Neutrality in the Korean Peninsula (Theoretical Framework)
Neutrality is flexible occurrence and idea, which have a wide range of functions regarding legal, military, culture and economic. Neutrality in the international relationship theory is abstinence of the state of to involve in a war. Hague Convention is one of the ancient legal body to exercise neutrality as a form of international relations. Neutrality frequently practiced by multilateral or bilateral arrangements among independent states. Neutrality is one of the positivity theory in an international relationship. Neutral rights and duties incarnate the states involved in neutrality. In many subjects, neutrality was anonymously subjected to subjugation and negligence. In all the international relation theories, neutrality is not well reflected as other theories of international relationships. In the inter-war ideas in First World War, neutrality conflict with the unity of interest to all state that needed collective security. United Nation started after the Second World War as the body of practicing neutrality among different states in the World (Black & Falk 2015). Neutrality usually come in to end war and battle that exist for a long time. Neutral states are immune to the consequences that come as a result of war and conflicts.
Neutrality in the Korean Peninsula (Theoretical Framework)
War and conflicts are the challenges of international relationship in the 20th and 21st centuries. Many states have involved in policy-making and setting up treaties that enhance the constant international relationship. International relationship theories are concepts framework that explains the relationship between different states in the world. International relationship theories can explain the relationship between the North Korea and South Korea as influenced by the China and America which are the dual superpower nations. Realism theory can explain the situation of political instability in the Korean peninsula. The realism as international relationship theory functions by the national interest of the specific states. The states are interested in things like preserving themselves, economic prosperity, outstanding military, defense, and power over the other nation. The international relationship theories exist in circumstances where the two or more states they have the same interest. These can lead to negotiation or even war among different states so as not to be the loser of their political and economic interest (Galston, 2010). Neutrality is a preference of a state not to side with any conflicting side. Neutrality is a crucial step in solving the issues affecting the different state in an international relationship. Neutrality comes when a nation decides not to side with any of the two nationalist states. As a result, nationalist states do away with their difference since they have no ground of their war. A good example of where neutrality solved the conflict in Austria. Neutrality of Austria solved the conflict between Soviets Union and NATO on their interest of their political ideologies. NATO was formed to stop Soviets Union from spreading its communist idea in Europe and encourages capitalism political idea. Austria decided not to side with communism or capitalism, so the war ended.
Realism theory can explain the conflict between North and South Korea. In realism theory, the nation works hard to strengthen power so that it can be able to override the other states. The theory stress that the world is a dangerous place for living and the only those the states with excessive power can thrive. The power can enable certain states to outdo all the other nations and able to flourish over their weaker competitors. Realism recognizes military as the most essential and consistent form of power. According to the theory, the states need power for self-preservation. Realism enables the state to enforce its global interest and involves in any global matter. They can attack states they feel the behaviors are unresponsive. The international system they have no power to govern the state with realism unless they accept to follow them. The realistic state has the power to use forces and invade any war that is continuing in countries of interest (Galston, 2010). The cold war between USSR and United States was a result of realism. All of them strengthen their military power in their related nation because of mistrust that existed between them. After the collapse of Soviet Union in the 1990s, China raised to powers, which made the United States remain realism in some extent. In the Leadership of George W Bush, realism was well evidenced due to his military concern to various Asian continents, among them Korean Peninsula.
According to Snyder, (2009) the western community did not easily accept the entry of China in the global communities. The United States and NATO allies faced threats from the upcoming China economies that have massive growth since the late 20th century. United States was able to defeat USSR in the cold war that existed for a very long time. China bilateral and multi-lateral growth in the economy made China face a considerable big challenge in involving in politics of the countries it has established its economic ties. It made China and United States take different stands on the war existing in the Asian continents. China is the major player of the massive oil produced in the Asian continent. Although the United States does not exclusively depend on oil from the Asian continent, its currency (US dollar) is used in all transactions of the oil Worldwide. Since China is the major player, in the oil United States is suspicious that China can overturn the use of US currency and start using its currency in oil exchanges. As a result United States involves much on the war that is continuing in many states in the Asian continent and most cases, it takes different stands to China’s to heighten instability as a way of hindering China from controlling the economy. China, on the other hand, it supports the war of Korean peninsula in the Asian continent to continue flourishing in the economy and do business in peaceful grounds. China, which had not highly invested in the military, had no other option except to invest heavily in the military so as handle the security threats in North Korea as a point of expanding its economy (Bluth, 2011). China is doing to counteract realism of the United States and NATO of deploying military personnel in South Korea so that they defeat North Korea.
Consequence Cold War between the US and China is clearly evidenced in the war between North Korea and Southern Korea. The two superpower nations have taken two different positions where each of them is supporting one of the two rivals with the aim of winning on their side. China and Soviets Union they have taken a strong stand and supported the dictatorial leadership in North Korea (Garver, 2015). North Korea is threatening southern Korea to launch a missile attack that would lead to massive destruction of lives. The main of aim of China becoming realism and support the North Korea; it is because the United States is aggressively extending its imperialism even in States that China is controlling the economy. The United States and NATO subsequently support the southern Korean government with military and intelligence so as to contain the North Korea from launching the missile or nuclear bomb attack that would cause massive destruction of lives in South Korea (Lee, 2006). South and North Korea has become the battlefield for the super power nation showing their realism with the aim of expanding their political and economic segments. The difference between the two Korean states continues to increase because of the pressure that comes from their supporters that are fighting indirectly. If the two state wound not decide to do away their differences in a mutual way, the problem would continue worsening due realism that subsists between the US and China. Neutrality as international relation theory will be very fundamental in resolving the conflict between the South and North Korea existing for a long time. Neutrality is the only way to end realism of the United States and China on Korean lands
According to Black & Falk (2015), the post second world war realism assimilated two approaches to neutrality. The first way is that neutrality confused the idea of the power politics. Secondly, neutrality is state-centered; the state protects itself and not involving conflict or waging war. By so doing, neutrality undermines the international concepts where other states can use force to get their needs. Although the neutral state has the security, they never participate in war and conflict as the sign of their self-protection. Realism cannot work together with neutrality; this is because neutrality is more powerful than realism. Neutrality increases national identity where a given state rules by her principle and not the waves of super power nations. Neutral states are likely to be subjected to superpower to choose their sides either economically, political and militarily during the Cold War as seen during the cold war between the USSR and USA. As a result neutral states, they are supposed to strengthen their security, economic and political ties so that the super power nations do not harass them. According to Bedeski (2000), North and South Korea should have an agreement and establish over lasting peace treaty without China and United States involvement. After establishing the peace treaty, the two nation should come up with a memorandum of understanding and avoid manipulation of two super power nations.
Bedeski, R. (2000). Peace and neutrality on the Korean Peninsula: a role for Canada? Pacific Affairs, 555-570.
Black, C. E., & Falk, R. A. (2015). Neutralization and world politics. Princeton University Press.
Bluth, C. (2011). Crisis on the Korean peninsula. Potomac Books, Inc.
Galston, W. A. (2010). Realism in political theory. European journal of political theory, 9(4), 385-411.
Garver, J. W. (2015). The Sino-American Alliance: Nationalist China and American Cold War Strategy in Asia. Routledge.
Lee, C. J. (2006). A troubled peace: US policy and the two Koreas. JHU Press.
Snyder, S. (2009). China’s rise and the two Koreas: Politics, economics, security. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.