Liberalism in North Korea - Essay Example

?Realism is a paradigm that stands on the premise that international relations and world politics involve an unchangeable struggle involving self-interested states fighting for power in an anarchical environment while each is engrossed in the endeavor to fulfill its national interests (Korab-Karpowicz, 2013). A scholarly examination of the situation in the Korean peninsula from a realist perspective would seem to fit neatly into the tenets of the ideology. The primary drive behind the leaders of the country are self interest in that they want to be noticed and intimidate the international community, or according to Lankov, they want to use these political gimmicks to get aid from the west. Either way, the result is likely designed to benefit fulfill the interests of the nation in the economic or military front. Liberalism on the other hand can be loosely defined as individual freedom; an ideology stems from the belief that humans inherently are good-natured. Its core values stress on individualism, human rights the right to equal treatment and universal protection of the law without discrimination. From this definition, it is easy to understand why the theory will be hard to inculcate into the Korean, more so, North Korean situation. Firstly, the country is a dictatorship and by virtue of that fact, it means that the ideas of freedom in the convectional democratic sense are not manifested in the governance style. In addition, the leaders have displayed extreme aggressiveness and a determination to go against nearly all the tenets of liberalism both on a local and international scale. North Korea recently threatened to launch a nuclear offensive at the United States of America South Korea and Japan after the US commenced military drills in South Korea (Jack and Louis, 2013). The drills in South were declared an act of war and consequently the North scrapped the armistice treaty that had ended the war between the two nations in the 50s (Park, 2013). It has threatened to strike in the heart of America, which it deem to be about to conduct a nuclear strike as well, that is being used to justify North Koreas irrational action. This begs the question; why is there so much friction between America and North Korea, from a realistic perspective, North Korea likely sees America as a potential threat to its sovereignty and continued independence and freedom. This is evidenced in the fact that whenever the leaders discuss their neighbors South Korea, they use the expression a puppet for the Americans. To the leaders up North, there is no difference between being “colonized” and co-operating with the American government, in this respect their aggressiveness towards America can be viewed in terms of their wish to protect their self-interest. Herein emerges the key difference between a realist and liberal understanding of the issue, a liberal mind would assume that peace and cooperation are acceptable if it benefits ones country. Considering the current state of the North Koreas economy, it is beyond any doubt that they stand to gain a lot from co-operating with the international community, that way they can be able to trade freely without the burden of sanctions. The security of America has been continuously threatened by the North Korean, as such (Suri, 2013) their heavy presence in South Korea and is strategic in order to ensure it protects itself and its allies. These moves are interpreted by the Northern side as being potential for war and thus each side in their attempt to safeguard their interests in an environment of mutual distrust fuel the ensuing conflict. It has also been postulated that Koreas aggressiveness is a means of blackmailing the world into sympathizing and giving them the aid they so badly need especially in view of the severe sanctions imposed by the international community. According to Lankov, the North’s main reason for its belligerent statements is not an intention for war but a means of reminding the world that it exists (Lankov, 2013). They will only be able to blackmail believably if they depict and image of irrational leaders capable of unpredictable and violent action. To what end? One may ask; retrospectively in 1994 and 2006 when North Korea made such moves, it was convinced to halt through increased aid and relaxation of embargos and sanctions (Maass 2010, p.141). It is probable that the leaders of the Northern nation just want to push western nations to the negotiation table where they can make demands in return for softening their stance. Liberalism in the case of North Korea is more in the sense of what is lacking in their interaction towards other nations as opposed to their behavior, the leaders have repeatedly displayed insensitivity to the freedom and human rights. A liberal minded scholar would hold Liberalism grants that violence is and flawed systems do not result from evil people but evil institutions in which people are complete to exist (Jumarang, 2011). For instance, one cannot say that the citizens of North Korea are any more predisposed to violence and anarchy than the citizens of South Korea or anywhere else for that matter. The autocratic government makes the whole country appear to be a threat to peace and stability in the region, in the end, military or nuclear action by North Korea on any nation would be felt on a global scale (Tan 2009, p.551). The liberal theory recognizes that prevention of war in not the duty of single nations but the collective global responsibility (Jehangir, 2012). Thus, America has a responsibility to keep a watch on the actions of North Korea, this is because should it make good its threats and attack South Korea, the allies of the latter would be inclined to defend it and so would china and other allies of the North. This is especially manifest in the fact that China has always proven reluctant to co-operate with the United States and/or United Nations in the effort to diplomatically quell North Koreas nuclear ambitions (Pomfret, 2013). As a result, there may be a war of bigger proportions and which would affect hundreds of countries, thus it is understandable that the UN has put in place embargos against the export of nuclear materials and other sanctions designed to reduce the North’s ability to arm itself. However, a contrary opinion from a realist perspective may be that America realizes that North Korea does not pose a serious threat to her; however, it may be planning of taking military action under the guise of preemptive war but in reality using a liberal sounding excuse to justify invading and possibly occupying North Korea. This is no different from the British invading countries in the 19th century with the overt motive of civilizing them while they were covertly looking after their own interest (Kiseleva n.d., p.3). In the recent past, the South has vowed that should the North make any attacks as they are threatening; they will retaliate (McCurry, 2013); this is unusual coming from a nation that has often seemed to prefer to avoid confrontation with the North after the many past conflicts. This is clearly in recognition of the liberal fact that war is a real possibility and despite the fact that most people would prefer to have peace, we must account for the act that sometimes war may be necessitated by actions that are out of one’s control. In this case, both the liberal and realist assessment of the conflict would be in agreement since because the realist scholar would explain the necessity of war as a mean to self-preservation. The liberal would see it as a result of the flawed systems either way if the North tries to pursue its nuclear agenda, they will no doubt be embroiled in a serious global conflict. Therefore, in order to understand how a realist would tackle the crisis it is important that potential outcomes are examined. For one, it is unequivocal that the leaders in the North are either paranoid enough to believe that Americana and her allies are planning to invade them or they are, as aforementioned being belligerent hoping for strategic attention. In the first instance, their reasoning could be understandable as an effort to protect them from an America strike by striking first. However, even in such a case, making war with the world’s biggest superpower while it is bankrupt and isolated by most other nations would be an imprudent move for the North. Their nuclear arsenals may not be as sketchy as the world would hope; it is unlikely they have the potential to launch effectively a warhead into any of America’s major cities. Thus, if the leaders are concerned about their self-interest coming first, they will not start a war that would only lead to annihilation and possible occupation for their country. Thus to quell this conflict, the realist way would be to attempt and show the leaders in Pyongyang that the only way they will be able to safeguard their interests is by working with, not against, American and other nations (Bell, 2013). This would be the same approach a liberal policy maker would take up; this is because liberalism operates under the assumption that peace for all in international relations is the best possible outcome. Post war liberalism suggests that states should, figuratively speaking, beat their swords into plows and get to work. In the same way, a liberal solution to the crisis would be that instead of using up its resources in weapons to pit itself against the developed world it should use the monies to resurrect its collapsed economy. That way make it competitive in the region, it can be able to reduce the impacts of the sanctions on its already weakened economy. Nevertheless, the policy makers may not necessarily propose the same course of actions; a core tenet of realism is that if all states seek to maximize power, peace and stability will be found in balance of power (Stephen, 1997). As such, realists strategist may see propose that North Korea build up its nuclear arsenals and capacity to an extent, which it may be able to pose a real threat to America and its allies. To this end, the North has in the past made attempts to get aid from allies such as Russia and other nations in Eastern Europe to acquire funding for their nuclear programs (Clemens 2010, p.134). In such a case, America will be more cautious when dealing with North Korea because they would know despite their (American) nuclear capacity they could also be endangered by Korea in a MAD (mutual assured destruction) situation. Such efforts would possibly further cripple the economy but in a realist’s perspective, the economy is not as important as the military strength when it comes to national security matters. A liberal policy maker may however see matters quite differently, unlike the realist who put a lot of weight on military prowess in matters of international relations and security, liberal consider many other factors such as free trade and the contributions of multinationals. An increase in the defense budget will translate into a proportional decrease in the economy especially coupled with the inevitable sanctions and embargos. While the state develops in the military front, its citizens will likely suffer from unemployed and inflation, which will gradually, reduce the quality of life in the country. References Bell, L. 2013. “The Ultimate North Korean Missile Threat To America: A Nuke Power Grid Attack” Forbes. [Online] Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/14/the-ultimate-north-korean-missile-threat-to-america-a-nuke-power-grid-attack/ [Accessed 17 April 2013] Clemens, W. C. 2010. "North Korea's Quest for Nuclear Weapons: New Historical Evidence." Journal of East Asian Studies 10.1: 127,154,169.  http://www.academiaresearch.com/filecache/instr/b/o/833748_bomb_north_korea_before_it_s_too_late.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2013] Jack, K. and Louis, C. 2013. “North Korea threatens US with nuclear strike” The Sydney Morning Herald.2013. [Online] Available at: http://www.academia-research.com/filecache/instr/n/k/833748_nk_nuclear_strike.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2013] Jehangir, H. 2012. “Realism, Liberalism and the Possibilities of Peace” E-International Relations. [Online] Available at: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/02/19/realism-liberalism-and-the-possibilities-of-peace/ [Accessed 17 April 2013] Jumarang, B.K. 2011. “Realism and Liberalism in International Relations” E-International Relations.July 2, 2011. [Online] Available at: http://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/02/realism-and-liberalism-in-modern-international-relations/ [Accessed 17 April 2013] KiselevaY. n.d. “The Relevance of Realism in International Relations Theory” Academia.Edu. [Online]Available at : http://www.academia.edu/1632931/The_Relevance_of_Realism_in_International_Relations_Theory [Accessed 17 April 2013] Korab-Karpowicz, W.J. 2013. "Political Realism in International Relations", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/ [Accessed 17 April 2013] Lankov, A. 2013. “Stay Cool.Call North Korea’s Bluff” New York Times. [Online] Available at: http://www.academia-research.com/filecache/instr/l/a/833748_lankov_ny_times.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2013] Maass, M. 2010. "North Korea as a "Quasi-Nuclear Weapons State"." Korea Observer 41.1: 131-60.  McCurry, J. 2013. “South Korea warns it will retaliate if North attacks” The Guardian. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/01/south-korea-retaliate-north-attacks [Accessed 17 April 2013] Park, M. 2013. “North Korea declares 1953 armistice invalid”. CNN World. [Online] Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/11/world/asia/north-korea-armistice [Accessed 17 April 2013] Pomfret, J. 2013. "Why China Won'Tact on North Korea." The Washington Post: A.19. Stephen, G.B. 1997. "Dueling Realisms (Realism in International Relations)," International Organization, Vol. 51, no. 3. Suri, J. 2013. “Bomb North Korea, Before It’s Too Late” New York Times. [Online] Available at: Tan, E. 2009. "North Korea's Rocket and Nuclear Tests, 2009: A Threatening Pyongyang Or an Afraid Pyongyang?" Korea Observer 40.3: 551-85.  Read More