Rules of engagement? The Korean situation through another lens

By David Tizzard

David Tizzard

Staying abreast of the recent developments involving South Korea, North Korea and the United States is somewhat akin to eating soup with a fork. No matter how much you might concentrate and place all your efforts into obtaining the juicy details, everything just seems to slip away at the last minute and leave you looking rather messy and embarrassed.

Even Messrs. Moon, Trump and Kim are still wondering how many seats will be needed at the table in Singapore, what will be on the menu and who will pick up the check.

All this has left many reporters, journalists and observers scratching their collective chins. Despite his ever-sedulous reporting, Asia Time's Northeast Asian correspondent Andrew Salmon was recently moved to confess that he had “no idea” about what might happen next as the situation continues to unfold before us.

Nevertheless, while those who have written and researched the area with a remarkable tenacity are choosing to quite rightly err on the side of caution, elsewhere everyone from literary professors to media graduates continue to champion their own opinions on foreign policy and international relations with a level of enthusiasm that is not matched by their experience or expertise. Even those with relevant backgrounds often look to attack the particular political figure they dislike before imparting any wisdom or learning from their field, if at all.

Social media has become an arena for moralizing and soap-boxing to an extent which is rather astonishing. So much so, in fact, that international studies professor and North Korean propaganda expert B.R. Myers has taken to lamenting the current discourse and labeling it as being carried out as “simplistic, moralizing, America-centric fashion, with no apparent sense of history.”

Thus, with that being said, what follows here are the six principles of political realism as put forward by Hans Morgenthau in his 1948 work, “Politics Among Nations.”

The ideas contained within are some of the cornerstones of classical realism. This particular branch was later supplemented by theories of structural realism and neoclassical realism. It also stands counter to what would arrive in the various forms of liberalism and constructivism. This is, therefore, not intended to be proposed as the only lens through which one should gauge the current situation, but merely to provide one more than many are now using.

Principle One: In political theory, particularly that which governs foreign policy and interaction among nations, it is possible to ascertain and discover objective laws. Distinction can therefore be drawn between what is true and rational, supported by facts and illuminated by reason, and that which is subjective judgment and wishful thinking.

One should not be swayed by certain theories because they are new or novel, nor discard those that are old or historic. Instead, the thing of vital importance remains to look at what was done and then what the consequences of that action were. These two things alone should be the focus of the investigation: the scientific method finds a home here in analyzing actions and results.

Principle Two: When studying foreign policy, one should avoid looking to discover the motivations of statesmen. Just consider how often we ourselves do things for reasons of which we are unsure. Our subconscious kicks in more often than we think. And so, considering this, we cannot with any confidence even begin to talk about the motivations of others. Psychological data remains far too elusive to be discussed with any certainty.

Moreover, even if we were to have it, how often have things been shown to have unintended consequences? Do we not often see certain people set out to improve the world only for the good intentions to result in ruin? St. Bernard of Clairvaux summed it up when he observed that “hell is full of good wishes and desires.” Avoid, therefore, talking of other individuals' motivations.

Principle Three: Nations will always act in their own interests. This is defined as achieving “power.” Where economists measure money and anthropologists study humans, political scientists are concerned with power. The actual realized nature of power will change according to the temporal and spatial contexts: In certain situations power might be an army of brute force, it may be information and propaganda, it may be soft culture, nuclear weapons, improved relations for trade, and so on. Regardless, power will always remain the one constant toward which nations act.

Principle Four: The morality of the individual differs from that of the state. Therefore do not equate the two. A single person may choose to martyr themselves for a cause and forgo their own life to further something in which they truly believe. History records many examples of these deeds. A state, however, cannot do so. It will not, nor cannot, willingly sacrifice itself for a greater moral principle. It holds a responsibility to its inhabitants and people and will therefore choose survival over that which is considered morally correct on an individual level.

Principle Five: Morality should not be used to judge the foreign policy decisions of a nation. Analysis should be concerned with whether the policies and decisions serve to increase or decrease the nation's power. Moreover, it cannot be said that one nation is morally correct and the other not ― for they all equally follow their interest. Most nations throughout history have painted themselves internally as being in accordance with a certain set of universal laws of morality ― but yet this is not in line with the reality of the situation. All nations can be seen and judged equally when seen through the lens of power.

Principle Six: The world of politics is a notoriously difficult and complex web of intricacies. Only through deceiving himself as to the very nature of politics and his particular relationship with the events that unfold is man said to be able to live with any degree of comfort. However, this deception is an important psychological barrier that should be surmounted. Only by seeing things as they are, rather than as we might wish them to be, will we ever be able to come close to understanding the theory that governs politics among nations. We have to concentrate and apply thought if we wish to ascertain truth rather than simply put forth our mere feelings or desires.

The six rules are not easy to grasp on an initial reading ― indeed, Morgenthau fills his writing with examples and explanations to better communicate them. They are best deciphered, it should be said, in discussion with others. And yet they are not that illusive that reading and understanding will forever leave you scratching your head. They can be grasped by anyone with a little application.

Then the truly fascinating thing comes when you then apply these six principles as a theory to the current situation and see how things shape up then. Not as you want them to, nor as you think they should be, but through the scientific method of noting the facts and measuring the consequences.

Or, of course, you could just post a meme instead.

David Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) is an assistant professor at Seoul Women's University and host of TBS eFM's cultural radio show "A Little of a Lot." The show can be heard every Sunday from 4 p.m.-6 p.m. on 101.3 FM or downloaded via online platforms such as iTunes and Podbang.