For your knowledge (especially those who seek answers from me), in theory:
International relations (IR) (occasionally referred to as international studies (IS))[1] is the study of relationships between countries, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and multinational corporations (MNCs). It is both an academic and public policy field, and can be either positive or normative as it both seeks to analyze as well as formulate the foreign policy of particular states. It is often considered a branch of political science (especially after 1988 UNESCO nomenclature), but an important sector of academia prefer to treat it as an interdisciplinary field of study.
Apart from political science, IR draws upon such diverse fields as economics, history, international law, philosophy, geography, social work, sociology, anthropology, psychology, women's studies/gender studies, and cultural studies / culturology. It involves a diverse range of issues including but not limited to: globalization, state sovereignty, ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, global finance, terrorism, organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism and human rights.
In practice,
one of my mini assignment (this was one of the easiest and most interesting assignment out of the weekly 20 pages research or papers - you probably don't want to read my 10 pages thesis/paper) was to respond to an article from economist.com using multiple IR theories, lens, and paradigms. The choice of article was completely up to us. Being me, I naturally chose to answer the most pressing issues in a creative way. (Just sharing a realisation, where there is a higher risk/bigger hurdle, there is a higher fulfillment whether you succeed or not. Definitely not the most logical and safe step to take if we get down to statistics :) But You will be rewarded for attempting the unconventional - who can solve the North Korea problem/threat? - and taking risks of holding the bull by its horn. Other than that, I also attempted to "solve world issue" than to comment about it from the realist, liberalist, constructive, etc lens - as many of my classmates did; to me, papers like that are the standard but unconstructive and worth little. Apprehending that my professor wants us to respond, not comment on the article, I got a green light to take a step further. In the end, this assignment got me some praise from the professor and a full 10 out of 10 points.) So here's sharing some IR for your enlightenment, and to quench your curiosity.
*But I'm passing a lil note from my professor here: Grammatical mistake abound ;)*
International relations (IR) (occasionally referred to as international studies (IS))[1] is the study of relationships between countries, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and multinational corporations (MNCs). It is both an academic and public policy field, and can be either positive or normative as it both seeks to analyze as well as formulate the foreign policy of particular states. It is often considered a branch of political science (especially after 1988 UNESCO nomenclature), but an important sector of academia prefer to treat it as an interdisciplinary field of study.
Apart from political science, IR draws upon such diverse fields as economics, history, international law, philosophy, geography, social work, sociology, anthropology, psychology, women's studies/gender studies, and cultural studies / culturology. It involves a diverse range of issues including but not limited to: globalization, state sovereignty, ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, global finance, terrorism, organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism and human rights.
In practice,
one of my mini assignment (this was one of the easiest and most interesting assignment out of the weekly 20 pages research or papers - you probably don't want to read my 10 pages thesis/paper) was to respond to an article from economist.com using multiple IR theories, lens, and paradigms. The choice of article was completely up to us. Being me, I naturally chose to answer the most pressing issues in a creative way. (Just sharing a realisation, where there is a higher risk/bigger hurdle, there is a higher fulfillment whether you succeed or not. Definitely not the most logical and safe step to take if we get down to statistics :) But You will be rewarded for attempting the unconventional - who can solve the North Korea problem/threat? - and taking risks of holding the bull by its horn. Other than that, I also attempted to "solve world issue" than to comment about it from the realist, liberalist, constructive, etc lens - as many of my classmates did; to me, papers like that are the standard but unconstructive and worth little. Apprehending that my professor wants us to respond, not comment on the article, I got a green light to take a step further. In the end, this assignment got me some praise from the professor and a full 10 out of 10 points.) So here's sharing some IR for your enlightenment, and to quench your curiosity.
*But I'm passing a lil note from my professor here: Grammatical mistake abound ;)*
Coping with North Korea
How do you solve a problem like Korea?
Only by persuading China that it’s in its own interest to rein in the Kims
Nov 25th 2010 | from the print edition
IF EVER a ruling elite seemed to justify the Bush-era doctrine of “pre-emption”, it is the Kim dynasty in North Korea. No government anywhere subjects its own people to such a barbarous regime of fear, repression and hunger. And the Kims are complicit in international outrages ranging from murderous terrorism and nuclear proliferation to drug-smuggling and currency-counterfeiting. The present dictator, Kim Jong Il, is apparently not long for this world, and seems to be boosting his 27-year-old son and anointed successor as a victorious warrior. When the elder Kim was himself dauphin, in the 1980s, he earned his spurs through international terrorism.
This week the North waged war for the second time this year with South Korea when it shelled a South Korean island near the disputed maritime boundary, killing two soldiers and two civilians, injuring others and burning a score of houses. In March, when one of its torpedoes sank the Cheonan, a naval vessel, killing 46, North Korea could, albeit implausibly, deny culpability. This time, though the North describes its aggression as retaliation (for a harmless South Korean military exercise), there is no gainsaying its responsibility for one of the most serious incidents since the end of the Korean war in 1953. To add to this dismal catalogue, the latest onslaught came just three days after the revelation that, in defiance of international efforts to curb its nuclear programme, North Korea has developed a sophisticated facility for enriching uranium. That gives it a further potential source of material for bombmaking.
Don’t shoot back
The starting-point for answering the North’s aggression has to be that, in the most basic sense, the Kims will almost certainly get away with only a symbolic return of fire. It is entirely wrong for North Korea to act as it does. But punitive military reprisals against the North risk a spiral of escalation and catastrophic war. Deterrence works badly against a dictator who blithely imposes famine and gulags on his people during peacetime. Even if there are doubts about the efficacy of its tiny nuclear arsenal, North Korea has enough men under arms, and enough conventional ammunition within range of Seoul—just 35 miles (60km) from the frontier—to make war seem very much a last resort.
If war and the threat of war are hardly even options, what can the world do? The best card in a bad hand is to heal the divisions among other countries about how to handle North Korea. That means, in particular, making China see that a tinderbox it has long regarded as a strategic asset has become an appalling liability. China also struggles to control North Korea. But a united front would change the environment that encourages the rogue state’s bad behaviour.
China cannot be blind to the Kims’ bungling and bellicosity, nor welcome their nuclear ambitions. But it has had two worse fears. One is of a rekindled war on the peninsula, which would damage China. The other is of North Korean collapse, with millions of desperate refugees pouring into China and South Korea or even American troops on China’s border. It is as a bulwark against this “instability” that China cossets the Kims. It refused to condemn them even for the sinking of the Cheonan, and this week issued blandly even-handed calls for restraint. It apparently believes that if their only ally abandons them, the Kims might do something really rash.
But they already have. Whatever it says publicly, China must surely see that this regime flirts with war as an instrument of diplomacy and that its desire to shock the world into negotiating with it requires ever greater outrages. Ultimately, this pattern of behaviour threatens the very stability China craves. China’s alliance with North Korea thus undermines not just its image as a global power but also its own interests.
So how to nudge China in the right direction? One possibility is the revival of the six-party forum, chaired by China and involving Japan and Russia. Talks stalled after North Korea forged ahead with its nuclear programme. The Kims would regard a revival as a victory. But talks will eventually have to resume if North Korea’s nuclear ambitions are to be negotiated down. If they also help persuade China to rein in North Korea, that would be a double benefit.
This week the North waged war for the second time this year with South Korea when it shelled a South Korean island near the disputed maritime boundary, killing two soldiers and two civilians, injuring others and burning a score of houses. In March, when one of its torpedoes sank the Cheonan, a naval vessel, killing 46, North Korea could, albeit implausibly, deny culpability. This time, though the North describes its aggression as retaliation (for a harmless South Korean military exercise), there is no gainsaying its responsibility for one of the most serious incidents since the end of the Korean war in 1953. To add to this dismal catalogue, the latest onslaught came just three days after the revelation that, in defiance of international efforts to curb its nuclear programme, North Korea has developed a sophisticated facility for enriching uranium. That gives it a further potential source of material for bombmaking.
Don’t shoot back
The starting-point for answering the North’s aggression has to be that, in the most basic sense, the Kims will almost certainly get away with only a symbolic return of fire. It is entirely wrong for North Korea to act as it does. But punitive military reprisals against the North risk a spiral of escalation and catastrophic war. Deterrence works badly against a dictator who blithely imposes famine and gulags on his people during peacetime. Even if there are doubts about the efficacy of its tiny nuclear arsenal, North Korea has enough men under arms, and enough conventional ammunition within range of Seoul—just 35 miles (60km) from the frontier—to make war seem very much a last resort.
If war and the threat of war are hardly even options, what can the world do? The best card in a bad hand is to heal the divisions among other countries about how to handle North Korea. That means, in particular, making China see that a tinderbox it has long regarded as a strategic asset has become an appalling liability. China also struggles to control North Korea. But a united front would change the environment that encourages the rogue state’s bad behaviour.
China cannot be blind to the Kims’ bungling and bellicosity, nor welcome their nuclear ambitions. But it has had two worse fears. One is of a rekindled war on the peninsula, which would damage China. The other is of North Korean collapse, with millions of desperate refugees pouring into China and South Korea or even American troops on China’s border. It is as a bulwark against this “instability” that China cossets the Kims. It refused to condemn them even for the sinking of the Cheonan, and this week issued blandly even-handed calls for restraint. It apparently believes that if their only ally abandons them, the Kims might do something really rash.
But they already have. Whatever it says publicly, China must surely see that this regime flirts with war as an instrument of diplomacy and that its desire to shock the world into negotiating with it requires ever greater outrages. Ultimately, this pattern of behaviour threatens the very stability China craves. China’s alliance with North Korea thus undermines not just its image as a global power but also its own interests.
So how to nudge China in the right direction? One possibility is the revival of the six-party forum, chaired by China and involving Japan and Russia. Talks stalled after North Korea forged ahead with its nuclear programme. The Kims would regard a revival as a victory. But talks will eventually have to resume if North Korea’s nuclear ambitions are to be negotiated down. If they also help persuade China to rein in North Korea, that would be a double benefit.
Vienna L wrote:
Dec 4th 2010 2:04 GMT
Although I agree with the author on the urgency of solving the problem pose by North Korea, I would, however, argue that persuading China to take action against North Korea is not the only way we can solve the problem. We need to look far beyond that for a long term solution to the problem; To “solve a problem like North Korea”, we need to facilitate its move towards liberal democracy.
First, North Korea can be viewed as a realist state (Doyle, 1997). A realist state views the international system as an anarchy in a constant state of war (Hobbes, 1946, p82). North Korea relies on a self help system of economic and military buildup - the Juche ideology of self-reliance. It takes on aggressive or defensive military actions due to a constant security dilemma (Kanji, 2003): nuclear proliferation, torpedoes attack on naval vessel, waging war, and the most recent one, shelling the Yeonpeyong Island; these were a show of balance of power as well. (Waltz, 1979)
Second, hard power – such as war or threat of war – is ineffective against North Korea (Mearsheimer, 2003). With a liberalist take on the issue, I dare propose that the only long term solution the problem is by facilitating liberal democratization of North Korea through:
1) Empowering the North Koreans people power (Keohane, 1987) especially the Ajummas to rebel against the Kim II-sung government (Shepard,2010)
Although some might argue that a rebellion is highly unlikely in North Korea, many news sources report that that seems to be happening - on a small scale. This is mainly due to Kim Jong Il's roll backs on some of his previously introduced capitalist-style economic reform and the botched currency reform in 2009. This time, however, the people stood up against the regime.
I would like to bring to light the unseen pillars of the North Korean society Ajummas – womens in their 40s and 50s – who are leading the rebellion against the one of the most threatening realist state in the world.
Since 2008, there has been a growing trend of dissents lead by the ajummas. Ajumma account for nearly half of all Korean workers, and far from feminity (characteristics and modes of behaviour associated with being female) characteristics attributed to them:
"The women are tough and defiant, and now they are angry. Markets are turning into places of protest against North Korean leader Kim Jong-il." The women gather to accuse the authorities, defying threats of arrest.
A government attempt to limit the markets in Chongjin had to be rolled back after an unprecedented protest by thousands of women. With the success that these women have had in opposing the government through protests deems that it should be seriously looked upon. The state seems to be overlooking these market traders due to their feminism - delegitimizing factor - (Shepard,2010) for power to lead social movements that can liberalize North Korea which could be of benefit to the international community
2) Promoting liberal democracy ideas through free market (Burchill, 2005)
Even with a self-reliance economy, times are changing in North Korea. Influxes of pirated CDs and DVDs from China and South Korea and beyond caused many North Korean kids now to idolize South Korean movie stars. In a free market, people trade much more than goods, they trade information and ideas; in this case, information of the democratic world beyond them.
3) Strengthening International cooperation (Keohane, 1972)
If 5 powers form a united front, the Six-party talks (between North Korea, South Korea, China, USA, Russia, Japan) can find a peaceful resolution to the nuclear proliferation problem. Unless it wants to risk another famine with over 1 million deaths which will weaken its position in the world, China (57%), South Korea (25%), Russia (3%) combined, accounts for 85% of North Korea import economic needs. North Korea cannot escape from the complex interdependency with these countries. (Keohane, 1977)
4) Augmenting support for the international institutions in North Korea (Keohane, Nye, 1972)
There are currently at least 17 international NGOs and 4 media groups present in North Korea. To solve the problem, we need to support the role of the NGOs and media groups in North Korea of retrieving information from and spreading information of democracy in North Korea.
Revolutions would not happen unless two conditions are satisfied: One, when they are certain that their rebellion has a chance to succeed; Two, when people believe that there are better ways of living; and I believe that people power lead by the Ajummas, spread of free information, international cooperation, and NGOs, will contribute to that two goals. And, we should fully support the process, even if that means interfering with a sovereign because the world's collective peace is more important. I strongly believe that this soft power approach (Nye, 1937) is the least harmful viable solution; I propose that a long term solution for the “North Korea problem” is by liberalizing it.
First, North Korea can be viewed as a realist state (Doyle, 1997). A realist state views the international system as an anarchy in a constant state of war (Hobbes, 1946, p82). North Korea relies on a self help system of economic and military buildup - the Juche ideology of self-reliance. It takes on aggressive or defensive military actions due to a constant security dilemma (Kanji, 2003): nuclear proliferation, torpedoes attack on naval vessel, waging war, and the most recent one, shelling the Yeonpeyong Island; these were a show of balance of power as well. (Waltz, 1979)
Second, hard power – such as war or threat of war – is ineffective against North Korea (Mearsheimer, 2003). With a liberalist take on the issue, I dare propose that the only long term solution the problem is by facilitating liberal democratization of North Korea through:
1) Empowering the North Koreans people power (Keohane, 1987) especially the Ajummas to rebel against the Kim II-sung government (Shepard,2010)
Although some might argue that a rebellion is highly unlikely in North Korea, many news sources report that that seems to be happening - on a small scale. This is mainly due to Kim Jong Il's roll backs on some of his previously introduced capitalist-style economic reform and the botched currency reform in 2009. This time, however, the people stood up against the regime.
I would like to bring to light the unseen pillars of the North Korean society Ajummas – womens in their 40s and 50s – who are leading the rebellion against the one of the most threatening realist state in the world.
Since 2008, there has been a growing trend of dissents lead by the ajummas. Ajumma account for nearly half of all Korean workers, and far from feminity (characteristics and modes of behaviour associated with being female) characteristics attributed to them:
"The women are tough and defiant, and now they are angry. Markets are turning into places of protest against North Korean leader Kim Jong-il." The women gather to accuse the authorities, defying threats of arrest.
A government attempt to limit the markets in Chongjin had to be rolled back after an unprecedented protest by thousands of women. With the success that these women have had in opposing the government through protests deems that it should be seriously looked upon. The state seems to be overlooking these market traders due to their feminism - delegitimizing factor - (Shepard,2010) for power to lead social movements that can liberalize North Korea which could be of benefit to the international community
2) Promoting liberal democracy ideas through free market (Burchill, 2005)
Even with a self-reliance economy, times are changing in North Korea. Influxes of pirated CDs and DVDs from China and South Korea and beyond caused many North Korean kids now to idolize South Korean movie stars. In a free market, people trade much more than goods, they trade information and ideas; in this case, information of the democratic world beyond them.
3) Strengthening International cooperation (Keohane, 1972)
If 5 powers form a united front, the Six-party talks (between North Korea, South Korea, China, USA, Russia, Japan) can find a peaceful resolution to the nuclear proliferation problem. Unless it wants to risk another famine with over 1 million deaths which will weaken its position in the world, China (57%), South Korea (25%), Russia (3%) combined, accounts for 85% of North Korea import economic needs. North Korea cannot escape from the complex interdependency with these countries. (Keohane, 1977)
4) Augmenting support for the international institutions in North Korea (Keohane, Nye, 1972)
There are currently at least 17 international NGOs and 4 media groups present in North Korea. To solve the problem, we need to support the role of the NGOs and media groups in North Korea of retrieving information from and spreading information of democracy in North Korea.
Revolutions would not happen unless two conditions are satisfied: One, when they are certain that their rebellion has a chance to succeed; Two, when people believe that there are better ways of living; and I believe that people power lead by the Ajummas, spread of free information, international cooperation, and NGOs, will contribute to that two goals. And, we should fully support the process, even if that means interfering with a sovereign because the world's collective peace is more important. I strongly believe that this soft power approach (Nye, 1937) is the least harmful viable solution; I propose that a long term solution for the “North Korea problem” is by liberalizing it.
