How do you Solve a Problem like North Korea?

Of all the inevitably doomed dictatorships in the world, there is not one that induces the same conservative reaction as that of Kim Jong Un’s North Korea. Not only is North Korea probably the most extreme example, amongst hot competition, of totalitarian rule, but it is also the least accessible and the least known.

The media prioritise reports and stories on regime and their latest strategies designed to make us fearful. This is a dangerous idea and one carefully, though perhaps unconsciously, constructed by all parties involved. It is designed to induce our innate repulsion of being threatened which leads to us to dehumanise the country, a kind of ‘this ‘thing’ is the enemy’ reaction. The reason this is dangerous is because it leads us to forget about those most affected, those who live under this regime of xenophobia and fear, and are often forgotten about because our media presents them as representatives of a threatening country. The main threat here, compared to the situation in Iraq for example, is the presence of nuclear weapons. Because North Korea has access to these weapons, it makes military engagement a frightening prospect for all those within the immediate area. The avoidance of all out war must be high on our political agenda. However, if we can’t leave the regime in place, nor displace it by military means, how can we help our North Korean friends?

Over the past two decades, we have witnessed a desperate regime trying to retain their power amongst an awakening population. As Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate magazine recently, ‘sounding the alarms of foreign danger is the best way to ensure the docility of a restless people’. The regime is fearful of the awakening of the people as the people realize that their neighbors to the south are richer and freer. The situation is obviously more complicated than that, but the confrontational rhetoric airborne at the moment may primarily be a reaction to the increased awareness of the population. What is the importance of this? We need look no further than the fall of the Soviet Union or even the Arab Spring to see that governments are often overturned most successfully from within. This could be a starting point to a strategy.

When the heightened tensions on the peninsula dies down, we must use the opportunity to reestablish communications between the North and South to ensure stability. The support of economic, trade and aid initiatives directed at the people should be the first and most important item in our political agendas, and there must be pressure applied to the North Korean government to achieve these aims. These initiatives should be multilateral and must begin to be the focus of the international community’s engagement with the country. The current attempt to engage rather than isolate is a rather hypocritical one. We haven’t taken that step with Syria or Egypt, so we must start establishing new policies that take our aid and engagement to the people.

The worst thing we could do about this is nothing. Acknowledging the international problems as well the inherent abuses to human rights in a regime of this kind is the first step. Encouraging those with the power to negotiate for stability while pushing an agenda of engagement with the people, be it by establishing embassies to build upon diplomatic presence or in some other way showing our solidarity with the people, is the second. These foundations will help build upon the modernisation the country is currently undergoing and may prove to be an alternative to the few options, each as undesirable as the last, for the problem that is North Korea.

This is the first in a three-part series on engagement and isolationism.
This article was written for EAHRNK. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of our organisation.