International Relations - Essay Example

The Great Debate of Realism vs. Idealism: The North Korea Nuclear Problem Since the introduction of International Relations Theory during the World War I era, two conflicting arguments have helped to shape and guide the United States foreign policy. Realists advocated seeing the world as it is; a conglomeration of self-interested states where military might and economic strength produce positive results. In contrast to the realists, the school of idealism advocated a foreign policy based on what the world could become; a cooperative system of member states and an international code based on freedom and order. US foreign policy in the last 100 years has ebbed and waned in and out of realism as a second World War, a Cold War, and a post-Cold War period challenged the State Department for a coherent policy theory. Nuclear capability in the hands of rouge nations has made it even more difficult to define the two theories. The North Korea nuclear problem is a product of the USs dual nature of realism and idealism. Since the Clinton administration, the US government has taken a hard line against the North Korean nuclear capability. The US was not working to persuade North Korea to become democratic or hold free elections. In addition, there have been few credible attempts to bring North Korea out of isolation, with the exception of South Koreas unification policies. The US policy was based on realism that believed the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) was an immediate threat to the peace of the world. Until the time that the December 2006 agreements were reached during unilateral talks, the US was unwilling to offer the DPRK anything more than the threat of pre-emptive military action. Harbour notes that one aspect of realism is that, "…international politics was inherently conflictual power politics, and human reason had to be turned to dealing with that reality" (14). From the aspect of power politics, the US administrations have held a realist line. The same military threat that has contained North Korean ambitions, while viewed as realism, can also been described from the idealist viewpoint. Woodrow Wilson, often viewed as a founding father of idealism, stated that the US wanted, "that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace loving nation" (Harbour 14). The Wilson idealism promoted a safe world for the internationally cooperating states, it did not dictate the elimination or political conversion of hostile nations. From this aspect, the agreements made with the DPRK follow the idealist philosophy by disarming a nation and making the world community safer. But does disarmament promote the idealists philosophy of spreading the political doctrine of democracy? According to Defense Secretary Robert M Gates, the wars in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq have "have brought the possibility of democracy and freedom to tens of millions more who had been oppressed or were suffering". The hope of idealism is that democracy will eventually take root and grow. This is a long-term view of foreign policy that has been necessitated by the post Cold-War era of international cooperation. Yet, along with spreading the philosophy of free market democracy, the intent of idealism is to make the changes through a peaceful means (Pursiainen 4). The threat of a pre-emptive military action does not fit the idealism model, but the long-term idealistic goal of eventual democracy in North Korea is a key component of US foreign policy. Idealism is founded on the belief in international organizations and institutions to forward the cause of world cooperation. In the case of North Korea, the negotiations that led to the 2007 agreement were unilateral between the DPRK and the US. The unilateral approach would be viewed as a realist vehicle for gaining an agreement that was in the USs self-interest. However, it should also be noted that the talks took place as a prelude to the future six-party talks. Feffer states that, "The Japanese call this form of negotiating before the negotiations nemawashi, and it is significant that the United States has finally agreed to approach the talks in the Asian style". From this aspect, the unilateral talks were only a part of a larger international group comprised of the major Asian nations. Realists may see the talks as a unilateral forum, while idealists see the talks as a spirit of international cooperation. One of the major differences between realism and idealism is the degree of expectation that a policy has towards changing a countrys political and social philosophy. Realism contends that "the tendency towards conflict was reinforced and transformed into the organized hell of war by the always dangerous, rulerless, interstate system" (Harbour 14). Idealism would promote the peaceful coexistence of the nation states through a system of world institutions. In regards to the US policy towards the DPRK, the agreement reached in 2007 did not specify a goal of greater involvement in the world. Though the DPRK is a member of the United Nations, it is often condemned for its militaristic actions and human rights abuses. Realism theory would demonstrate that the US has no goal of bringing the DPRK into the world community in any meaningful way. Yet, there are portions of the agreement that hint at the long term goals of idealism. A portion of the agreement made by US negotiators in 2007 states, "The Parties reaffirmed that they will take positive steps to increase mutual trust, and will make joint efforts for lasting peace and stability in Northeast Asia" (Feffer). This is clearly an idealist policy towards fulfilling the long-term goal of international cooperation. However, while the policy may appear to be idealist, there is a realist component that drives the negotiations. The agreement may be no more than a paper charade. Underpinning the public rhetoric and the peaceful progress is a question by the Bush administration of "whether or not we can verify an agreement in a country that doesn’t enjoy the freedoms that our two countries understand and doesn’t have the free press like we have here in America" (Hwang 15). While the wording of the agreement is idealistic, the trepidations of the Bush administration define its meaning through realism. Further definitions of the US policy toward the DPRK and their nuclear capability can be observed in the level and tone of the rhetoric. According to Legro and Moravcsic, "realism is primarily about seeing and telling the hard truth - a conceit common among realists of the 1930s and 1940s" (81). Realism fits Bushs rhetorical style as he refers to North Korea as part of the Evil Axis that is ruled by a tyrannical dictator. This is no more idealist than his realist adversary Kim Jung Il. A true policy based on idealism would reflect the decades long call made by South Korea for re-unification of the Korean peninsula. Any capitalist foreign policy is formed under the belief that trade is at the foundation of international harmony. The idealist view on trade would be that the promotion of free trade introduces the free exchange of ideas. From a realists viewpoint, trade is done to better the economic power of the interested nation. The reason for the US to encourage trade with North Korea would be to develop another market for US products. However, North Korea is not in a position to be of any trade significance in the near future. In addition, the economic investment and incentives that need to be made in North Korea to open up trade will be enormous. However, the agreement called for eventual normalization of relations as well as economic and energy cooperation (Feffer). This is clearly an idealist view of mutual trust between the US and the DPRK. As far as economic development goes, the US gave the DPRK 50,000 tons of heavy heating oil, far short of the economic aid that the DPRK had requested in return for de-nuclearization. While the policy towards North Korea is idealist in nature, the more pragmatic analysis is that it is realism cloaked in a thin veneer of idealism. In conclusion, the US policy towards North Korea and their nuclear ambitions is a mix of idealism and realism. While idealism stresses the importance of international cooperation through institutions, the agreements with North Korea were reached through unilateral talks. Though the agreements, or the rhetoric, does not mention the aspiration to turn the DPRK into a democratic society with the right to vote, several portions of the agreement stress the need to normalize political and trade relations. The rhetoric of the Bush administration has retained the militaristic and pragmatic tone of realism. Most everyone would like to see the idealist view of bringing our political and economic system to the DPRK, but the Bush administration has deep reservations that it will ever be possible. His reservations reflect the reality of North Korea. The US policies towards a nuclear North Korea can be seen as the pragmatics of realism and a hope for idealism. Works Cited Feffer, John. "North Korean Nuclear Agreement: Annotated." Foreign Policy in Focus. 14 Feb. 2007. Institute for Policy Studies. 2 Apr. 2008 . Gates, Robert M. "Remarks as Delivered by Secretary Robert M. Gates." World Forum on the Future of Democracy, Williamsburg, VA. 17 Sep. 2007. 2 Apr. 2008 . Harbour, Frances V. Thinking about International Ethics: Moral Theory and Cases from American Foreign Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999. Hwang, Jihwan. "Realism and U.S. Foreign Policy Toward North Korea." World Affairs 167.1 (2004): 15-29. JSTOR. 2 Apr. 2008. Legro, Jeffrey W., and Andrew Moravcsik. "Faux Realism." Foreign Policy 125 (2001): 80-82. JSTOR. 2 Apr. 2008. Pursiainen, Christer. "International Relations Grand Debates." University of Helsinki, Department of Political Science, Helsinki. 2003. 2 Apr. 2008 . Read More