Constructivism and Neorealism in North Korea

North Koreas’ ‘National identity – seems to stem from post-colonial nationalism. The state is determined to move away from its past as a Japanese colony and its subsequent dependence on USSR and China. The end of the cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union - its closest ally, left the country pretty much on its own in was an increasingly hostile international climate against its ideology of communism. The country has since upheld a narrative of extreme independence; unity and non-subservience to international demands even when doing so compromised its economic and diplomatic interests. North Korean policy revolves around the promotion of its constructed image of a strong self-reliant nation.

In contrast to the state as the central actor – in Constructivism individuals, structures and ideational factors of world politics are the main actors in the international setting. “Structures” determine the interaction of different actors in an international system and the conditions for such an interaction. Thereby providing insight into how preferences are formed before actors exercise rationality through actions (Kim, 2000). In the Constructivist universe, ‘the global system is produced by social constructs’, and states act dynamically based on a balance between transnational and societal norms. The absence of a superior coercive global power is therefore an argument for the effect of ‘norms’ on the behavior of states. It is therefore the system of shared knowledge; norms, beliefs, and values reproduced through social practices (e.g. diplomacy or war) that impact and influence international politics.

Constructivism rejects the notion that International Politics are homogenous and discard the tendency to generalize the understanding of inter-state relations. With a focus on shared knowledge, practices, and identities, the theory organizes and offers improved predictability of state behaviors. Constructivism provides a more real-world approach to analyze international politics and does not take a singular view of international relations. However the approach is not without weaknesses, for example, it lacks an explicit theory of agency and fails to explain exactly when and why states should be expected to cooperate. The chances of biased interpretations of situations are also high as the approach depends on discourse analysis to support the prediction of outcomes (Lapid, 1989). The following section briefly discusses the current situation in the Korean Conflict, it is interesting to note that both neorealist and constructivist approaches have a part to play in the way forward for this prolonged regional conflict.

Way Forward: Neorealist or Constructivist

The Korean peninsula is struggling with the challenge to move beyond the established status quo of the last 70 years. Self-preservation and security remain a conflict of interest in moving forward with dialogue. However, in April 2018, a leader from North Korea crossed the Korean Demilitarized Zone for the first time to discuss denuclearization and long-awaited peace with South Korean counterparts. As of January 2019, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has restated the pledge to denuclearise but warned that the strategy may shift if sanctions against the country are not lifted. On the other side, South Korean President Moon Jae-In continues to enjoy popular support predominantly because of his policy of establishing peace with North Korea.

Understanding North Korea’s interests and perceptions are critically important to reduce the tensions in the peninsula (constructivist context). However, the role of external powers and their interests (neorealist context) cannot be ignored in the efforts to attain peace on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea and China have welcomed President Moon’s interests to foster peace. It is the first time in the history of the conflict that the strategic interests of the 3 Asian countries have somewhat aligned. Increased interaction between the North and South – and other regional stakeholders is vital to develop a shared sense of identity (of self and the other). Moon, believes that the North Korean nuclear program is a reflection of its insecurity, caused by the U.S. There is debate on how granting concessions to North Korea will help further the negotiation process towards nuclear disarmament. However, such an outcome would require (among other things) the exit of the U.S. nuclear and military bases from South Korea. This creates uneasiness in Japan and the U.S.

Constant and consistent efforts and interactions (Constructivist approach) at all levels will help in undoing the decades of perceived threats and othering. This interaction can take the form of diplomatic meetings or joint economic interests. This will also require a conscious effort to reconstruct the socially held identities of the actors (at all levels) to better reflect the evolving nature of the conflict. Pyongyang now grapples with balancing its traditional image of power and evolving identity of a state willing to move forward on international terms, albeit reluctantly. And President Moon has a tough job to balance his relations with long-term allies while seeking peace with neighbors. In the meantime, Seoul continues to strengthen its military capabilities to deter North Korean missiles (Lee and Botto, 2019). As Kim (2000) explains the process towards Korean peace would require “institutionalizing the web of bilateral ties that exists in the region through increased interaction between relevant countries would be neoliberalist in form, neorealist in essence and constructivist in process.”