The End of NATO and the Decline of American Influence in Europe

By Joon Suh

Once a solution to many of the post-Cold War security conundrums among the constituents of the western hemisphere, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is now facing problems from within. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates poignantly enunciated the American grievance in his latest policy speech. Apparently, impatience and discontent is brewing in the US Congress with “expending precious funds [three quarters of total NATO expenditure¹] on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”²

Gates’ remark offers much food for thought that belongs to the realist school of international politics. Uncle Sam is frustrated with free-riders. In the language of international politics, the act of free-riding would be referred to as “buck-passing” – a spontaneous transfer of strategic liability to another player in the survival game. In fact, realism – particularly the kind professed by John Mearsheimer – predicts that the seductiveness of buck-passing grows within an alliance structure (This practice can also be seen in scenes of ordinary social life when, for example, a group of friends find it easier to get one friend to assume the responsibilities of arranging trips, events, etc. than it is to get a stranger to bear the burden).

Is NATO on decline? Yes. But, more importantly, so is American influence in Europe. NATO has been the centerpiece through which American power was projected to balance against rival powers in Europe. Not only has it been a guise of multilateralism, it has also been a pretext for a significant US military presence in Europe. With NATO falling apart, the United States will see its European privileges gradually diminish, along with its leverage.

What is happening to NATO? The most obvious propellant behind the division would be that NATO members, both US and European, are simply less willing, thus less cohesive. While the US has relied on its “coalition of the willing” since the onset of its war on terror in 2001, many European countries – especially Germany – have simply lost the appetite to join the American cause, enervated from the difficult and protracted war in Afghanistan. Not only that, the western response to the recent Libyan crisis also attests to the American reluctance to further expand its commitment to policing actions. Add that to NATO’s post-Cold War identity crisis. The sum of that equation is a slowly tarnishing band of western powers.

Moreover, there is a continental power on the rise. Not only is it a global economic dark horse but it is also the heir to old Soviet’s formidable military prowess. While the United States is an imported counterweight, impeded by the stopping power of water, Russia is a continental power with an unfettered geographic access to Europe. Geographic access is tantamount to a strategic edge that will allow Russia to continue expanding its orbit westward. In fact, Russia has relentlessly wielded its economic and military power. In early 2009, Gazprom ceased its natural gas supply to Ukraine over a payment dispute which provoked responses from Germany and other European heavyweight figures. In 2008, Russia instigated a ground operation against Georgia, a country agreed to be accepted as a member of the NATO. In 2007, Russia suspended the Conventional Weapons in Europe (CFE) Treaty – a post-Cold War pact designed to limit the amount of conventional weapons within a certain area – as a corollary of US plans to deploy missile elements in eastern Europe. Many more Russian maneuvers for power during the past few years suggest that Russia is a major powerhouse at large with prolific ambition to underpin its position on the European stage.

American supremacy in international politics remains a galvanizing force around the world. The United States has been able to build its unrivaled military prowess and second-to-none economic wherewithal because it was an isolated power. However, isolation comes with its own set of woes. Although the United States may have the capability to make its forces virtually omnipresent, it must be noted again that its role in the main theaters of contested power – Northeast Asia and Europe – will be limited to the name of an “offshore balancer.”³ This is definitely something that will occupy at least a noteworthy place in the trajectory of Russia’s continental quest.

There is no pending radical shift in the European balance-of-power. However, it is noteworthy that such tectonic movement could take place more easily in Europe than it could in Northeast Asia. Unlike Northeast Asia, there is no explicit military standoff in Europe. Plus, the US military presence in Europe is not as large as it is in Northeast Asia, and it is said that only 2% of EU countries’ forces are combat-ready (which is something Gates has expressed profound concerns on).⁴ Plus, European economies are dependent to varying degrees on Russian energy sources. Gates’ premonition of a “dim future” for NATO makes it even easier and more compelling for Russia to better relate itself to Europe. All-in-all, without a serious change in the present undercurrent, the future prospect of the European balance of power will favor Russia.

1 Shanker, Thom & Erlanger, Steve (2011) “Blunt U.S. Warning Reveals Deep Strains in NATO” June 10th, 2011 International Herald Tribune

2 Ibid.

3 Mearsheimer, John J. (2003) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics p. 234

4 Merritt, Giles, Niblett, Robin & Serra, Narcis (2011) “Debating Defense” Project Syndicate

The Duplicity of the Communist Pariah: The Political Economy of Armed North Korean Provocations

By Anonymous Writer

North Korea has been a subject of wonder, mostly in the most perplexing and inconvenient ways possible. That is not only because it is one of the most isolated placed on earth but also because the little it exhibits to the outer world lacks logical coherence. The communist pariah, in the views of those outside its walls, is characterized by duplicity.

The duplicity can be described as North Korea’s dual application of armed provocation and gradually apparent political will to unlock its doors to the outer world. However, its economy seems to be steadily deteriorating. Steven Bosworth, the last high-profile US visitor to the North, said “A labyrinth of issues like power transition and currency reform failure is alarming the North Korean leadership that North Korea simply cannot continue like this.”1

In fact, North Korea had been intensifying efforts for economic growth and constructive diplomacy up until the first quarter of 2010. There was hope for the return of North Korea to the 6-party talk in the aftermath of North Korean foreign policy master Kim Gye Kwan’s recent visit to Beijing. Also, North Korea did play a proactive role in re-normalizing the Geumkangsan tourism enterprise and the operation of Kaeseong Industrial Complex.2 North Korea has also allowed Russia 50 years of ship-docking at the piers of Najin (a coastal city located in northwest North Korea) and is actively reviewing the extension of Chinese port usage at the same location for the next 10 years.3

However, these signs of goodwill have been offset by armed provocations towards the end of the first quarter of 2010, along with the sinking of the South Korean naval vessel, the Cheonan. The tension on the halved peninsula, many experts and policy workers say, has never been so high. Some even say that an all-out conventional war is possible, which is unusual to hear outside of North Korea. The South’s accusations and threats of sanctions have provoked more inflammable responses from the North.

What makes North Korea so difficult to pacify?

Superficial analyses would suggest that the North’s provocations are aimed at gaining leverage in future negotiations or at renewing the regime’s grip on internal affairs. But given the integral role the current economic plight is playing in shaping North Korean behavior, it is fair to conclude that armed provocation could carry with it a commercial message. Armed provocations have a few commercially important implications in the black market for arms sales.

North Korea’s cash flow has dried up due to UN sanctions. In dire straits, the North is under tremendous economic pressure that could compel it to marshal all of its resources in raking in much needed dollars to provide a stepping stone for growth.4 Armed provocations are an effective propaganda instrument to advertise North Korea’s military products. Because armed provocations are able to draw a great deal of media attention, demonstrations of North Korea’s capabilities are widely broadcast. To the general public, this is news. To potential buyers – usually rogue states – this is advertising.

This possibility deserves special attention when taking into account that the arms industry claims a lion’s share of North Korea’s production. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, some 36% of North Korea’s economy, at least until 2003, was based in manufacturing, mining, and construction, all of which are closely related to the military.5 The strategy is to provoke its neighbors, make the headlines, and thereby stimulate the demand in the world black market for arms sales. The interdiction of North Korean arms exports last December in Thailand could be an example of propaganda generated by armed North Korean provocations over the past several years.

Another thing armed provocation implicitly expresses is the quality of North Korea’s human resources in the military industry. A similar example could be found in Pakistan, another nuclear-armed country, whose well-known nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, exported nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea. This example should be a warning to the world because it means that North Korea is also capable of exporting weapons technology, the same way Khan did. In fact, North Korea may already have been involved in such occasions. In 2007 Israel provided evidence that Syria and North Korea mounted a joint venture in the construction of a nuclear facility.6 Furthermore, it has also been found that North Korea provided “45 tons of uranium to Syria in September 2007 for the production of fuel for an undeclared nuclear reactor.”7

The worsening economy in North Korea is leading to further proliferation around the world. North Korea, I anticipate, will make more provocations to display its capabilities to the world for various purposes. The main purpose to such provocations will be to advertise its military products and technology. This should not allow North Korea’s neighbors to lower their guard and feel complacent. In fact, stakes are high for the world in converting North Korea from an impoverished outcast to a self-reliant economy. However, a modification of North Korean behavior is required. Economic and other humanitarian support can come only when balance-of-power is secure in the region because when the balance-of-power is thwarted, war makes any sort of aid meaningless. Life is the highest freedom of all because without it no other freedom can be enjoyed.

Idols and Corporations: How Idols Are Appealing and Craving Corporate Sponsorship in Korean Pop Culture

By an anonymous writer

Super Junior. T-ara. Girl’s Generation. 2NE1. Big Bang. After School. These are some of the most sensational brands that define Korean pop culture today. Everything from their lyrics to their dance, from their attires to figure of speech, ripples through adolescent minds and shapes the continuously changing trends among teens in Korea. Hence, they are called ‘idol groups’; they are idolized by teenagers.

I like to believe that artists strive to express a broad array of human emotions in a variety of creative ways. Entertainment firms, which have a habit of enslaving their young employees, seem to be more interested in producing content to indoctrinate adolescents with commercial messages rather than inspiring their thoughts and enriching their emotions. Their ammunition is meaningless but highly catchy lyrics, repeated excessively, and embedded in computer-processed electronic sounds—like Super Junior’s 2009 hit that repeated the inane lyrics “Ring Ding Dong” over and over ad nauseum.

After giving some thought to it, I came to the conclusion that the changes in trends derive from changes in the profit model of the music industry. There has been a significant change in the consumer-producer relationship in this industry due to the introduction of mp3 technology and P2P programs. Idol groups have been forced to change their source of income from selling music to selling themselves as appealing instruments of corporate propaganda.

We are no longer the customers of the entertainment firms whose stars we admire and even idolize. Their clients are elsewhere, probably in big offices somewhere along the skylines. The clients of the entertainment firms are corporations. So, whenever T-ara repeats the title of their hit “Bo Peep,” it is seen as a potential advertisement tool. In fact, Yuhan-Kimberly, a leading firm in the sanitations products industry, rewarded Core Contents Media, the firm in charge of managing T-ara, with a truck-load of “Poppee” box tissues because Yuhan-Kimberly’s sales increased due to T-ara’s hit title. Or what about Girl’s Generation and their “kicking-the-shuttlecock” dance endorsed as a part of Shinhan Card’s TV advertisement? 2NE1’s debut title “Lollipop”, sung in partnership with male idol group, Big Bang, was intentionally composed to take part in LG Electronics’ marketing strategy in launching one of its latest mobile phone models, Lollipop. Samsung Electronics followed suit shortly after when they endorsed Son Dam Bi and After School in producing the song “AMOLED” in which they sing how beautiful everything looks with Samsung’s latest mobile phone display technology, AMOLED.

The worse part of this phenomenon is that these marketing strategies are aimed at teenagers with no sense of healthy consumption. They seduce these vulnerable teens into fulfilling their insecurities and desires with consumer products, leading to an even heavier atmosphere of materialism. Another problematic consequence of these marketing strategies is that they induce a ‘race-to-the-bottom’ competition among media providers, who end up substituting true artistic values with sex, violence or anything sensational. Why? Because the more sensational the entertainment the more it attracts corporate clients. The corporate society knows that sex and violence sell their products because they are effective attention-grabbers, especially with adolescents.

I lament two things. The first is that teenagers’ idols are not who the teenagers think they are; they are not true artists with the conviction of enriching human souls but are rather instruments of corporate propaganda. Second, teenagers are being trafficked without their knowledge. Putting these two regrettable facts, we have teenage audiences, assembled by sensual media contents, who are traded for money to corporations by the media industry. As a result, teenagers are indoctrinated with consumerism, and are bombarded with sex and violence as idols race to the bottom to make themselves more favorable to corporations. The depth of the immorality involved in this form of human trafficking on TV is no less severe than that which occurs when people are smuggled into another country to be traded for money. The only difference is that in one case it is the body that is sold; in the other case it is the human soul.

The Thailand Experience and Its Lesson

The Thailand Experience and Its Lesson

Written by a second-year student in the DIS

The recent interdiction of North Korean weapons exports in Thailand couldn’t come at a better time. It came when the United States was intensifying its efforts to create an environment for talks (the Thai seizure occurred only a few days after Bosworth’s visit to North) and when North Korea repeated its mistake of exporting arms. When it came to North Korea, diplomacy meant much less than usual because North Korea could not kick its bad habit of breaking promises it makes to the world. In the recent event only, North Korea has violated the UN resolution restricting its sale of arms and contradicted the international community’s long-held vision of a WMD-free world. Now, countries seeking to disarm North Korea have a stronger case in engaging North Korea.

Not only that, this event is the evidence that there is, in fact, a network of rogue forces that put guns before words. Provided that North Korea enjoys a limited range of consumers, it is logical to think that those weapons were being delivered to another rogue element.

Many would find it easy to think that mechanisms to limit North Korea’s proliferation capacity are existent but ineffective because international law lacks teeth. This is true. Although there are options such as levying sanctions, North Korea has hurdled them, enough to barely maintain its decrepit posture as a state and a threat to international security. The enterprise of dealing with North Korean proliferation matters cannot continue without the teeth to convert North Korea’s promises into actions. This is why the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) should be extended to more countries around the world.

One of the most meaningful impacts that PSI has on nonproliferation matters is that it depresses the black market for arms sales. The PSI plays a deterrent role against proliferation efforts. It raises the transaction costs of arms sales business because the risk of transaction failure grows as safe havens for weapons transport become increasingly scarce. Logistics and weapons are what economists refer to as ‘complementary goods,’ which means that the supply and demand of those two goods is proportionate to each other. In the arms sales market, that would equate with weapons prices shooting upwards as logistics prices go up due to higher risk involved in transporting illicit goods. The Thai seizure of North Korean exports is a perfect example of this. The supply is reduced because logistics price escalates to a new level. In fact, Daniel Pinkston, an International Crisis Group’s expert on North East Asia, says of the Thai seizure that "This will affect the revenue stream. It is a sign of the increasing risk of doing business for the buyers, who are also violating United Nations Security Council resolution 1874."¹ Moreover, given the amount of attention given to the buyer who remains opaque, efforts like the PSI depresses the demand curve because rogue forces that North Korea usually serves as clients tend to work under secrecy.

Another important detail is that the PSI just may introduce a new paradigm to international law relevant to nonproliferation. The PSI has the potential of re-orienting international law to a more nonproliferation-friendly direction. So far, international maritime law has come in defense of “innocent passage,” a concept that confides a foreign ship with trust that it is not carrying illicit goods until proven otherwise. Simply put, the status quo is that ships are innocent until proven guilty. Although this general principle of law is legitimate, it had no facilitating role in nonproliferation efforts. On the other hand, the Interdiction Principle for the Proliferation Security Initiative – the constitution-like set of rules that defines the PSI – requests that participant states “take appropriate actions to stop and/or search in their internal waters, territorial seas, or contiguous zones vessels that are reasonably suspected of carrying such cargoes to or from states or non-state actors of proliferation concern and to seize such cargoes that are identified.” Although it may appear to be violating the “innocent-until-proven-guilty” principle, the PSI will entice non-participant states to join the nonproliferation initiative for an incentive: innocent passage. By attracting more participants, the PSI can distinguish ships of proliferation concerns from those that are not more easily than before, and by dividing rogues ships and legitimate ships the principle of assumed innocence can be applied to ships that are qualified to enjoy such right. Moreover, it will not only contain maritime routes but also air routes as stipulated in Principle 4F and exemplified by the Thai seizure.

Much more groundwork needs to be laid before executing the above but the potential of the PSI is hard to neglect. Its potential can only be unleashed and realized when the synergy of multiple countries propels the nonproliferation effort. That is because solidarity among the willing is a prerequisite in isolating and, thus, identifying who the proliferators are. The PSI, nevertheless, comes with many limitations. Some argue that it is neither accountable nor transparent. Some insist that it does not prescribe the solutions to the heart of proliferation problems. However, while proliferation is a reality, the world cannot afford to let nonproliferation be an ideal. The PSI is not perfect now but its potential is too great to neglect, and the Thailand experience attests to that.

1 Pinkston, Daniel (2009) “Net Closes on N Korea’s vital arms exports” Financial Times, December 14 2009, Article composed by Christian Oliver

The Iraq Conundrum Is Not Over

By Joon Suh

“Sovereignty” seems to be the buzzword in the world’s currently most troubled country. After six years of national security life-support from the United States, Iraqis made the audacious attempt to seize the opportunity of self-determination, finally reclaiming the role of policing its own streets. Regaining sovereignty was followed by a nationwide festivity, marked by a new holiday, National Sovereignty Day.

Reclaiming its own streets is, without doubt, a great achievement for Iraq—certainly worthy of commemoration. However, it does not provide a solution to all of the conundrums that have so far obstructed Iraq from statehood. In fact, it generates new ones, and they are challenges that necessitate an orchestra of diplomatic goodwill from within the Middle East and outside the Middle East—with a special emphasis on the former.

Iraq’s sovereignty conundrum stems from the turmoil in its northern region. At a glance of the word “northern region,” many are inclined to envisage the urban combat in Mosul, which has received the lion’s share of global media attention as Iraq’s most violent city. However, in Iraq, where ethnic identity constitutes the core of virtually all social relationships, the first problem relevant to sovereignty rises along borders separating the Kurdish ethnic sect from the rest of Iraq.

Although the Kurds have persistently moved to escalate the status of their region to full-fledged statehood, its defiance of the Iraqi authority has escalated recently as Kurdish heavyweights are pushing forward Kurdistan’s own constitution. The fact that a referendum on the constitution was scheduled strongly suggests that Kurdistan’s relationship with Baghdad is worsening.
For Iraq, this is a potent and grave threat to its national sovereignty. It is a threat because territorial integrity is being jeopardized by an active and organized secessionist movement within defined territory; more so for the reason that it places Iraq in a thorny seat at the table with Turkey, which will immensely influence Iraq’s short- and long-term future.

That is because Kurdish secession and the simultaneous claim of Kurdish statehood is a national security threat to Turkey. The Kurdish nation is largely divided by the border that lies between Turkey and Iraq. An independent Kurdistan not only provides safe haven for secessionist groups like the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) but also creates a state actor whose interest is to reconstruct the Kurdish nation that stretches over two state territories. Turkey has always been interested in preventing the erection of a Kurdish state, which explains its incursion into northern Iraq in 2008, an act for which it was reprimanded by the United States.

Today, Turkey possesses more sway than ever over matters in the region, and this has profound implications for Iraq. Turkey is highly likely to have significant sway over Iraq’s human security—a new dimension of national security that concerns securing resources and infrastructures vital to the humanitarian needs of a country. For instance, while the Euphrates is drying up with cleft river beds being revealed, Turkey and Syria control the hydro supply in Euphrates’ upstream region where they have eight dams in total. The part of Euphrates that bleeds out from Turkey is the most northern part of the river. This means that the control panel for the hydro supply via Euphrates rests in Turkey, which would make Syria partially vulnerable, and Iraq significantly vulnerable to Turkey’s influence over the river.

The drought works immensely to the detriment of Iraq. Rice farmers along the river are no longer able to harvest due to the drought which leads to more imports of grain. This is a classic example of hydro security’s domino effect. Havoc in hydro security is being wreaked on food security and it could also damage public health security in many of the urban centers that rely on the Euphrates for water because water is central to public health and sanitation. Hydro security is vital for survival.

Turkey is also a strategic foothold of high importance to Iraq. It is a logistics stronghold, a gateway for strategic and humanitarian supplies into Iraq. During the time of the US occupation, 70-80% of US supply was transported via Turkey. It is a serious foreign policy conundrum for Iraq to come to terms with Turkey in maintaining a safe corridor for aid supply.

Aside from Turkey, another country that Iraq must establish rapport with is Syria, and this could, in fact, be one of the greatest challenges that Iraq will face in diplomacy. Syria’s affiliation to Iran puts the United States at odds with Syria. Iraq, still a client of the United States and the beneficiary of its assistance, will face grave difficulty in weighing the Iraq-US relationship and the Iraq-Syria relationship.

Often, adolescents crave adulthood, a status of independence and liberty. However, they seldom have a complete understanding of the gravity that adulthood levies upon their shoulders. Today, Iraq is an adolescent seeking adulthood, and it may appear that it has reached adulthood. However, adulthood creates new problems and much heavier responsibilities. This infant democracy needs all the support that its patron state, the United States, can afford. However, it should keep in mind that its survival in the “jungle” should not come at the expense of good relations with its neighbors.

Welcome, Iraq, to the jungle.

Passing Away with an Impact: What We Should Learn from the Late Cardinal

Joon Suh

The world today is increasingly divided by ethnic bigotry and inter-religious strife. In some parts of the world, coexistence and reconciliation between or among religions is an extravagance, if not, an impossibility. Too often, religious fervor is expressed in atrocities – in forms of war, terrorism, genocide, and other ways beyond brute force. It’s a shame that lives must be claimed in the names of mythical figures, while those mythical figures have never preached for violence and hatred (except for their occasional threats of damnation upon disobedience to their teachings) but for peace and prosperity.

Compared to the rest of the world, South Korea has been lucky in this respect. South Korea is a land where the cross, the crescent and the swastika dwell together as neighbors in a society without violence having to erupt over faith. As long as you are not male and Jehovah’s Witness, your freedom to religion has been and is still well preserved.

Koreans owe this kind of freedom to men like the late Cardinal Sou-hwan Stephan Kim, who have surmounted walls that, in some dark corners of the world, would have provided fuel and ignition for bloody conflicts. He was the personification of love and humanity that is silently fading away at a quick pace in the contemporary society. This devoted model citizen was a hero which makes his recent death especially tragic for South Korea. He may no longer live but the legacy of this hero must continue to do so to better the Korean society that is suffering from malnutrition of simple human values. The values Koreans must uphold to continue his legacy is twofold: love and justice, both of which come in short supply in this society.

While this society honors the greatness of the winners, it must also be able to embrace the losers – it’s living up to the old saying “Win with humility and lose with grace.” Cardinal Kim’s distinguished spirit of service is a perfect substantiation of that. In spite of being a Catholic clergyman, his love for mankind had no religious or social boundaries. Any good human, regardless of his or her size of wealth, level of education, and faith, deserved his blessings. Yet still, he applied the principle of equal but differentiated love. Always on top of his agenda were the underprivileged of our society. His priorities entailed helping those who cannot help themselves help themselves, so they can lose with grace and not with despair and find new opportunities for a better life. His contributions to various poverty alleviation efforts and donation of his two corneas are just some of the examples of his love. An increasing number of people are following suit as they choose organ donations as aftermath of their deaths. In this sense, his greatest work, I would say, was using the name of God in good will, broadcasting the message of love itself and making an impact that would draw others to join causes of love.

Contrary to his benign face, the cardinal knew his moment to be stern and bitter. During Jeon Doo-hwan’s dictatorship, the cardinal spoke against government oppression on pro-democracy movement demanding Jeon’s abdication, analogously comparing the then South Korea as a “western film” in which “the person who draws his gun first wins.” However, on June of 1987, when civilian protestors sought asylum at the Myung-dong Cathedral on the run from armed riot controllers, he demonstrated that “the person who draws his gun first” does not win after all. He unequivocally told the riot controllers that only over his dead body – followed by priests and nuns – will they be able to infringe upon the protestors. That day, South Korean democracy was reborn because he exemplified the superiority of conscience and justice over violence and tyranny.

Today, over his dead body is a country with a flourishing economy and a relatively stable democracy, at the same time, one that is incomplete in many ways. The fact of the matter is South Korea today is hit by the worst economic hardship since the birth of the republic and suffers from political stalemate derived from irrationally excessive partisan division. We mourn Cardinal Kim’s death because he had what this country needed the most: a sense of solidarity. Yet, at the same time, we cherish his legacy as a prophet of love and justice. Rest in peace, Cardinal Kim. I’ve never been much of a church goer but I will miss you and so will the rest of South Korea.