Paolone 1
Nick Paolone
Professor Manson
POSC 120
December 1st, 2018
Donald Trump VS North Korea
In the 2016 elections, business man and influencer, Donald Trump ran for office. In his presidential campaign, President Trump stated that he would like to resolve some issues that had risen with North Korea and the United States. In the Korean War, North Korea sought for nuclear defense, which showed that North Korea had always been interested in nuclear power and feels as if it is a good defense. Fast-forwarding into 2006, North Korea launched their first missile test in order to show the United States their capability not just as a nation but their military power. North Korea even went as far to say that the nuclear tests were "entirely attributable to United States threats, sanctions and pressure." This was a response by North Korea's ability to communicate and agree with financial policies with the Bush administrative while President Bush served in the office as president. In 2011, Kim Jong Il, the previous leader of North Korea, passed away and gave his son, Kim Jong Un, complete power. With the power his father had given him and worked on, he showed that he wasn't just a threat, but he was a menace. With this authority, he redesigned the North Korea regime by influencing hatred towards the American democracy even more present. From early 2011 to 2016, North Korea kept testing missiles and steadily worked on nuclear weapons, which caused President Obama to respond, but not take direct action because it wasn't seen as a direct threat. Again, in early 2017, the United States received intel about nuclear power and weapons exponentially growing in
Paolone 2
Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea. Although the United States didn't take the nuclear power-seeking country seriously, they were then brought to reality when North Korea proved that their missiles could hit the United States and major cities within its' borders. This threat both scared the US's citizens and the President in office, Donald Trump. Everyone was scared, expecting our president to respond in a direct way but instead, Donald Trump came off to the public as an enabler turning this "nuclear war" into an "intimidation war." On August 8th, 2017, Donald Trump had used the social-media platform Twitter to say that North Korea would be "met with fire and fury" from the United States. President Trump even called Kim Jong Un, "Little Rocket Man" making the relationship of the two men even more advanced. As of 2018, the two states are now at peace. On June 12th, in Singapore, President Trump and Kim Jong Un met and North Korea agreed about the denuclearization of their own state. Kim Jong Un, the one who was trying to use nuclear weapons towards the United States, said after signing the agreement that "We had a historic meeting and decided to leave the past behind." Through this analysis, different international relation theoretical perspectives will be applied to the conflicts that the two states faced with nuclear power which will help show how they ultimately came to the conclusion of the denuclearization of North Korea and caused peace.
There are many different theories that one can apply to this conflict and the conflicts of the two states. The first one we will look at is Liberalism. Liberalism is described by Scott Burchill, a political scientist, best as "Liberalism, pluralism, or Liberal Intuitionalism is set on the idea that actors in the international system could reach a 'peaceful world order' (Burchill, 2005), and not the one of violence and insecurity that realists argue."2 What Burchill means by this is that peace can be obtained without war or even violence. Many people have this idea that
Paolone 3
peace comes from war, but it doesn't have to be like that. Liberalism also argues for a checks and balance system. With a checks and balance system in place, nobody can have true authority for another. Liberalism also does not believe in a government where we have a single ruler or an authoritarian figure in place. The whole theory about liberalism is about benefiting an individual's life. With that, comes the idea of maintaining one's freedom and self-democracy. If one was placed in a government system where an authoritarian ruled over its people, liberalists would argue that there is no system to maintain one's freedom. Liberalists also believe in the Democratic Peace Theory. The Democratic Peace Theory argues that it is not in any democratic state's interest to go to war, but it is more likely for Democratic states to get involved in war-like situations with non-democratic states (Meiser).
While using Liberalism to analyze the situation between North Korea and the United States, there is pure evidence supporting that Liberalism is present. While President Trump and Kim Jong Un did threaten each other, no blood was shed, or any violence were used. While discussing the two states, they both are extremely different and unique. The United States is a democracy, composed of a leader who has many comities which uses a system of checks and balances that prevents any branch of the government to have too much power, or any authority over another. North Korea, on the other hand, is the opposite. North Korea is a dictatorship with Kim Jong Un leading his people. His people view him almost as a "God" and that he has never done any wrong. His people are forced to believe this and practice this ideology or else they will face consequences, such as forced into labor camps or even death. This is the opposite in the United States where the citizens have freedom to do/say whatever one's heart desires. Based off the Liberalism theory, everyone in the United States is able to have and keep their individual
Paolone 4
freedom which creates self-benefit. The Democratic Peace Theory is true in this by nobody declaring war or setting the exposition for war. As stated in the previous paragraph, a democratic state is more likely to engage in conflict with a non-democratic state. This explains why the conflict started in the first place, the United States wanted to expand and influence democracy onto other states and North Korea disagrees with democracy which leads to the conflict arising. Lastly, Hoffman explains why the two states held peace through the process. "International affairs have been the nemesis of Liberalism. The essence of Liberalism is self-restraint, moderation, compromise and peace. The essence of international politics is exactly the opposite: troubled peace, at best, or the state of war" (Hoffman 1987: 396)1. What Hoffman is saying is a very important factor. While these threats and nuclear testing were in place, none of the states sent nuclear bombs or military to each other's states. This shows how the states are acting in a mature manner, according to the liberalist view. Both sides are holding moderation and self-restraint by not declaring war or sending violence their way, but instead they used words which ended up being the only "violence" used. Overall, while using Liberalism, the two states in the end ended up meeting up and using peace to diffuse the conflicts and are now leaving the past behind. Although the two states are very different, liberalism helps set a new view on why the two states engaged in conflict in the first place.
The next theory we will be discussing is Realism. Realism is known as the opposite of Liberalism, but it is really more than just that. Rather than Liberalism, Realism is focused more on seeking power through authority. For an example, a state can view Realism through military, money or even land. A political scientist named John Mearsheimer describes realism as "For realists, international politics is synonymous with power politics."4 Power politics is all about
Paolone 5
gaining anything that measures power. A noteworthy realist named John Herz describes realism as survival (Herz). What he means by this is we have to do what is right in order to live. This ties into the security dilemma. The security dilemma is when a state has to bring up their military or power to defend itself if need be or be on the offense by sending troops. This is very expensive and very risky. You can take each approach, defense or offense and it will still be very costly both in economic resources and in lives. "Institutionalists share many of Realism's assumptions about the international system that is anarchic, that states are self-interested, rational actors seeking to survive while increasing their material conditions, and that uncertainty pervades relations between countries. However, Institutionalism relies on microeconomic theory and game theory to reach a radically different conclusion that cooperation between nations is possible."6 This means that states, and humans, act for themselves, and try to get the best for themselves and could open up to working with other states, if it benefits them in the long-run. Game theory can also help to find out the best options in a given situation. As stated by ___, materials and economic needs help drive humans and states. Realism ties in more self-needs and benefits.
Bringing back the United States and North Korea, we can see realism in a few events. The first one we will analyze is the showing-off of nuclear power. Kim Jong Un has made claims saying how many nuclear warheads they had and how far they would go. Although these claims could be accurate, they could also be false. By Kim Jong Un using this technique, he is using a game theory called chicken. Chicken can be used to intimidate other states and other civilizations by saying things that aren't true which could lead to a brinkmanship if the accusations are believable. On the other hand, President Trump posted a tweet on Twitter to scare off North Korea by using a realist approach. President Trump said that North Korea "has been very
Paolone 5
threatening beyond a normal state, and as I said, they will be met with fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before."3 This is an intimidation factor using realism. He is valuing the United States military and their nuclear power. In the end, we see both states being realists. For the United States, it's not worth the money, materials and time to go to war with North Korea. On the other hand, North Korea doesn't have enough money to go to war. Both states rationally decided that it would be best if they dissolved the situation and created peace. By doing this, they don't have to exert, or waste, materials on each other but instead solve peace and avoid the costs.
Overall, both North Korea and the United States acted in both Liberal and Realist ways. Liberalism is how through the United States wants to create world democracy and ultimately create peace without having to get engaged in a costly war. North Korea doesn't explicitly show liberalist ideas, they have a dictatorship and they are using threatening tactics, such as almost hitting Guam with a warhead. This, to the public eye, does not show liberalism but instead realism. North Korea Acted in a more realist way, showing off their state's nationalist pride, their nuclear power and their ability to run a dictatorship while the United States showed realism by flaunting their wealth and their military. The only way North Korea could act fully realist is if they had more materials and economic growth, which, at the time, they lacked. Both states used a synthesis of liberalism and realism to make the decisions they did but in the end of the day, they were rationalists and decided that war or conflict I not worth it which lead Kim Jong Un to denuclearize their state which gives wipes away all their power.