North Korea history - Research Paper Example

Research paper Introduction: historical overview North Korea has been intent on pursuing an independent line of action with regardto its approach to foreign policy in general and nuclear weapons in particular. This maverick policy stance has not only upset the world community at large but also brought a number of historical issues to the fore including those related to the partition of the Korean peninsula and the evolutionary process of relations between South Korea and North Korea on the one hand and North Korea and the rest of the world on the other. Korea was a single entity before 1945 the year in which Japan was defeated and the Soviet Union occupied the north of the 38th parallel and the US occupied the south of the 38th parallel (Hannings, 2007). Thus even to this day this historical legacy has not been shed and after all there aren’t Soviet troops in North Korea now. The subsequent developments are just history with each side not responding to the repeated calls by the United Nations to reunify. Analysis “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warns North Korea may be put back on terrorist state list” (7th June, 2009www.nydailynews.com). After 64 years still the problem persists though in a different guise. South Korea’s rapid economic development has catapulted the country into one of the most industrialized nations in the modern world while North Korea under communist influence of the former Soviet Union and China hasn’t progressed much. This outcome has produced a number of complex and diverse dilemmas for the countries, their leaders and citizens. Above remarks by Mrs. Clinton, the Secretary of State, refer to North Korea’s persistent efforts at developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems disregarding the calls by the international community not to do so. Tensions between the two nations have been on the rise and right now there is the possibility of even a war if one side takes a rash decision to hit back. Her remarks about putting North Korea back on the list of “terrorist states” have acquired a new dimension against the backdrop of recent development in the peninsula. In the first place these remarks have such far reaching implications for both the region in particular and the world in general. Assuming a negative response, as usual, from North Korea under its reclusive despotic leader Kim Jong-Il, there would be much less of a chance to get him over to agree to measures that would ultimately reduce tensions in the region. North Korea in fact tested more atomic bombs and missiles just a few days ago. Such defiant acts of bravado in the face of threats of economic sanctions by the rest of the world have been all too familiar now. Next the implication that has attracted the attention of many, right now is the possibility of an all out war between the two countries. Despite repeated calls for restraint on either side by the world community, there are right now some very disturbing signs of a possible war. Indeed a war might not be imminent but saber-rattling behavior of North Korea cannot be ignored as mere bellicosity or belligerence (Edwards, 2006). Such behavior can soon be translated into destructive plans to build weapon systems of mass destruction and delivery means. Already according to independent sources North Korea has the capability to hit even some parts of America. Its long range missile capability is undoubtedly strong enough though its dependability is questionable. In other words though North Korea has long range missiles their accuracy in hitting a target is doubtful. Further South Korea hasn’t been sure of its response in the event of an invasion across the 38th parallel. Those American troops stationed in South Korea have much less freedom to respond to such an invasion. Though North Korea is more likely to continue with this type of war rhetoric for a few more months to come because its current economic situation doesn’t allow it to go to war, there is the possibility of carrying out incursions into South Korea at selected points on the 38th parallel. Its recent high-handed actions show that the political leadership is much less inclined to accept any peace overtures from the UN or US-led coalitions. In fact, UN sanctions have hurt the country too much but nevertheless it continues to practice the same political philosophy of defiance and arrogance. Mrs. Clinton’s reference to the interdiction and inspection of ships bound for and from North Korea has been interpreted by its leadership as a tentative declaration of war on North Korea. Assuming that such internationally coordinated efforts take place with the US and South Korea participating in, there would be more tit-for-tat actions by North Korea. Thus the consequences of placing North Korea on the list of terrorist statues again by the Obama Administration aren’t going to hurt Pyongyang much. The opposite might be true if North Korea happens to respond with more nuclear and missile tests. There have been other implications of this recent development as well. For instance the sentencing of two US journalists by Pyongyang to labor in prison just two days ago shows how desperate the political leadership there is. Irrespective of these developments the North Korean leadership has been more or less banking its hopes on a probable neutral policy being adopted by Russia and China when it comes to the worse at the UN Security Council. When two permanent members on the UN Security Council hesitate to take tough action against North Korea, there is very little chance of successfully punishing it or even pushing it to negotiate with South Korea. Seoul has done very little by way of exerting pressure on the North so far because the former is wary of its big neighbor, i.e. China. China has done much less to stop the recalcitrant North Korea in its quest for atomic weapons and advanced missile technology. This outcome has produced many a dilemma for the participants in negotiations. Economic sanctions partially forced the North Korean leader to relent at one stage though. His coming round since then is primarily attributed to an otherwise difficult-to-understand scenario so peculiar to the region. For example North Korea is playing on the regional sentiments. Japan is not a particularly friendly country with the South. Similarly many others in the region remain neutral over the issue. However, many political analysts have posed the question “How would a badly hurt North Korea react to the new economic sanctions?” The very raison d’être behind this line of argument depends on the current status quo between the North and the South (Thompson, 2009). In the first place South Korea is not going to stop North Korea if the latter is going to develop more and more weapons. Secondly, North Korea doesn’t care about what the South has to say about its present line of actions which it interprets as perfectly in agreement with international norms because it’s a sovereign and independent nation. Finally North Korea has very little regard for what the international community has to say about its conduct. Some analysts even ask the question “Has history begun to repeat itself in the Korean peninsula?” Indeed historical perspectives come into the play so much. The lines of separation were permanently drawn after the brief war between the two countries in 1953. This historical even now lingers on in many a form. For example after almost more than 6 decades tow countries began to allow their citizens to visit their kith and kin in each country. However it was short lived and after a few visits the process came to a standstill. Similarly, North Korea has been under communist influence and hasn’t been amenable to a peaceful solution as happened in Germany. It’s even more historically pertinent to ask the question “Will North Korea in the absence of support from Russia and probably China too, go it all along to avenge what it calls “Historical injustices foisted on it by the South at the bequest of the West led by the successive US Administrations?” The question in fact begs the answer. After all historical injustices that North Korea talks about didn’t take place. Resource-rich South prospered without much help from the outside world because its economic policies were in conformance with the contemporary trends. On the other hand the North did not do anything that could be described as economically sensible or far-sighted. Conclusion Mrs. Clinton’s remarks about placing North Korea on the list of “terrorist states” have very little impact on its leadership. As for the US-North Korea relations such remarks would not in all probability hurt the on-going on-and-off trilateral talks – North Korea, China and the US. As for multilateral efforts including South Korea, Japan, Russia and the EU there is very little positive response coming from Pyongyang. However when these remarks and the current developments are studied with reference to historical perspectives of the Korean peninsula, there seems to be an undeniable link between the belligerent mood in Pyongyang and the response of the rest of the world minus China and Russia. But nevertheless this writer would not make an effort to generalize on the issue of a historical parallel though. Social and economic developments in North Korea have been less favorable for the leadership to come round to understanding the peace overtures of the international community. Finally Mrs. Clinton’s remarks have been received by South Korea as another attempt at isolating the reclusive communist state rather than forcing it to accept international concerns over its wayward behavior. Such isolation is more likely to hurt the current efforts to bring North Korea into the international orbit of negotiations that have been taking place for quite a long time now (Corera, 2006). North Korea is resorting to this type of knee-jerk response – testing missiles and atomic bombs - to international pressure over its conduct because it knows that democratic regimes in the West and America are subject to change at elections every now and then. But its regime continues to rule. REFERENCES 1. Corera, G. Shopping for bombs: nuclear proliferation, global insecurity, and the rise and fall of the A.Q. Khan network. New York: Oxford University Press US, 2006. 2. Edwards, P. M. The Korean War, Abingdon, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. 3. Hannings, B. The Korean War: An Exhaustive Chronology. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, 2007. 4. Saul, Michael. “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warns North Korea may be put back on terrorist state list “, New York Daily News, 7th June 2009, New York. 5. Thompson, M. Could North Korea Provoke a New Korean War? 10th Jun 2009, Washington. Bud Hannings (Author) › Visit Amazons Bud Hannings Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central Read More