The United Nations (UN) founded in the year 1945 has come a long way since its inception. It was believed that after the cessation of the Cold War hostilities, the international institution would play a greater role in upholding peace and prosperity. However the years to come have brought challenges of higher magnitude that have somewhat quashed the liberal presumption.
The crisis in the Korean peninsula is one such example that has baffled the credibility of the organization. With two distinct governments in Seoul and Pyongyang, Korea was divided at the 38th parallel north. Following the division, a three-year long war was fought between the two, with the assistance and influence of extra-regional powers ending up in an armistice in 1953. What complicated the scenario was the acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea in 2006. A number of resolutions since then have been passed to curb nuclear proliferation by the totalitarian state.
North Korea continues to hold a rather strong position then one would expect. All the resolutions passed since 2006, the year when Communist Korea declared itself nuclear, not even a single state has abstained or opposed the resolution. At home the position is more austere; the regime has trouble feeding its growing population that passed the 25 million figure the year before. Standing at 113 in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the North Korean government has still managed to develop a nuclear device that is capable of hitting US soil and has a hydrogen bomb with a ten-fold greater magnitude than what was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
According to The Atlantic, the growing pace at which the nuclear arsenal is being modernized is comparable to that of India and Pakistan. A number of explanations are given as to why and how, a relatively insignificant country, low on foreign reserves is able to stand the mounting international pressure. International relations practitioners have rather different answers in contrast to conspiracy theorists and right-wing fundamentalists. The former use scientific methods of reasoning via theoretical framework to come up to a conclusion that is with far greater precision than the latter who usually rely on blistering distorted information with the aim of creating a hype among the public.
The international relations’ approach of Realism and Post-structuralism provides an analysis as to why the case is such. Considered one of the dominant schools in the discipline, Realists strongly believe in state supremacy and power struggle. In their assessment they would pay considerable attention to what they would stress as the ‘real stakeholders,’ that is referring to the great powers; Russia, China and the US. As per their perspective until and unless they do not come on a single page from their divergent interests of power politics the matter at hand would remain compromised.
The UN, being a non-state actor has a somewhat conceding role to play. It does not have the autonomy neither the power to come up with a solution. After it has passed the resolutions against North Korea, the body comprising of the international community remains a mere spectator to observation of sanctions, embargoes and exchange of words between the involved participants.
Post-structuralism on the other side, advocating for a deconstruction of established facts and figures, conceives that things would be clearer once the facts are straightened as a result of the proposed process. Fundamental questions, such as what led North Korea to establish nuclear weapons, which of the states may be guilty of encouraging if not directly helping in procuring radioactive material and what were the states and watch dog agencies doing when all this was going on?
Many of the nuclear related material, allegedly provided for peaceful purposes were provided by the Soviet led Joint Institute of Nuclear Research of which North Korea was a founding member.
Although Russia and China have officially denied their linkage to North Korean Nuclear Program there may be some evidence to build an argument that it may be otherwise. The two former Communist bloc allies protected and even nurtured the regime in North Korea since and after the Korean War. Many of the nuclear related material, allegedly provided for peaceful purposes were provided by the Soviet led Joint Institute of Nuclear Research of which North Korea was a founding member. It was via this initiative that the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) setup the first nuclear reactor in the country.
The Trump administration has accused the two countries for helping North Korea evade sanctions. The western media reports that if it was not for Russia and China, the last communist state would have long met the fate of East Germany and there may have existed a peaceful and united Korea.
