As many of you know, North Korea has conducted missiles' and nuclear test on May 25, 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8066615.stm).
Assignment:
Using either one of feminist IR approaches or constructivist's view in World Politics, analyze the North Korean elites' decision to conduct nuclear test today. Your comments should summarize within 300 words. If necessary, please feel free to link your own blog in your comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The north Koreans decision to violate the terms of thier agreement with the allied nations, and conduct nuclear test was not only an act of blatant provocation but also completely dismiss the potential threat to thier people is both disrespectful and unacceptable. While North Korea in it actions have the ears of the world. According to constructivism. The North Koreans need to seen as a power that must be respected Militaraly, politically, as well as, seen as a culturally sound group of people that would never abandon thier culture and strong since of tradion and heritage. However, they seemily forget that historically it's not out of the hands of the international community to align and attack either through more sanctions or even worse, nuclear weaponry that could endanger not only the North but the South Koreans. If deemed appropriate,and necessary these actions could lead to a third world war, as it is unlikely Kim Jong II will heed thewarnings of the international community before things have gotten irreversibly out of hand.
ReplyDeleteJonas D. Holt
PS2810
n regards to North Korea the constructivists view would be that the state views themselves as a socially constructed entity. Unquestionable authority over its people and a reckless disregard for the countries near by ever since the end of the Korean war. North Korea seemingly has been backed into a corner in which international norms of behavior don’t apply. They could have and possibly still will be shaped by national interests but if they keep acting in a way the United States deems aggressive then, the President Obama will act in the realist policies that are being hidden under a cloak of idealism.
ReplyDeleteThe actions of North Korea are extreme after repeated warnings from the international community just doesn’t fit the constructivists maybe the realist, but after repeated warnings the other nations that could be affected might take the realist view and dismantle the Korean Republic.
IN
ReplyDeleteA constructivist would say that North Korea's actions are representative of the people and culture of the country. Launching a nuclear rocket was meant to be a threat to ward off any enemies of the state. However, the reason the state even felt they had to take such action was because of the feeling of being threatened that the people of the country experienced. The people of the country, the idea of placing their safety above everything else, and the ideas they had about how to protect themselves all went into the decision of launching the missile. It was simply the ideas and people and culture who controlled how the state acted in this instance.
ReplyDeleteMalati Vadapalli
Devvora Olalere
ReplyDeletePS 2810
05/28/09
Analyzing North Korea’s missile and nuclear test
Constructivists argue that power includes not only the tangible and intangible sources but also the power of ideas and language. It is through the power of ideas and norms, that state identities and nationalism are forged and changed.
An official communique read out on North Korean state radio said another round of underground nuclear testing had been "successfully conducted... as part of measures to enhance the Republic's self-defensive nuclear deterrent in all directions"; which means, according to a constructivists view, that the people of North Korea felt insecure and they wanted to make sure and warn the rest of the world that their nation is going to be safe no matter what all the other nation’s plans or ideas are. Therefore, the nation’s first priority, which was the security of the country, led to the launching of the missile.
On the other hand, constructivists think that individual elites are important, as with their ideas and policies can bring goods to the country, thus, develop the nation economically, politically and technologically. In the world we are living, a globalizing world-where every country is interconnected and interrelated, it is important to have good relationships with other countries and especially with leading countries of the world, such as the US in order to be able to be able to develop. North Korea had agreed to dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear plant as part of an aid-for-disarmament deal and, in response, the US removed North Korea from its terrorism blacklist. Pyongyang though did not verify the shutdown of the facility and in addition to that he launched a missile.
There are two different views that a constructivist could form by Pyongyang’s behavior; firstly that his actions or inactions were an outcome of his nation’s ideas that the country is in danger and need to show off its’ power. Secondly, a constructivist might thing that Pyongyang’s stance was a disadvantage to the nation’s relationships with the rest of the world as his “calculations” did not promote new desirable ideas but set a “fertile” ground for more enemies.
From a constructivism's point of view, the North Korean elite's decision to conduct nuclear test was because it would "contribute to safeguard the sovereignty of the country and the nation and socialism." The state and national interests are the result of the constructivism's vew and that's what North Korea is interested in. It is interested in the people and the country.
ReplyDeleteThe reason North Korea staged a nuclear test was because it has felt threatened by other countries and by staging a nuclear test, other countries will realize the power they have and maybe back off.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8066615.stm
Constructivism would view North Korea's nuclear test as a way to gain power. A constructivist would argue that North Korea's sovereignty is threatened by countries like the U.S and Japan. It justifies Nuclear proliferation with power.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a costructivist would disagree with North Korea in one particular way. This being that North Korea is only trying to gain military power and not cultural power. Since North Korea is isolated, it does not spread its traditions and culture. This is also a form of power to a constructivist.
-Brent Stapleton
North Korea's actions, through a constructivist lens, might be viewed as a result of North Korea's isolation from the international community. With Japan and South Korea being under the U.S' sphere of influence in some ways, North Korea may have a "me against the world" attitude and feel the need to gain recognition by causing mischief. Also, the personalist-style government of Kim Jong Il may be why the elites are unlikely to oppose the decisions he is making.
ReplyDeleteA constructivist analysis might also point out the differing views of power between North and South Korea. The North sees power in military strength- large armed forces and nuclear capabilities. The South sees power in economic and diplomatic terms. While North Korea has built up one of the largest standing armies in the world, South Korea has had a rapidly growing economy. Both have power in different ways, demonstrating the constructivist view that power is determined by ideas, history, and culture as much as it is by anything else.
Antoinette Golston
ReplyDeleteConstructivist Point of View & Feminist IR Approach
When looking at these different States you have to take everything into consideration. From a Feminist International Approach of course, the logic thing to do would be peace, and to eliminate this factor of war and all weapons of mass destruction in general. There is an organization,Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. This group was designed to protest in World War I. They are stand for disarmament and nonproliferation crisis(459, Mingst).
When analyzing the situation from a constructivist point of view North Korea is protecting themselves and the sovereignty of their country to the best of their ability. Any state can understand one trying to protect the economy and security of that state. And by any means of following their government system. North Korea probably does not understand the sincerity of states peace resolution when it comes to eliminating all nuclear weapons. If my opponents or enemies come and tell be to get rid of all my arms fire, and I'm left standing unshielded I will feel helpless. I do understand South Korea's perspective as well. South Korea whats to protect their state's soverignty, and they believe by promoting peace and eliminating nuclear weapons is they way in protecting it's security.
When talking about North Korea you also have to put into play the countries duty and belief. They have a very strong military force, and treat the military like a religion.