Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Strife Staff

Strife Staff

Korean Reunification (II): what does Pyongyang really think?

by

By Carlotta Rinaudo

The Joint Security Area, a section of the DMZ destined to diplomatic relations. It’s also the only place where North and South Korean soldiers are standing face-to-face. (Image credit: Flickr)

When asked her opinion about Korean reunification, North Korean waitress Song Jin A replied that the North and South are one blood, and that Korean compatriots should all live together, ‘cuddled in Kim Jong-un’s arms.’

Such proclamations are regular fixtures of comments made to foreign journalists on the streets of Pyongyang, where citizens repeatedly emphasize their longing for reunification, often referring to Koreans south of the 38th parallel as “brothers and sisters.” Similarly, the political elites of both countries continue to publicly advocate for the integration of the two Koreas.

Despite these declared desires, reunification nonetheless remains seemingly impossible. On each side, a plethora of factors seem to complicate reconciliation, and currently both parties face domestic contexts that render ambitions of reunification untenable. As I have argued previously, the South Korean elite is preoccupied with the hypothetical unions’ economic costs, the issue of demilitarizing and denuclearizing the North, and what place the Kim family and its officials should have in a unified Korea. Face-to-face with these obstacles, elite actors within North Korea also have their own concerns about unification. And it is to these which I will now turn.

It should first be noted that North Korea would enter the union as a weaker partner, which would reduce its ability to influence the decision-making process. For this reason, North Korean elite officials fear that reunification will be to their social, economic, and political disadvantage: they fear the intrusion of the United States in Korean affairs, the suppression of the North Korean ideology, and of losing their personal authority.

North Korean leaders depict Japan and the US as the imperialist forces responsible for the division of the Korean Peninsula. Their rhetoric maintains, not entirely without basis, that the US transformed South Korea into a colony governed by a puppet regime. Indeed, since the Cold War era South Korea has undergone an Americanization process that saw the country adopting an American style democracy while embracing many of the American ways of living, and allowing a strong American military presence on its soil.

Although over recent years the Kim regime has displayed some tolerance towards the American presence in the South, Kim Jong-un has continued to request these troops be significantly reduced. As a precondition of reunification, North Korean officials may demand US forces be expelled from the Korean Peninsula, or request their re-organization and reduction. The US is unlikely to support such deal, as its South Korean bases offer a key strategic point in countering perceived Chinese threats in the South China Sea.
Consequently, South Korea’s government, for whom the US is a main military ally, may also oppose the proposals.

As discussed in my previous article, in 2017 South Korea’s per capita GDP was twenty-five times larger than that of North Korea. This prompts North Korean leaders to fear that, should reunification occur, the South may economically overshadow the North, threatening the survival of the North Korean ideology. To avoid this scenario, in 1980 former North Korean leader Kim Il Sung said that the North and the South should instead unify under a form of confederation, branded the Democratic Federal Republic of Koryo – where the word Koryo recalls the ancient Koryo Kingdom under which the whole Korea was unified until 1392. The Democratic Federal Republic of Koryo is a “one country, two systems” model, much like what China and Hong Kong used to be. It consists of a unified nation that maintains two separate systems of government, allowing the coexistence of different ideologies: the Juche Socialism of the North, and the Capitalist system of the South. To ensure such coexistence, there would be a supreme national assembly with the same number of representatives from both sides. An equal share of representation would avoid a “big fish eats small fish” scenario, reducing the risk of the North Korean ideology being swallowed by a stronger South Korean counterpart.

The North Korean elite benefits from a hereditary class system known as Songbun, which divides people into three main social classes: the core, the wavering, and the hostile. The families that have been loyal to the Kim dynasty represent the core class, a ruling cadre that includes high-ranking military officials, senior bureaucrats, businessmen and diplomats. They enjoy material affluence and enjoy a system where they regularly accept bribes from the rest of the population in exchange of favors. This elite is afraid that, should reunification occur, their privileges might be taken away or, even worse, that they might be punished for their complicity in the Kim regime.

As such, these elites may attempt to sabotage any unification process that threatens their power. Northern military generals might mount an insurgency against a unification government before the military units are disarmed and disbanded, or else they could organize clandestinely using underground stores of weapons.

This scenario has happened before. When American forces invaded Iraq, many members of the Ba’ath party lost their privileges. They therefore organized an insurgency of former regime allies, which would eventually pave the way for the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq. Consequently, North Korean elites are unlikely to collaborate in the reunification process unless they are assured that their advantageous social position won’t be undermined.

Nonetheless, a significant part of the elite is increasingly unhappy with Kim Jong-un. North Korea’s state-controlled economy has proved largely unable to raise the living standards of its population, and the country is currently crippled by countless economic sanctions which banned the export of North Korean coal, iron ore and textiles, a major source of revenue for Pyongyang. In a speech to the Workers Party Congress in January 2021, Kim Jong-un surprisingly admitted that his efforts to rebuild the economy have failed. Should a new North Korean leader take over, he or she could be one of those entrepreneurs who operate outside of the inefficient North Korean economy. In this scenario, such leadership could push North Korea towards a China-like reformation period, as happened under Deng Xiaoping’s leadership. This would partially open North Korea to a market-based economy, thus beginning to bridge the ideological gap between North and South and perhaps facilitating a reunification process.

In sum, many factors stand in the way of a Korean reconciliation. On one side, the elites of Pyongyang are unlikely to support the reunification process unless certain conditions are met: American forces are expelled or reduced from the Peninsula, the North Korean ideology is preserved, and they can maintain their socioeconomic privileges. On the other side, South Korean leaders are unlikely to accept a US withdrawal from the Peninsula, while also questioning the role of the North Korean elites under a unified Korea.

However, it should be noted that predicting the conditions of a national unification is no easy task, especially when it involves tracing social forces within a state system as opaque as North Korea.

 

Carlotta is a MA candidate in International Affairs at the Defence Studies Department, King’s College London. After completing her BA in Interpreting and Translation, she moved to the Middle East and developed a strong interest in the MENA region, North Korea, Cybersecurity, and the implications of the rise of China. Carlotta has written on a number of Italian publications on the Hong Kong protests and other forms of political unrest.

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

by

by Prachi Aryal

A Nepali man looks at photographs of disappeared persons displayed by human rights activists. Credits: Niranjan Shrestha

While Nepalese government representatives were addressing the Universal Periodic Review of Nepal’s Human Rights Records, Ganga Maya Adhikari began another hunger strike to demand justice for her son, Krishna Prasad Adhikari, who was killed during the Maoist conflict. Her son was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by the Maoists in 2004. Adhikari has staged multiple hunger strikes since 2013, demanding the persecution of the perpetrators. Her husband, Nanda Prasad Adhikari died in 2014, succumbing, after 329 days, to his own hunger strike. His body remains in the mortuary, as the family has refused to perform last rites until justice has been served. The story of the Adhikari family is just one amongst the many thousands whose quest for justice has been quashed by a culture of impunity.

Nepal witnessed a decade long civil conflict from 1996-2006, fought between joint security forces and Maoist rebels. The period was marked by widespread human rights violations, including forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, arrests, rapes, and torture, committed by both the warring parties. The conflict left over 15,000 dead and over 1,300 remain missing.

The Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA), signed in 2006 to bring an end to the conflict, was a ray of hope for the victims, as it came with a promise of accountability and justice. The accord adopted a gradual approach of disarming and demobilizing the Maoist rebels whilst integrating some of them into the national army and political process. However, 15 years later, the CPA has failed to uphold its promises, with thousands of victims still struggling for justice.

Under the CPA, investigative commissions were established to uncover the truth about the human rights violations that occurred during the conflict. After years of delay, the process was formally started in 2014 with the introduction of the Transitional Justice Act, which authorized the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP). However, the final version of the Act – that was signed into law – differed substantially from the versions agreed upon by government with the victims and the human rights groups, as it contained blanket amnesty for perpetrators of human rights violations.

Despite the Supreme Court of Nepal in 2015 ruling that this provision of amnesty was unconstitutional the government of Nepal has failed to amend the act. In 2020, the Supreme Court rejected a petition by the government of Nepal to reverse its verdict and restated its previous ruling that the act be amended. The government has yet to uphold the ruling. The government has attempted to amend the act in close coordination with Colombian transitional justice experts. The bill has attempted to build on the ‘restorative justice’ idea of the Columbian process however, it seems unlikely that the victims will agree to it as it remains far from the mandate suggested by the Supreme Court and allows political parties the freedom to reduce the severity of the sentences given to perpetrators.

The CIEDP and TRC’s term was extended by the government until the 15th of July 15 year, it is therefore unlikely that all 2,506 complaints of disappearances and 63,718 cases submitted to the truth commission will be investigated. To date the commissions have not recommended any cases for prosecution and the victims have not received any update on the status of the disappeared.

A recent figure released by the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal states that, among the cases of violation investigated by the commission, 779 (65.16 %) were committed by the state, 287 (24.03 %) by the Maoists, and 38 (3.19 %) by both the parties. With the changing political scenario and the dominance of the United Communist Party of Nepal, the power of the commissions has diminished as yesterday’s perpetrators are now leaders. The culture of impunity is reflected by the election of Agni Sapkota as the speaker of the House of Representatives despite him facing a charge for murder.

Another challenge faced in the transitional justice process comes from the Nepalese Army, which maintains a position that Civil Courts cannot try Army Personnel. Human Rights advocates assert that this continued failure of the transitional phase is a direct result of perpetrator-led political maneuvering. Om Astha Rai, postulates in Yesterday’s enemies, today’s comrades, the delayed process is because the current political landscape includes perpetrators of human rights abuses who have consistently blocked and impeached processes of accountability .

Furthermore, the victims are wary of the transitional justice mechanisms as they offer no victim-protection or safety to them. Many victims claim that the transitional justice process is elite-led as it is centered around the metropolitan cities, away from rural Nepal; the battlefield of the ten year long conflict.

An effective transitional justice system requires strong legal foundations consistent with international law and standards, and the political will to address the demands of victims of the conflict, but in the case of Nepal, it is marred by political maneuvering aimed at evading accountability. The culture of impunity and failure to uphold the rule of law will alienate the victims of the wartime conflict and create a fragile state where the respect for rule of law is eroded. With perpetrators continuing to dominate the political landscape justice remains distant for wartime victims.

The peace process heralded by the signing of CPA has now lasted longer than the war, as the country remains mired in transition, without substantial progress. The perpetrators of crime are elected as members of the government while victims like Ganga Maya Adhikari are left to fight an endless battle for justice.

 

Prachi Aryal is a MA student in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. Her research interest is inclined towards Gender, Human Rights, and Cross border conflicts in transitioning nations and how visuals from conflict zones play a role in communicating the realities of conflict to the broader world. She completed her BA in Journalism from the University of Delhi, India.

Strife Journal: First Round of Call for Papers for 2021

by

Strife Journal is pleased to announce the opening of the first round of Call for Papers for 2021, with a deadline for all papers of 12 April 2021.

Strife is a biannual peer-reviewed dual-format publication which publishes articles on the theme of conflict, broadly defined. Submissions may include studies of conflict in history, art and media, of the relationship between war and state, of the interrelation of war and society, analyses of strategy, operations and military tactics, diplomacy and international relations, as well as more narrowly defined subjects. There is no restriction as to period or geographical focus.

Strife Journal - Call for Papers

Articles should be between 4000–5000 words and include an abstract of 100 words. Submitted articles must meet the outlined submission guidelines. Articles that do not meet referencing and formatting guidelines risk being rejected for publication.

Please email submissions to [email protected].

It’s Time to Reconceptualize the American War Hero

by

By Mary Hood

U.S. Army Cyber Operations at Fort Meade, Maryland (Copyright: US Army)

Today’s stereotypical war hero – drawn largely from dramatised media portrayals – looks much like his historical predecessors. While the uniform, kit, and weapon may be different, the generic image of a tall and rugged white man valiantly risking his own safety in some far-off land remains. However, if the US intends to continue in being equipped with the best soldiers to fight on the battlefields of the new century, that approach needs to change.

A 2016 Pew Research Study found that more Americans have ‘a great deal of trust’ in their military than in any other public institution, a finding that parallels previous reports. This trust has remained high since the Second World War, only faltering during the Vietnam War before quickly recovering. Prizing its claim to the oldest surviving Constitution in the world, the United States’ survival relies on positive civil-military relations marked by a successful system of military subordination to civilian control and a distinct absence of the military in domestic law enforcement.

This dynamic, combined with the current cultural-political landscape, results in two outcomes. First, the U.S. military abides by the will of its civilian leadership, and more diffusely, the American public. The Vietnam War demonstrated just how disastrous a military operation can become when public opinion turns against it. Research also shows that public opinion directly influences military spending, sometimes more so even than the actual conflict. Second, limited domestic presence of the military and the absence of existential conflicts since the Second World War have created a military largely aloof from the American public. Fewer and fewer Americans personally know an active duty service member, which experts argue translates to an increased reliance on media sources for an understanding of the military.

Herein lies the problem. According to a recent academic article on media portrayals of the military, ‘research shows that military service members are often framed as stoic, heroic, patriotic, dedicated, hypermasculine, or even superhuman.’ The article goes on to discuss how this perpetuates a “warrior myth,” in which every service member is a combat hero of epic proportions. Perhaps this was truer during the Second World War, when 61.2% of all U.S. military enlisted personnel served in combat roles. Indeed, a website entitled ‘The Art of Manliness’ allows you to compare your physical fitness to that expected of WWII soldiers, thus proving that you are as ‘manly’ and ‘tough’ as your grandfathers before you.

Moreover, ‘The Art of Manliness’ is not alone. It is evident that a historic nostalgia for the time when millions of young men braved the dangers of war with nothing but a rifle and a rucksack combined with the media glorification of combat via content such as ‘Black Hawk Down’ and ‘American Sniper’ have led to an American public firmly entrenched in their ideas of who and what the United States military should be.

The depth of this problem was painfully illuminated by the debacle that was the proposed Distinguished Warfare Medal in 2013. Days before retirement, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the creation of a high-level service medal for those military members demonstrating ‘extraordinary achievement’ not involving acts of valour. The award was designed to acknowledge outstanding achievement by cyber warfare and combat drone operators – individuals often overlooked for recognition due to the distinct lack of risk of bodily harm inherent in their duties.

The American public would have nothing of it. A Fox News article on the subject, harkening yet again to the historically rooted, stereotypical ideal of a soldier, opened with, ‘There was a time in our nation’s military history when a service member actually had to earn their medals.’ Fox News was joined by a cacophony of other voices, who if not upset purely by the medal’s existence, then decried its order of precedence being ahead of some combat awards. A House of Representatives bill banning the medal from being rated equal to or above the Purple Heart rapidly gained 124 cosponsors. Such was the outcry that the medal was deemed ‘unnecessary’ by new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and subsequently cancelled in its entirety less than two months after it was first introduced.

The public’s stubborn determination to cling to outdated ideals of what it means to be a war hero limits the military’s ability to modernise and inherently weakens American security in the face of 21st century threats. Today, less than thirteen per cent of servicemembers are assigned combat rated positions. This is reflective of a broader shift in the nature of warfare, where many ‘battles’ are now fought in the space and cyberspace domains. December 2020 marked the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Space Force. Revolutionary in that it will likely never send a single troop into combat, its creation serves as a stark reminder that wars are no longer won or lost by 18-year-olds with rifles.

Yet a public still mired in this perception shackles these efforts at modernising the military. While the creation of the Space Force marks a step forward, an inability to fill its ranks with competent and motivated individuals is likely to be an issue, as it has already proven to be with regards to the recruitment and retainment of cyberspace operators. 71% of young Americans do not qualify for military service today, typically due to recreational drug use, obesity, or medical issues as minor as eczema. Today’s cyber and space experts reside in this broader cross-section of society, and until the military can loosen restrictions on physical fitness, appearance, and medical standards – relics of a historic past continually revived by the media – they remain out of reach as contributors to the safety and security of America.

So, what can be done? The military and the media need to work in concert to move away from the classic embodiment of the American war hero. The Space Force is the perfect opportunity to begin opening doors to military service for a broader sect of the American public, and this needs to be both advertised and praised. While many cyber and space capabilities are classified, increased education and awareness of American strength in these areas can help shape public opinion. Finally, bring back the Distinguished Warfare Medal, or some form of it. Demonstrating that both the military and the public support these new war heroes will be critical if America hopes to field a competent, skilled, and battle-ready force for the 21st century.

[Disclaimer: The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private opinions of the author and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the United States Department of Defense or the United States Air Force.]

Mary Hood is a graduate student at King’s College London as well as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force. Her interests include women and mental health in the military, lethal autonomous weapons, and artificial intelligence.

Want to tackle disinformation? Stop using the same tactics.

by

By Sophia Rigby

General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith presents on how the British Army is adopting to new warfighting domains, including information operations (MOD, 2020)

Disinformation is nothing new. It seems to be a commonly held belief that disinformation is a new style of warfare and interference, put to perfect use in the 2014 Ukrainian Crisis, the 2016 US election, and the 2016 Brexit referendum. But disinformation has been around for centuries to spread malicious rumours and to discredit rivals; what is new is the manner of spreading disinformation and how quickly it can spread.

The advent of social media and technological advances have meant that we have a mass of information at our fingertips and expect to be able to find a concise answer to complex problems in seconds. Or 0.37 seconds, which is how long it took Google to find me results relating to the Internal Market Bill. However, unlike the encyclopaedias of old, few of these results will come with verifiable and reliable evidence attached. Anyone can post on a blog or Wikipedia and almost anyone can doctor a photograph or a video (to varying degrees of success),yet we have very little in the public sphere, especially education, about evaluating sources of information and treating news critically.

The 2015 National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review[1] failed to recognise disinformation as a significant threat to national security under its cyber section. But the recently published Russia Report[2] in the UK found that Russian disinformation was fomenting political extremism around Brexit and other divisive issues. This puts disinformation purely in the domain of political and national security, an area of life that for many people seem as remote from their daily lives, as the countries in which the threats originate.

However, in the context of the growing anti-vax movement and alternative therapies for Covid-19, we observe how disinformation coupled with public ignorance of the facts are negatively impacting our everyday lives. Anti-vax and anti-lockdown conspiracy theorists have taken to the streets in European capitals (including London on 19 September), to protest against the lockdown measures and the mandatory wearing of face masks, in attempts to discredit any future vaccine[3]. Anti-vax theories are gaining a greater following in the UK, but the impact can be clearly seen in many American cities which are seeing an increase in cases of measles, mumps, and tuberculosis as vaccination levels decrease[4].

Despite accumulated scientific evidence pointing to the reliability of vaccines, not least the eradication of devastating diseases in the UK such as polio, and the discreditation of the scientists who first supported anti-vax theories, people are still inclined to believe some stranger on Facebook. This is made possible by disinformation methods that have become far more sophisticated and appear in articles on websites, in videos on news sites, and rarely find engagement with vigorous debate. The anonymity of social media and the courage (or bravado) this instils in people mean that reasonable voices are drowned out by those spouting vitriolic abuse at any dissenting voices. Mainstream views are pushed out as extreme voices resort to threats and insults to get their point across more firmly.

‘Knowledge is power’ (was first written down in Thomas Hobbes’ political tome Leviathan in 1668) is perhaps not the most powerful argument in favour, but how are we to make sure that the knowledge being distributed and circulated in social media networks is accurate? Firstly, and most importantly, we have to stop using the same tactics. From the politician who purposely manipulates statistics to make a false impression of reality, to the wordsmith who uses language to mask the truth, to the politician who rebrands their party political account to appear as an independent fact checking organisation.

We know statistics can be manipulated and it is done time and time again in debates on poverty statistics. Relative poverty and absolute poverty are two different measures – relative poverty is set at 60% of the average net household income in the year in question and can fluctuate from year to year whereas absolute poverty is set at 60% of the average net household income of 2010/11 and does not fluctuate over time. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies data[5], relative poverty rates have increased for children and everyone overall, for working-age non-parents and pensioners they have stayed fairly level. However, absolute poverty rates have decreased for pensioners and working-age non-parents, stayed fairly level for everyone overall, and increased for children. So, the Government can claim to have reduced poverty and use statistics to back up that fact, the Opposition and charities can claim poverty has increased, and the public are none the wiser to the actual state of affairs.

Politicians will always use the best evidence to support their claims, and the opposition will always pull another piece of evidence that seems to suggest otherwise – that’s just the way politics works. With elections and Government at stake, it seems impossible as well as naïve to assume that for politicians would speak plainly and leave the party-political rhetoric at the door. But journalists have a responsibility, not just to support the politicians whose party their editor or paper supports, but to analyse claims and show their respective strengths and weaknesses. They also need to look at the use of anonymous sources and treat them as factual. Without the opportunity to assess the reliability of sources, we are both failing to look critically at information and encouraging belief in faceless facts.

Ultimately, we need critical thinkers. Schools try to teach critical thinking through History and English Literature, but all subjects have a role to play in teaching us to look at the world more critically and analyse what is being told to us. Maths is important in showing us how statistics can be manipulated, Science can show us the complex systems in place to develop vaccines as well as look at the ethics of experimentation, Drama can teach us to look at the character behind the rhetoric and eloquent speeches. Above all, coursework and project work teaches more than teamwork and presentation skills; it teaches us how to research and balance the various claims, how to look critically at who is writing and explaining, and what their motives are. This? Pedagogy you mean? is as important as the actual content, so that people learn to look past the emotive and sometimes the shocking elements to the trustworthiness of the content.

We’ve seen the pernicious and deadly impact that disinformation can have on people’s lives. From the war in Ukraine to the Covid pandemic, disinformation is a threat to national security. But we are not taking it seriously and we are not taking adequate steps to tackle it. Social media platforms must be made responsible for the content on their sites, politicians must be made accountable for comments they make, “inside sources” must face greater scrutiny from journalists, and we must ensure that tackling disinformation is incorporated into the curriculum. National Service was used to prepare the nation when the threat of conventional war was present; education promoting critical thinking is our preparation for disinformation at present.

 

Sophia Rigby is a Doctoral Researcher in the Department of Defence Studies at King’s College, London. Her research is focusing on realist-constructivist theories of international relations and how it relates to Russian foreign policy in Europe. She holds a BA in Modern Languages and a Masters focusing on Russia and Eastern Europe. Since graduating, she has been working in political strategies and communications.