Shades of gray? Challenging the realist view of North Korea
Neoconservative and simplistic approaches to the DPRK haven't worked
The world is a devilishly complicated place. Because of the growing connectivity of the world through technological and sociological changes, decisions both large and small are having previously unexperienced and now unintended consequences.
One of the most interesting examples of the world’s complexity is the Korean peninsula.
The nuclear developments of the North will not have escaped the attention of even a casual observer, while in the South the decision to deploy the THAAD missile-defense system at the Lotte-owned Seongju Country Club is drawing mixed domestic reactions – most notably from the Won-Buddhist community of the region.
Decisions concerning the future of the country and, more importantly, its people, requires an understanding of a large number of factors: the military, domestic politics, business relationships, religious organizations and theological perspectives, cultural heritage, and international foreign policy.
Balancing these is a difficult task – some might say impossible – but that is the task faced by the respective decision makers both at home and abroad. To approach this conundrum with some degree of success, it is common for people to adopt a lens or theory to provide stability and make some sense of the situation.
KEEP IT REAL
Realism has been, arguably, the most commonly applied lens and the dominant theory in political thought. It has had a long and war-torn history, with many different advocates and champions over the course of its existence: shaped by Machiavelli, modernized by Morgenthau, and made offensive by Mearsheimer.
Liberalism has often tried to counter this realist view of the world by espousing and advocating cooperation. While its supporters are often persuasive and noble in their quest for a world based on multilateralism, their arguments are often shot down vociferously by realist opponents. This refusal to see through the lens of any other than their own was none more evident than in a recent NK News pieceby John Lee.
While bemoaning the past, present, and continuing alleged failures of South Korea’s Sunshine Policy, he launched barbed attacks on the liberals of Korean politics, singling out both individuals past and present and parties as a whole. He said their championing of peace was “pure drivel whose sole purpose is to fuel political slacktivism.”
It seems strange that we should still dogmatically and stubbornly cling to a realist perception of events and smother the whole world in our ‘one-size-fits all’ theory.
Worse was still yet to come: “…being the idiots that they are, South Korean progressives happily obliged…” when dealing with the North. This attitude, he argued, will lead ultimately to the people in the South becoming ‘servile peasants.’
LACKING NUANCE
Without wanting to dwell too much on the unsuitability of such language, let us always seek to remind ourselves of the complexity of the world – because when we keep that in mind, we are less likely to make such sweeping and broad generalizations like Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee’s traducing of a whole political perspective on the Korean situation, as well as his denial of others’ views, would appear to be a consequence of his need to protect or affirm his views. After all, we reject the opinions of others when we believe the claims of our own are not acknowledged in them.
In a multi-faceted world, in which each state plays its part, it seems strange that we should still dogmatically and stubbornly cling to a realist perception of events and smother the whole world in our ‘one-size-fits-all’ theory. It is for that reason that I believe more emphasis needs to be placed on a constructivist view of the peninsula, a view that focuses on what states and actors ‘do’ rather than what they ‘are.’
In focusing on what states ‘are’ – a lens commonly adopted by realists – we often find ourselves facing an inextricable knot that we cannot untie. One that often prevails around this subject matter and that was so evident in Mr. Lee’s piece was this: the South (particularly the conservative and traditional elements) are democratic and peace-loving; the North are fascist and war-hungry. This was never more clear than when he opened his article with the claim that “every single military provocation that occurred since the Korean War had been initiated by North Korea.”
…more emphasis needs to be placed on a constructivist view of the peninsula, a view that focuses on what states and actors ‘do’ rather than what they ‘are’
Do we still really inhabit a world in which certain social commentators and journalists, people that shape the collective understanding of nations’ identities, see the world as being so dichotomous? As a classic battle between good and evil and one in which all of ‘our’ actions are justified while conversely those of our opponents are vilified and capable of achieving nothing of any value?
We must understand that regimes cannot change identities if these qualities are taken as a given or an indubitable truth. That is where, I believe, that we make our errors: the identities are not absolute, they are socially-constructed and a product of our collective consciousness.
NOTHING IS SIMPLE
The image we possess of North Korea (as well as South Korea and beyond, for that matter) is not an undeniable truth – it is something that we have created. And, problematically, it is something defined by who we believe they ‘are’ rather than what they ‘do.’ Ultimately, the identity and nature of both the foreign policies of these two states and the inclinations of the domestic South Korean parties are dependent variables and subject to change.
This notion of plural concepts begins to steer us away from the tired and stale dual-option paradigm – in which one was either merely for or against – and into a more modern and accurate universe of multiplicity. The ability, therefore, to not only comprehend but also to acknowledge the whole multitude of perspectives on the Korean situation is not only of the most vital importance, but it also reflects the intricate and labyrinthine nature of the subject matter itself.
…the identity and nature of both the foreign policies of these two states and the inclinations of the domestic South Korean parties are dependent variables and subject to change
The two states separated at the 38th parallel by one of the world’s most militarized borders still do not recognize each other in legal terms. They spend untold millions on observing, analyzing and staring at each other through windows – and some even make the perilous and daunting journey from one side to the other.
Despite this, they construct bureaucratic structures and legal language that disavow the presence of the other and perceive of themselves, in their minds, as the only true Korea. This was further demonstrated by the South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se who this month called for the removal of North Korea’s United Nations membership status.
BREAKING BARRIERS
These instances should help reflect the first challenges of constructivism. There should be an effort to construct socially-held images and identities of the actors (both domestic and international, individual and state) that better reflect the ever-changing and increasingly complex nature of the situation.
We should be rethinking and reshaping our lenses so that we can see the world in the light of modern developments and beyond the traditional Cold War motifs.
As military tensions increase with every passing month and more and more money pours into hardware and technology, let us balance that as best we can with true and accurate reflections of reality.
Peace is not merely an absence of war. Let us remember the words of a true libertarian, Baruch Spinoza: it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, and justice.
Featured Image: Facing North Korea by louisbavent on 2015-08-08 15:11:18
