Blog 1- Jared Rostkowski

When Liberalism Doesn’t Work: Kim Jong Un and North Korea


One of the defining characteristics of Liberalism in International Politics is mitigating anarchy. In order to accomplish this, Institutions, such as the United Nations, were established. The UN’s goal is to promote International cooperation and keep order. When a country starts to disrupt the order or threaten the safety of the international community, the UN will establish a sanction against that country in order to deter the bad behavior. This is a very logical way to approach international politics. Applying a sanction that is designed to hurt a country’s economy will usually encourage the country to stop the bad thing they were doing. But what happens if the country ignores the sanctions? What does the UN do? This is one of the problems with Liberalism, if you have an unruly country who refuses to cooperate and be civil, there’s only so much an Institution can do without turning things violent. A great example of the exact situation I described is the battle between North Korea and the UN. So, the argument I'm going to be making in this paper is that UN and the world need to stop taking a liberalist approach against North Korea and take a more realist approach. 
The UN has put 7 sanctions on North Korea since 2006 in order to stop North Korea from testing nuclear weapons. So, to answer my previous question, when a country ignores sanctions put on them by the UN, the UN puts more sanctions of them. But if you have watched the news at any point in the last two years, you'd know that North Korea is continuing to develop and test nuclear weapons. The most recent sanction applied to North Korea is Resolution 2371, which banned all exports of coal, iron, lead and seafood. Some of the other sanctions against North Korea include banning exports on gold and other expensive metals. North Korea continues to ignore and get around these sanctions, which they usually do by smuggling or falsifying shipping records. This is all encouraged by China, who signs the sanctions, but continues to trade with North Korea anyway, keeping the North Korean economy alive. To put it simply, nothing the UN has done has deterred North Korea from making nuclear weapons and they continue to build their weapons program. 
What the international community needs to do is to stop trying to reason with North Korea, we need to stop applying sanctions and take a more realist approach. We cannot take action against China, because China is very important in the world economy. So the only available thing to do is to deal with North Korea directly. We have to invade. The danger that comes with an invasion is much less then the danger that comes with a nuclear capable North Korea. If they do get nuclear capabilities, it is most likely going to lead to a war anyway, so we should invade now before North Korea can retaliate with nuclear weapons. 
      In conclusion, I see an invasion as the only option that will get results. If the UN doesn't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons, then we’re going to have to go in there and dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program ourselves. We can no longer apply sanctions, or make deals with North Korea. Back in the 90s, the Clinton administration offered aid to North Korea to stop making nuclear weapons, they didn't stop with that deal, and if they haven't stopped after 20 years, I don't believe that they ever will. Sometimes, a realist approach is the only option.

Comments

  1. UnknownSeptember 24, 2017 at 10:54 AM

    It's definitely a tricky situation. On one hand, you have a rogue nation which has proven that it will continue to follow its agenda regardless of pressure placed on it by the international community. However, North Korea has the ability to completely annihilate Seoul in the event of a U.S. invasion. Though our military is much more technologically advanced than North Korea's they have had 60 years to build up and fortify their state. Though invasion might seem like the only strategy that will get results, the risks to South Korean civilians and cost of life associated with invading North Korea must be weighed as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jared RostkowskiSeptember 24, 2017 at 1:08 PM

      Very good point about South Korea. It's a very sticky situation. The thing that worries me the most though is that if we don't do anything, they would destroy Seoul anyway, but I guess only time will tell. Hard to see anyway situation where lives aren't lost, other than letting North Korea build their nuclear arsenal. If it continues like it is today, hopefully when North Korea becomes nuclear, they don't use them irrationally.

      Delete
  2. UnknownSeptember 24, 2017 at 1:12 PM

    Both approaches have there ups and downs. With the UN in action and applying sanctions on North Korea it is not strong enough to stop them. However, an invasion might be a poor idea due to the fact they have had so much time to build up all their weapons and military. Although, there has to be something strong enough to get the message to North Korea.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog post 2, Nukes in Iran

Throughout the past couple of weeks we have discussed numerous times, the effects of nuclear weapons, and the way international/regional relations are affected by them. More specifically, we discussed the nuclear situation in the middle east pertaining to Iran. We debated a little in class  about whether or not Iran acquiring a bomb would be a positive or negative occurrence. After debating the topic, and going over readings in class, I believe that Iran acquiring nuclear capabilities would be a good thing, rather than bad. Many have argued against this point. Many think that as soon as iran acquires nuclear capabilities, they will instantly use it against Israel. It is also argued that since Iran has ties to hateful groups like Isis, they will arm terrorist groups with nuclear weapons. Historically speaking, countries that have acquired nuclear weapons, have not become increasingly aggressive. They have actually become more retracted in their ways. Many believe that when a countr...
Read more

Blog Post 2: Syria and the Fate of Weakened/Failed States Jared Rostkowski

Blog Post 2: Syria and the Fate of Weakened/Failed States Jared Rostkowski In April 2017, President Trump ordered a missile strike on an airbase which allegedly carried out a chemical weapon attack on Syrian rebels by the Syrian government. This was the first military action the U.S. had taken on the war-torn Syria. Syria began the plunge into civil war back in 2011 when protestors were shot dead in the city of Deraa, and the U.S. had, for the most part, stayed away from any physical involvement in the civil war. But since the bombings back in April, it has sparked a debate on whether or not the U.S. should send soldiers into Iraq to try and end this civil war. The side that I have taken is with the Larison reading. Syria is a tar-pit, anyone who interferes is going to only damage themselves and further damage the country.  The problem with weakened and failed states is that they are doomed to stay that way the majority of the time. Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia are ju...
Read more

Blog Post 4 - Yousuf Sander

Global terror has plagued the international community in increasing frequency and tragedy for the last two decades. The rise of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and others have left thousands dead and given rise to new fear, and an elusive enemy. These groups have used ever more brutal tactics to stage devastating attacks on civilians in both their home countries and abroad. In the early 2000s, the U.S. began a so-called “ War On Terror ” to combat the rise of such groups, only to have the even more dangerous organization of ISIS rise out of the ashes of our own operations in Iraq. These groups are hard to fight and even harder to dismantle, so what are our options in the War on Terror? I believe that the problem stems from the ostracized environment in which immigrant Middle eastern communities exist in the West.   As long as we continue to marginalize Muslim communities in the U.S. and Europe, we will continue to be fostering an environment that makes it easy for terrorist gr...
Read more