Hello and welcome!
The aim of this blog is to allow anyone to raise their concerns about issues in world politics and/or give their opinions about them. These can be foreign policy, (international) security, wars, ethnic conflicts, genocides, dictatorship, terrorism etc.
My goal is that it will attract different people from all over who will be happy to share their views and criticise where and when appropriate.
Best wishes
Friday, 29 May 2009
Why does Obama consider the North Korean nuclear test as 'provocative' and why should North Korea's national interest be interrupted?
By Amadou, The North Korean dilemma is and will remain for quite some time of a major importance in international affairs. Lately, Mr. Obama and his administration have condemned and criticized actions taken by North Korea, which they define as “provocative” as you posted. Realistically, I believe that the issue here is deeper and goes far beyond the scope of “provocative actions”. As I recall, relations between the United States and North Korea have never been at ease, a discomfort between the two nations that interestingly enough, resulted from the Cold war. It was characterized as a period of ideological conflict in which the newly established countries around the world would play a crucial role. These countries served as “satellite states”, thus under heavy influence either by the US or the Soviet Union as we have seen in Eastern Europe, Africa (Angola), central America (Cuba), South America and Asia (North Korea and notably Vietnam). To this day, North Korea still remains one hardcore communist state despite the break up of the USSR in 1991. In my opinion, the concept of cold war itself has evolved from American and Soviet hostilities to a modern diplomatic struggle opposing the United States to any nation with “communist” connotations, absence of democracy or simply with an authoritarian regime. North Korea integrally falls into all these categories. As we take a look at nations with which the American administration does not entertain cordial relations, a good amount of them are either communist states or nations that are believed (mistakenly or rightly) to obstruct to the notion of democracy that has awaken in the aftermath of the Second World War (ex: North Korea, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Castro’s Cuba etc)Going back to the initial question regarding North Korea’s nuclear test, I have the impression that the real challenge for the United States government is: “How do you handle a communist nation with an authoritarian government, ultimately seeking the acquisition of nuclear weapons? It is important to point out that North Korea was the first nation to ever withdraw from the non proliferation treaty which advocates limitations on the spread of nuclear weapons. Further, North Korea has grown increasingly hostile over the years. I believe that Mr. Obama’s view on North Korea’s missile test reflects the American administration’s suspicions and fears about North Korea’s real intentions. I have verified the central intelligence agency’s report on North Korean economy here is what I found: “North Korea, one of the world's most centrally directed and least open economies, faces chronic economic problems. Industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair as a result of years of underinvestment and shortages of spare parts. Large-scale military spending draws off resources needed for investment and civilian consumption. Industrial and power output have declined in parallel from pre-1990 levels. Severe flooding in the summer of 2007 aggravated chronic food shortages caused by on-going systemic problems including a lack of arable land, collective farming practices, and persistent shortages of tractors and fuel. Large-scale international food aid deliveries have allowed the people of North Korea to escape widespread starvation since famine threatened in 1995, but the population continues to suffer from prolonged malnutrition and poor living conditions.” In my opinion, this report on North Korea clearly indicates the complexity of the current situation. North Korea has withdrawn from the non proliferation treaty, while its nuclear maneuvers make the situation grow increasingly tense which justifies Mr. Obama’s stance on the issue. I believe that the logic of a national interest for North Korea resides elsewhere rather than its nuclear capability.
By Amadou,
ReplyDeleteThe North Korean dilemma is and will remain for quite some time of a major importance in international affairs. Lately, Mr. Obama and his administration have condemned and criticized actions taken by North Korea, which they define as “provocative” as you posted. Realistically, I believe that the issue here is deeper and goes far beyond the scope of “provocative actions”. As I recall, relations between the United States and North Korea have never been at ease, a discomfort between the two nations that interestingly enough, resulted from the Cold war. It was characterized as a period of ideological conflict in which the newly established countries around the world would play a crucial role. These countries served as “satellite states”, thus under heavy influence either by the US or the Soviet Union as we have seen in Eastern Europe, Africa (Angola), central America (Cuba), South America and Asia (North Korea and notably Vietnam).
To this day, North Korea still remains one hardcore communist state despite the break up of the USSR in 1991. In my opinion, the concept of cold war itself has evolved from American and Soviet hostilities to a modern diplomatic struggle opposing the United States to any nation with “communist” connotations, absence of democracy or simply with an authoritarian regime. North Korea integrally falls into all these categories. As we take a look at nations with which the American administration does not entertain cordial relations, a good amount of them are either communist states or nations that are believed (mistakenly or rightly) to obstruct to the notion of democracy that has awaken in the aftermath of the Second World War (ex: North Korea, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Castro’s Cuba etc)Going back to the initial question regarding North Korea’s nuclear test, I have the impression that the real challenge for the United States government is: “How do you handle a communist nation with an authoritarian government, ultimately seeking the acquisition of nuclear weapons? It is important to point out that North Korea was the first nation to ever withdraw from the non proliferation treaty which advocates limitations on the spread of nuclear weapons. Further, North Korea has grown increasingly hostile over the years. I believe that Mr. Obama’s view on North Korea’s missile test reflects the American administration’s suspicions and fears about North Korea’s real intentions. I have verified the central intelligence agency’s report on North Korean economy here is what I found: “North Korea, one of the world's most centrally directed and least open economies, faces chronic economic problems. Industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair as a result of years of underinvestment and shortages of spare parts. Large-scale military spending draws off resources needed for investment and civilian consumption. Industrial and power output have declined in parallel from pre-1990 levels. Severe flooding in the summer of 2007 aggravated chronic food shortages caused by on-going systemic problems including a lack of arable land, collective farming practices, and persistent shortages of tractors and fuel. Large-scale international food aid deliveries have allowed the people of North Korea to escape widespread starvation since famine threatened in 1995, but the population continues to suffer from prolonged malnutrition and poor living conditions.”
In my opinion, this report on North Korea clearly indicates the complexity of the current situation. North Korea has withdrawn from the non proliferation treaty, while its nuclear maneuvers make the situation grow increasingly tense which justifies Mr. Obama’s stance on the issue. I believe that the logic of a national interest for North Korea resides elsewhere rather than its nuclear capability.