two conservative presidents. As a result, inter-Korean relations are now improving on the Korean peninsula. Koreans lived in reality under the risk of a possible nuclear war on the Korean peninsula. The contributing factors leading to the potential crisis on the Korean peninsula include the US-ROK joint military exercises, North Korea's nuclear test/ intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch tests, a war of words between the US and North Korean leaders, and demonstrations of US strategic assets in 2017 surrounding the Korean peninsula. This article briefly evaluates President Moon's North Korea policy, root-causes of North Korean nuclear armament, and five conditions for North Korean nuclear abandonment. The article makes a creative proposal for a three-phase roadmap for denuclearization and a peace regime building on the Korean peninsula. Finally, the author will make policy suggestions for denuclearizing the Korean peninsula and establishing a permanent peace system on the Korean peninsula.

This article briefly reviews the background of the marketization of North Korea and focuses on recalibrating South Korea's economic policy towards the DPRK by using the theory of William O. Chittick's logic of the three basic approaches to foreign policy. The determinant factors in making foreign policy are identification, security, and economic prosperity. This article analyzes several signs of emergent capitalism in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and examines the impact of the Jangmadang generations on system change in the DPRK. Emphasizing the positive impact of the “Jangmadang generation,” we conclude that North Korea's introduction of market socialism can become successful by promoting financier elites who can negotiate with the regime.

This paper suggests that Russia's will and capabilities for intervening in the North Korean nuclear issue can be a constant variable in Korean affairs. To defend this statement, this paper begins by briefly reviewing Russia's policy toward North Korea until the imposing of sanctions by the United Nations in 2016. It goes on to analyze Russia's policy on sanctions against North Korea after the 4th nuclear test. The article envisages how Russia's growing concerning North Korean issues will affect the bilateral relations between Russia and North Korea, and then three scenarios will be described as prospects for future relations. In conclusion, policy recommendations for South Korea are suggested.

The differences between “Asian” and “Western” understandings of human security, the responsibility to protect, and the relationship between these concepts have led to radically different policy proposals for engaging “rogue” regimes. Essentially the “West” holds a narrow view of human security, but an interventionary interpretation of R2P, with the two being closely linked; whereas in Asia the linkage between the two is rejected, and a broad conceptualization of human security, along with a non-interventionary understanding of the R2P dominates. This paper first addresses evidence of competing epistemological frameworks upon policy-formation in Western and Asian champions of human security and the R2P. It then assesses the impact of these policy orientations in Myanmar (one of the most governance-challenged states in the world), followed by policy prescription for ongoing challenges in the country and wider region. The findings of this article are that the combination of Western interventionary pressures, with Asian non-judgmental engagement, creates the best conditions to facilitate governance transformation within a target state. Pressure from the West creates incentives not only for the target state to accept help, but also for Asian actors to offer it; while Asian offers of assistance are more readily accepted due to their anti-interventionary legacy.