American Realism and the Denuclearization of the North Korean State by Zachary Henry

             As of late, North Korea has been stirring up problems in the world political sphere. They have been a thorn in the side of almost everyone, and they do not abide by the rules and norms of international politics. Many of these problems have occurred in nuclear threats that have been pointed toward the U.S., and others surrounding the peninsula. America has responded in a certain means of foreign policy under the Trump administration. The United States practices realist policies toward the North Korean state during the Trump administration.

            The relationship of power and how it is perceived in this relationship between these two states is pivotal in dictating the Realist politics each state will employ. Recently under the Trump administration, the United States has taken a very staunch, non-negotiable stance with North Korea and its nuclear weapons program. The United States will only accept negotiable terms on the denuclearization of the North Korean state, almost disregarding the U.S. image that is being sent to some of the other larger powers in the area, China and Russia. This steadfast stance also exhibits the current administration’s policy of non-negotiation. This stance is a very realist stance because it resembles a sense of trying to display dominance over another state. The two sides place a very heavy emphasis upon military power and might. Most realists would agree that such military dominance is necessary when dealing with this other state. The U.S. has been moving troops and military supplies closer to the surrounding waters of the Korean peninsula as a show of might and strategic importance. Not only have the United States been moving assets, joint-military drills continue to happen between the U.S. and its allies near the area like Japan and South Korea. This strategic localization of military might and resources along with publicized drills portray clear realist policies, especially those that emphasis the importance of the military. The same focus is exerted on the economic sanctions that U.S. wants to impose onto the North Koreans for becoming a nuclear state. These sanctions are very resource based, and strategically done to hurt and effect the North Korean’s ability to continue operating in stable way. These sanctions are used as a way for the U.S. to increase its relative power, along with undermining the power of the North Korean military due to its lack of resources.

            The current U.S. policies in this situation have also reflected a sense of urgency involving the state’s security. Ensuring the security of your state is a very realist outlook on politics. This survival instinct is a very prevalent theme to the state of affairs. The administration sees the North Korean nuclear program as a threat to the survival of the U.S. and its culturally democratic ways. This is a clear example of the security dilemma, where one state’s security is another state’s insecurity. The security of the North Korean regime to have military power and a heard voice on the global stage is the insecurity of the U.S. for fear of being attacked. This security is tied together with a national interest to prevent things from escalating to actual attacks and to reduce North Korea’s power. The intent of enforcing a National Interest abroad is a very realist point of view, even more so when it is tied to the idea of security for a state.

            The United States and the current policies it practices when pertaining to the North Korea Situation display a very solid from of realism. A focus on direct power of military and resources combined with the importance of ensuring the security of the state are classic realist beliefs. The realist methods there are used to try to create these two things are employed heavily by the United States under the Trump administration.

Coercion Theory

Coercion Theory

According to the political realism, politics is governed by the objective laws that their roots in human nature. This political objective and the interest defined in terms of power have failed to cooperate and build the state of nature among states of the world. By the state of human nature, I meant self-interested, and the desired to gain power, and by the state of nature, I meant the equality, where no states have the authority to rule over other states (Hobbes and Locke). Morgenthau said, “The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power” (8). We have seen that coercion is the central part of policy making for both domestically and internationally. So in this paper, I will incorporate my points to discussing the consequences from coercion in the contemporary world.

We could ask ourselves if it is rational that one state gain authority to forcibly rule the other state or we could question why the world is fragile and fragmented. My answer no, it is not rational. The world is so fragile and fragmented is not just because we hate each other, or because we discriminate each other. But, importantly is because we want to have control over another. Coercion is straight and plain a process of realism theory rather than a Liberalism theory. Where it mainly focused sought power than to create a rational institution.  Firstly, the superpower states like USA, Russia, China and others have more power to influence the international law than the other developing states in the world. These superpower states can forcibly intervene or stop the other states from any action if they see that the action is not necessary or it jeopardizes the other states.  Their power is seen rational and sometimes is seen to be irrational. In few cases is seen as a mass destruction and a violation of human rights. For instance, the invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003 would be considered as a mass destruction over the Iraqi territories and the peaceful living of the people in the State. The US invaded Iraq with a consent to remove an abusive dictator Saddam Hussein and his Baathist party for violating human rights. At the same time, the US disbanded the Iraqi military who is involved under Hussein’s regimes. Ironically, the De-Baathification seems to fit into an umbrella of interest as defined in terms of power. The invasion is seen as a very complicated environment to understand, and it caused chaos all around the world. The complexity of the invasion comes to a point where we don’t know who has control over the Iraqi territories. Iraq had fragmented, and the rules of laws are under the hands of both the government and the terrorist organization (like ISIS). The invasion of Iraq has tremendously affected the living conditions of the Iraqis around the states. It has become a serious problem and an uncontrollable situation until many Iraqis fled their homes and searched refuge in other states of the world. While the government disbanded the Iraqi military and caused chaos over the Iraqi territories, the terrorist organization likes ISIS takes chances to recruit the unemployed military and fight against the government. The fight was inhumane, in which the ISIS persecute people with no mercy regardless of their nationality and religion. By the end of the day, we realized that the invasion of Iraq by the US is not just about protecting human rights. But, it is all about the interests as defined in terms of power. 

The Far-Reaching Historical Aspects of International Relations

International Relations is a field of academic study that strives to analyze and understand relations between multiple actors, whether they be independent countries, international organizations, or other non-state actors.  Though it may seem that states were highly independent and adopted isolationist foreign policy in early world history, international relations shows how this was not actually the case.  Historically there have been relations between different actors since the rise of early Empires, and there has never been a time in history when a sovereign country could truly isolate themselves from global politics. 

After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe began to splinter and was propelled into the Middle Ages.  This time period is often overlooked because it did not generate significant advances in areas that were deemed important: academia, technology, or the arts.  However, Medieval Europe did give rise to the feudal system, an encompassing method of organizing society.  This system stressed the importance of ties, and everyone regardless of social status was bound together in a web of personal and monetary connections.  When asked to identify critical points in global relations, Medieval Europe would probably not be high on most people’s lists.  However, the system of commitments and alliances developed between 500 - 1500 CE paved the way for the development of the modern state.  The Treaty of Westphalia specifically embraced the sovereignty of different territories, meaning that states could determine their own policies, laws, and religions.  A group of core European states were now free gain power and influence which would in turn shape international relations around the world for centuries to come.  

I am taking the History of US Foreign Relations this semester in addition to International Politics, and I found it surprising to see that the United States, a country which was perceived as an isolationist nation until the First World War, had in fact been entangled in global affairs since before the Revolutionary War.  In this class we have begun to explore exactly how the United States was involved internationally during this perceived time of isolationism and what early international relations looked like during this period.  Without support from abroad there is a strong chance America would not have gained independence during the Revolutionary War, and the relationships developed during this time paved the way for expansion westward and abroad.  Again, if asked to name critical points in international relations the early decades of United States history wouldn't typically make the cut, however these years were critical in determining how America would develop and the country’s future attitudes towards international intervention.  

Before the United States achieved independence it had been governed by Great Britain, one of the core European states that gained influence after the Middle Ages passed.  The American Founding Fathers felt that this new sovereign country needed an alternate form of government that would not mimic the governments of Europe, which had clear ties to the feudal system the European continent was ruled by centuries before.  The feudal system had lasting impacts on government in the states created from the Treaty of Westphalia and other countries who were influenced by the governments of their established neighbors.  This structure of governance created a class system where the elite ruled over common people, often without giving the lower classes representation or a voice.  American leaders were not pleased with this arrangement, and split from the British state as a result.  Because so many European monarchs abused their power and trampled the rights of their subjects, developing nations looked to America as an example of revolution they could adopt.  The feudal system of Medieval Europe paved the way for the creation of the modern state and aided the progression of western democracy as an alternative to all-powerful monarchs.  

Overall it is clear to see that the historical foundations of international relations reach farther back than most people would assume, and these aspects of early history paved the way for many of the institutions we have today.  There are many points in history that do not get deserved credit for shaping international relations, two of which are the Middle Ages of Europe and the early decades of the United States.  After examining these examples there is no doubt that any country has been or ever can be truly removed from global affairs, regardless of what popular opinion might suggest.

A Need For Women in Politics

“For me, a better democracy is a democracy where women do not only have the right to vote and elect but to be elected.”

- Michelle  Bachelet

   Head of UN Women

Only recently have women become frequenters of politics, and even now, collectively, they do not hold nearly as many governmental positions as men. Based on data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2016, less than 25% of governmental positions are held by women (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Therefore, with over 75% of governmental positions held by men, the political world is overwhelmingly dominated by males and it has existed in this manner since the times of ancient Greek politics in which women were forbidden to even utter their political views. With male dominance in the political world dating back to the very birth of modern politics, it is quite arguable that many political concepts and ideals are formed in a manner that is more relative to male thought. Thus, excluding influential female perspectives from much of politics and leaving many women feeling as though they do not or cannot belong in the political world. This concept of feminism in politics is discussed in J. Ann Tickner’s article, A Critique of Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism, in which she argues this very notion that politics is mainly viewed as “masculine” because it is mainly men who have shaped political theories. Therefore, if more women were to take on political roles, the world of politics would be more “neutral” rather than strictly “masculine” or “feminine.”

Women tend to have a strong sense of ‘other’, in which they seek to empower each other and other people in general. Whereas, males are often very competitive in terms of power and they are frequently associated with dominance. Within the seventh century feudal system of the Germanic Kingdoms, women were forbidden to exercise politico-military power and were confined to the roles of nurturers and caregivers for their men and their children. According to “The Nation-State and Global Order” by Opello and Rosow, these were known as “feminine and domestic occupations” (Otello, Rosow). Furthermore, so-called ‘masculine occupations’ tend to carry characteristics of force and dominance (usually in physical terms). Though power and dominance are important aspects of politics, they should not necessarily mean harsh force, but rather “empowerment.” As Tickner puts it, “Power as collective domination and control privileges masculinity and ignores the possibility of collective empowerment, another aspect of power often associated with femininity” (Tickner). Many masculine political views believe that national interest has to do with power alone, while feminists believe in multiple national interests. With a feminine perspective like this, national and international conflict might be decreased while bringing about a stronger sense of commonality. In other words, if all national interests are communicated and understood (rather than solely the interest of power), the world might be a more peaceful place to live.

Overall, it is quite evident that both the past and current political world has been strongly influenced by men with not nearly as much feminine impact. The reason for this might very well be a result of sustained masculine political thought throughout the history of politics, making women feel as though they do not belong in the political field. However, feminine thought is very much needed in the political world in order for political ideals to represent a balance of perspectives.

Liz- First Blogpost Feminist Theory

Picture a room of congressmen deliberating on a whether or not to pass a bill. Did you visualize any women in the room? If not, don’t worry. Your visualization of men in a political situation is normal considering a majority of politicians are male. Most, if not all leaders in politics have been male since the ancient world. If the world of politics opened itself up to more female leaders in conjunction with feminist theory, a greater state of peace would arise in politics.

After attending the Women’s March On Washington this past January, I saw first hand how strong of an impact female leadership has. A team of successful women came together to create the Women’s March Campaign shortly after President Trump’s elect. The march exemplified major principles of feminist theory such as living in equilibrium and avoiding anarchy. Their intense and strategic planning lead to the largest peaceful protest in history. Over 600,000 people in Washington D.C. alone collectively took a stand for their political, social, and moral beliefs. Although march goers were outraged by the results of the election and the possibility of human rights being taken away, there was not one act of violence. People brought clever signs, campaigned for specific organizations and spoke out about current liberties at stake. They used their energy in a positive and productive way. The lack of violence proves using principles of feminist theory is advantageous.

Feminist theory’s holistic view regarding politics cultivates a creative, free and uplifting environment for ideas and change to flourish. The idea of collective empowerment was executed domestically and internationally. Washington D.C. was not the only place with numerous supporters. There were 600 sister marches with a grand total of 2.6 million marchers across the world. These numbers are ground breaking. They showcase the importance of and need for feminist theory in politics. Feminist theory allows for both women and men to advocate for their rights in the most organized and productive way possible. Moreover, feminist theory allows for this in a peaceful way.

The next step in accomplishing peace is for society is to accept and embrace feminist theory. It is not to say all other standards of politics need to be thrown out the window, but it is necessary for feminist theory to be considered seriously by politicians with constructivist, liberal, and realist viewpoints. In combining their theories with feminist theory more balance and peace in the political sphere will be achieved.

Introduction

Welcome to our International Politics blog where we will be discussing various issues concerning the study of world politics!