In today’s society there are numerous threats to global security. The refugee crises around the world, terrorism, and artificial intelligence all pose significant threats that governments are trying to combat every day. However, one threat to the United States and the world in general, is the current socialist state of North Korea. Their leader Kim Jong-un, and his predecessors, have had a long history of not cooperating with the United States and the international community.
North Korea poses a threat because of their growing nuclear arsenal and their unwillingness to compromise with international laws and standards. Kim Jong-un is a dictator who has no regard for the lives of his people and has proven that he will do anything to stay in power. Examining North Korea with a realist point of view would result in dramatic changes to how the world is combating them now.
If the United States practiced realism there would be major policy differences for how we negotiate with North Korea. Realism is a theory that has many successes and some pitfalls, regardless, realism has been dated to have arisen after the second world war which makes it one of the “oldest” theories (Walt, 2010). Since the political theory of realism has been around for decades there should be some accreditation in the conversation when people are discussing its tactics because it has been tried and has remained significant.
127 our experts are availableright now
In order to dive into realism and fully understand how a realist would act based on the current tensions with North Korea, the world view through a realists eyes needs to be examined. Several parts of realism that are vital to understand are the main beliefs, the threats, their image of the world, and the means a realist would take in order to stop a potential threat. For a realist, the main belief that sets realism apart from many other political theories is the principle that, “security of the state” is the most important thing (Walt, 2010). This emphasis on state security is the reason that if the United States took a more realist approach in international relations, history would look very different.
The response of a realist during both of the World Wars would have been different and there is a chance the Civil War might have ended differently or might not even happened at all. This is because with state security as the main goal, a realist government would only choose to intervene if the safety of the state was at risk which could have resulted in different outcomes for all of those conflicts. In a realist point of view, “the insecurity of states” is considered to be the main threat (Walt, 2010). This threat is large and overarching and can leave a lot of realists in a constant state of worry because of the insecurity that is common around the world. The image of the world that is common for most realists is very “state centric” and keeps “sovereignty above all else” (Walt, 2010).
This image of the world plays directly in part with the way a realist would handle international relations and world conflict. That being said, realists would not believe in international organizations or a large governing body over the world because realists do not trust anyone and they believe that the state should be incharge of helping themselves and should practice “self-help” (Walt, 2010). This idea of “self-help” is a core belief for realists and is why many issues that the United States has been involved in in the past would be very different (Walt, 2010). For example, in World War II the realist may have only engaged in war with Japan for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but would have left the rest of the world to handle their own business.
A realist would have only engaged in war in order to combat state insecurity if it posed a threat to the state itself, allies would not play a part in this decision, because a realist state would not have many allies if any at all (Walt, 2010). Lastly, in order to grasp realism, the means of escaping a threat is important. A realist would believe in a strong military power and arms racing (Walt, 2010). A realist state would not have allies and would always be more involved in keeping the state secure. During the Cold War president Reagan had a very realist point of view to combat the Soviet Union. This in turn, worked and led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Discussing the current security topic of North Korea with a realist view from the United States point of view is very different from the current approach. A realist would think of North Korea as a large threat because of their unpredictability. This is because Kim Jong-un wants nothing more than to stay in power. No one knows what North Korea is doing or what their plans for the future are. This would give a realist a large amount of stress because of the uncertainty of security of the state the realist is coming from.
The United States with a realist view would take action on North Korea and try and tople the current regime. This is because the current leader Kim Jong-un has continued to express the want to grow their nuclear arsenal without regard to international laws and treaties. Another potential threat is the nuclear capabilities and tests that continue to grow in numbers even after negotiations to stop. In 2014 and 2015 North Korea had just over 20 nuclear tests per year. This jumped again in 2016 and 2017 when the nuclear tests grew to almost 30 tests per year.
This all was taking place while North Korea was leading on the United States and the international community saying that they were going to halt all of their nuclear tests. Another way North Korea is unpredictable is the fact that because Kim Jong-un will do anything to stay in power, including starving his people, he could also potentially share nuclear technology with other countries who the United States does not want to have it. All of this in a realist mindset is dangerous. North Korea is a direct threat of the state security of the United States and other countries because of their anarchic unpredictability and the growing nuclear arsenal.
Realism is a problem solving theory because it is a very reactive theory. If there is a threat a realist will act upon it in order to ensure state security. This can be seen as a downfall to realism because in cases such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, a realist in charge could have ended very badly with World War three starting. Some of the main things a realist would focus on in the North Korea problem would be the growing nuclear arsenal. One other pitfall of realism is the disregard for domestic security and human rights. Whereas, in North Korea hundreds of thousands of people are in labor camps, and most of the country is starving, a realist would not spend much time trying to combat those human atrocities.
This is because a realist believes that a state’s business should be up to them to solve. Another example of how a realist theory could be bad is in the case of genocide. The realist does not believe in international aid or international organizations so the UN and other international organizations would be dessolite. The main concern of the realist is of the survival of the state. This is why the nuclear arsenal and the unpredictability of North Korea would become a danger to the realist. The realist would also be more concerned with the
Whether the realist would bomb North Korea or if there would be covert action in order to overthrow the current regime would be unknown. The realist with its downfalls would definitely take action to stop the current situation that is happening in North Korea. This is because the unpredictability is a threat to the security of the state and there would be no sympathy for this. Within the realist point of view it is hard to discern what the United States would look like with a true realist point of view because of the disregard for domestic affairs. The only time the realist would worry about domestic affairs is when the domestic affairs started to threaten the security of the state. This for example some people believe is why Kim Jong-un continues to starve his people because he does not want a coo to arise.
Bibliography
- Walt, S. M. (2017). Realism and Security. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.286
- Deudney, D., & Ikenberry, G. J. (2017). Realism, Liberalism and the Iraq War. Survival, 59(4), 7-26. doi:10.1080/00396338.2017.1349757
- Moore, G. (2008). AMERICA’S FAILED NORTH KOREA NUCLEAR POLICY: A NEW APPROACH. Asian Perspective,32(4), 9-27. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42704651
