World War III

It is, at this point, undeniable that Kim Jong Un is a maniac.  His threats of nuclear attack seem to come every other week, and in between he commits outrageous crimes of humanity against his own people while portraying a facade of power and perfection.  For years, he and his father and grandfather before him have been a threat, but that is apparent now more than ever before.  The question is: how do we put a stop to him?  How do we squash this tiny man and his large threats?  The answer, I believe, can be found when acknowledging the following statement: the current President of our country is also, undeniably crazy.

Donald Trump’s strategy when dealing with the problem that is North Korea has been to provoke Kim Jong Un via news media and twitter.  In a September 23rd tweet, Trump referred to Kim as “Little Rocket Man” and threatened North Korea, saying they “won’t be around much longer!” (Kharpal).  To anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention to Trump, this tweet came, really, as no surprise.  This strategy, while clearly not the best idea, is undoubtedly very ‘Trump.’  Trump’s antics over the past 9 months have been questionable and at times offensive to the point of absolute frustration.  But what does this have to do with a strategy for North Korea?  It is important to acknowledge that as long as Trump is in office, the smartest thing to do about North Korea is: nothing.  

When it comes to foreign policy, Trump is at the very least inexperienced.  Trusting him to have any real impact on the situation in North Korea is much like trusting a two year old with a set of matches and a can of gasoline: it’s simply not a good idea.  Instead, the best thing to do would be to continue Obama’s strategy of strategic patience (oh, the horror).  While this approach can be frustrating because of the lack of immediate gratification, it is the safest and, especially with Trump in office, the smartest possible option at this point.

The trick, however, will be to somehow get Trump on board with this plan and not allow him to tweet our country into a nuclear war.  While this is a dicey project and definitely no small feat, it is integral to the strategic patience strategy.  The best way to do this would be for the advice to come from the inside of Trump’s circle: however, this comes with its own struggles.  So far, it seems everyone in this circle agrees with Trump no matter what the consequences for them, Trump, or the country.  So, while this is the optimal route, it is nevertheless unrealistic.

Another possibility is to get rid of Trump’s social media, which wouldn’t completely solve the problem but would certainly be a step in the right direction.  This would prevent Trump from threatening to bomb the whole country of 23 million people into dust via his phone from the bathroom at 3am.  He would instead have to reserve his threats for daylight, which may spare us slightly from the unfiltered mind of Trump.  However, this option is also unlikely as Twitter thus far has refused to delete even some of Trump’s most offensive tweets because they are “newsworthy,” which apparently outweighs their strict policy against threats (Kharpal).  Therefore, it is unlikely we’ll be spared from The Tweets any time soon.

While strategic patience is undoubtedly the best strategy at this point when it comes to North Korea, the most difficult part of this strategy will be making Trump see this and agree to participate.  Trump is infamous for listening to nothing and no one, no matter how reasonable the argument and/or the person presenting it, especially when the argument sounds similar in any way to Obama.  Trump, much like Kim Jong Un, is an unpredictable fool.  But, if we can somehow get Trump to fall in line with Obama’s strategy, we may save ourselves from World War III.

Works Cited

Kharpal, Arjun. “Why Twitter Won't Take down Donald Trump's Tweet Which North Korea Called a 'Declaration of War'.” CNBC, CNBC, 26 Sept. 2017, www.cnbc.com/

2017/09/26/donald-trump-north-korea-twitter-tweet.html.





Daniel Madsen Comments:

First of all, shame on Twitter for being so selfish as to allow Trump to provide such an offensive base to publicize his platform. Excellent point there. I agree that strategic patience is the best course of action for the Trump Administration, but it is worrying as to how unrealistic that truly is. So that brings us to the main question: what can we actually do to stop him? What comes to mind for me is that Senator Murphy and a couple other members of Congress are drafting a bill that would ban Trump from making any decision to North Korea without congressional authorization. What is unfortunate about this bill is that it arguably might be unconstitutional, as the President is the sole negotiator of America in foreign affairs. This was established in the Supreme Court ruling of United States v. Curtiss Wright Export Group (1936).

A World Without Conflict

From a young age, the idea of world peace has been something wished for as an attainable goal through diplomacy. However, depending on the way you look at the world and the people in it, it can be varied in its plausibility. From the standpoint of liberalism or positive constructivism, the world's powers have more to gain by working together to eliminate power and grow powerful together. However, from a realist standpoint or even using the more negative aspects of constructivism, regardless of how well nations work together it ultimately lies in human nature how we will behave. History has shown that power and influence will outweigh cooperation in the average individual. Unfortunately, this leads to the belief that a world without conflict cannot exist as competition creates a global environment where not everyone can be equal.

               Though warfare has undoubtedly changed monumentally over the past 3 decades, and even more so looking at the entire history of human interaction, one basic denominator remains the same: countries who crave more power will do anything they need to do in order to get it. From natural resources such as oil reserves and lumber to important physical features like trading ports and accessible points to trade, countries and other autonomous bodies have gone to war to increase their control or expand, as it is a part of human nature to feel competitive. Though many may argue that humans are hardwired to work together in order to succeed, that rule only applies when you look, talk, or pray the same as the other parties. Suddenly when your goals clash mutual development doesn’t matter anymore and it’s a battle for control. It may be a negative view on humanity and its ultimate purpose, but it is one that all of humanity has proven for hundreds of years.

              Though it is commonly argued that an increase in international trade to create a globalized world will prevent international conflict, that is not necessarily the case. Yes, having countries with interdependent economies will help to reduce conflict, but it is by no means a definite, preventative, action. In the years leading up to World War I, the economies of the world were on a rise and international trade was beginning to take place at a rate which had not been seen before. However, not even this could prevent the Great War. Countries will worry about their own success before being concerned about the well-being of other nations. This creates a dangerous global environment where multiple powers will compete for the spot as a global hegemon. Today, the United States holds its place as the unipolar global hegemon, but many other nations are on the rise and we need to be aware as we transition into a potentially multipolar world.

              In an ideal world, where diplomacy is successful and we can create a world with minimal conflicting economic interests as multi-polarity takes hold, radical idealists still create conflict on grounds of non-economic issues. The question is can we ever create a world that is conflict free when opposing viewpoints will lead to violence as they have for hundreds of years? Considering a violence and conflict free world is an amazing dream to have but unfortunately it is a difficult reality to create. Opposing viewpoints, greed, and a lust for power creates a world where we can never fully avoid conflict.

What to do with North Korea

Daniel Madsen

Professor Shirk

What to do with North Korea

            For being such a small nation, North Korea has stirred up a lot of commotion amongst the world over the last thirty years. Leading with Kim Il-sung in 1948, he began the family dynasty of North Korea until his death in 1994. Taking over as heir to the throne, Kim Jong-il ruled as leader until his death in 2011. During his reign, the country was known for having terrible amounts of famine and human rights violations. He strengthened his nation’s military amended their constitution to say that he was the supreme leader of the land. After his death in 2011, the notorious Kim Jong-un took over at age twenty-seven.

            Kim Jong-un has been regarded as a crazy tyrant by the media over the last six years. It is not a change of speed from the previous two leaders in which he has succeeded, but his constant threats of nuclear war are gravely concerning to the world. The problem with nuclear weapons is that they are capable of wiping out populations by the hundreds of thousands. A nuclear war has never been seen before in the world. So, when Kim Jong-un threatens attacks and tests weapons off the coast of Japan, some form of action must be taken.

            There are many different approaches as to how the diffusion of North Korea should be taken. Some of the options include, but are not exclusive to, strategic patience, assassinating Kim Jong-un, bombing the country to send a message that America is a force to be reckoned with, or simply invading the country. Under the Obama Administration, strategic patience was practiced. This is a technical term for basically doing nothing unless there was truly an emergent situation arising. This worked for Obama, but it did not end the problem. It only delayed it. With the Trump Administration, the situation has become far more dangerous because we now have an American leader who is far more outspoken and volatile than the previous president. Donald Trump has been egging on Kim Jong-un for quite some time now, saying that he is not afraid of him. He even has been taunting him, calling him Rocket-Man. Whether you consider North Korea a threat, it is completely inappropriate for the President of the United States to mock another nation’s leader, especially if they are in possession of nuclear weapons.

            This leads us to the important question one must reflect upon: what is the best solution for handling North Korea? If you were to ask me, I would say the best option we have is to invade the nation, liberate the people, and overthrow the government before they are capable of launching any of their weapons. This is obviously easier said than done, but I believe that taking some form of invasive action is better than bombing the nation or waiting for the nation to bomb the United States. By acknowledging Kim Jong-un’s power as legitimate, we are giving him too much credit as a leader. This is the person who has enslaved an entire nation to a suppression from freedom of speech and the outside world. The invasion needs to be swift, undetected, and fast. By taking Kim out of power, it is a start to change in the North Korean regime, as this would be the first time someone outside of the bloodline is ruling since the Truman Administration.        

Accepting a Nuclear North Korea

  On May 13, 2017, North Korea tested an intermediate range ballistic missile, from their test site of Kusong which flew over Japan and crashed into the sea. This missile, which traveled 1,300 kilometers, and was projected to be able to fly up to 3,000 kilometers, which could reach the U.S territory of Guam sparked more talks on how to deal with the Kim Regime in North Korea. While President Trump has been outspoken in his desire to see the Kim Regime dealt with, in a presumably violent manner, speaking of North Korea as “looking for trouble” as if the country was a teenage bully on the playground. However, this policy of openly being antagonistic to North Korea is merely playing the part assigned to him by Kim Jong Un, and following the story that Un feeds to his people of the “Evil America.” The United States best policy with North Korea is not to take the antagonistic roll but, rather one of strategic patience in which diplomacy is stressed and the United States looks to expose the volatility of the Kim Regime in hopes other countries realize the danger they pose and help intervene. 

   An aggressive, antagonistic policy is possibly the worst option for the United States as it only worsens the North Korean insecurity problem, which is the main proponent to the country continuing its nuclear program. The North Korean Nuclear program first came into existence not because they wanted them, but rather because they felt they truly needed them to survive as a sovereign nation. The Kim Regime that “creates a comic-book style mythology” claims that they are the sole reason that the United States has not invaded the Korean peninsula and conquered the Korean people. Even with further economic sanctions of North Korea by the United States this provides no deterrence because they look at examples such as Gaddafi in Libya who surrendered his nuclear program in 2004, and was subsequently killed my rebels years later as well as Ukraine which surrendered its program in 1994, but because of its lack of nuclear power Crimea was annexed by Russia and possibly the most prominent example being Saddam Hussein in Iraq who’s regime was eerily similar to the Kim’s was utterly destroyed by the U.S before he could develop a nuclear program. The United States’ antagonistic stance enforced by Trump will only speed up their nuclear development and play into the hands of North Korea.  

   The United States’ best policy towards North Korea is to except a nuclear Korea and attempt to stifle the program through diplomatic means. The United States has two options in this matter. The first being, accepting that North Korea is a nuclear power and attempting to work with them on a security goal, or using China and other countries to weaken them economically in order to force them to stop their program. The United States however, needs to treat North Korea not as a lesser state but, rather as an equal to keep the Kim Regime from having the insecurity issues that plague them, and encourage them to continue the nuclear program. Something akin to the six party talks should be implemented in which North Korea is actually given a say on what will become of their country. The other parties should make clear where they stand in the area as quite possibly the weakest country, with the least amount of trade power, and still a much weaker military in comparison to China, Russia, or the United States. However, the United States needs to be able to accept a nuclearized North Korea as this is the only thing that will keep the country secure in its sovereignty. The second option would include China, North Koreas biggest importer and exporter as the lynch pin to the plan. Over 2 billion dollars’ worth of goods is imported and exported between China and North Korea every year and, while China is adamant om keeping North Korea a sovereign nation, they could be persuaded to help stifle the nuclear program if the United States were to offer up equal trade benefits. The other top importer and exporters are India, a country which is much more likely to be pro U.S and, Russia who lately has been rather unpredictable. If these countries could come to an agreement with the U.S to halt, or even lessen trade with North Korea, this economic hit could be enough to convince North Korea to stop their nuclear program.

  In Conclusion, eradicating the North Korean nuclear program is an unrealistic goal for the United as that would be forcing North Korea to give up their own security. However, the United States could attempt to work with other nations and North Korea itself in order to stop their nuclear development and keep them from creating any more weapons. While a nuclearized North Korea is not a good thing for any country how can the United States be for denuclearization if they will not disarm themselves for the same reason that the North Koreans want nuclear weapons, because doing so would threaten their own security. 

Sources:
McLaughlin, Elizabeth, and Luis Martinez. “A Look at Every North Korean Missile Test This Year.” ABC News, ABC News Network, abcnews.go.com/International/north-korean-missile-test-year/story?id=46592733

Friedman, Uri. “Can America Live With a Nuclear North Korea?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 14 Sept. 2017, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/north-korea-nuclear-deterrence/539205/ 

Is Ethnicity a Socially Constructed Ideal?

Ethnicity and race are viewed as a vital part of most nations. Wars have been fought over both. In the United States, our census asks both what a person’s race is, as well as ethnicities and one can check however many boxes off as they feel they identify with. Though race is biological, the division of race is a socially constructed idea used to categorize people based on skin tone in a nation. Although race is biological with a social construct factor to it, ethnicities are solely a social construct that has no biological factor to it whatsoever. Someone can be the same race as another, yet have a completely different ethnicity as their neighbor. Ethnicity is a beautiful social construct, but when the wrong hands are put in power, targeting ethnicities becomes a dangerous thing.

Ethnicity is an important part of culture. It gives us a definition of who we ae culturally. Ethnicity gives us tradition. For example, Italian Catholics celebrate Christmas Eve with the celebration have the seven fishes. The Irish put a thick, burning candle in their window on Christmas Eve as a way to symbolize the welcoming of Mary and Joseph. These are just two examples of how people of the same race have complete different ethnicities. In the United States, it is difficult to pinpoint one ethnic group, however, the plentiful ethnic groups represented are what make our country the melting pot we are. Ethnicity is a beautiful concept that allows people to celebrate their culture without necessarily living in the country their ethnicity originated. We often associate man made, socially constructed ideas as bad things to society, however, I think ethnicity is a flourishing example of how wonderful different cultures are.

We are not born automatically having an ethnicity. It must be learned. Much like learning about one’s ethnic group (if they so desire to identify in one) hate for another group is also learned. Ethnic differences do not brew hate. In fact, most people of different ethnicities do not degrade others for their ethnicities. For instance, those who live in the Yugoslovic nations tend to not feel any hatred toward the other ethnic groups. Thought they all hold different traditions and beliefs, their difference mean nothing. They are all human beings to one another and they don’t let those differences get in the way of this belief. There are several theories as to why the Yugoslavic states experienced such a horrific ethnic cleansing. There is no simple answer to this. But one theorist, V.P Gagnon, believes that in order for the ethnic cleansing to have occurred, those in power must destroy the social reality that everyone is equal regardless of ethnicity. Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians typically had favorable opinions to each other, but the leaders manipulated their citizens into believing otherwise. Hate brews hate. The citizens of these nations needed to feel reliant on violence in order for the leaders’ plans of ethnic cleansing could work.

Cases like this can be seen across history. The most infamous is the Holocaust. Though there was a strong antiemetic movement across Eastern European countries before Hitler came to power, Germany under the Weimar Reich, tolerated Jews. The anti-Semitism seen before Hitler rose to power. It was a hatred to play on the pathos of early Christians who believed Jews killed Jesus Christ. This was a learned hatred, as Jews and Christians lived in harmony in other parts of the world. Hitler played on the pathos of those who believed this and on the pathos of the people who suffered economically in the crumbling fiscal state they were in. Hitler convinced his whole nation Jews were the reason for the country’s economic downfall. Gagnon’s theory can be applied here, as Hitler destroyed the social reality they were in. This destruction of reality lead to one of the worst, if not the worst genocides ever reported in history. Not only were Jews targeted, but so were Gypsies. People who did not follow the “normal” cultural ethnicity the Germans had were targeted. This hatred was brewed in the people. It was a learned behavior.

Ethnicities make us different only in the ways we act. Even then, in many developed countries, people identify as several different ethnicities. They are beautiful socially constructed categories that show though we all may act differently, we are all the same at the genetic level. Ethnicities are learned cultural values, but when the wrong person is placed in power, the fragility of ethnicity can be crumbled and fall apart, as the hate that is spread about ethnicities is a learned behavior. 

Works Cited

Gagnon, V. P. "1,2." The Myth of Ethnic War: Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s. N.p.: Cornell UP, 2006. N. pag. Print.

JPC-DESIGN, Whychristmas?com /. "Christmas in Ireland on Whychristmas?com." Christmas Around the World -- Whychristmas?com. N.p., n.d. Web.