On 7 June 1951, French philosopher and dramatist Jean Paul Sartre’s play The Devil and the Good Lord opened in the Parisian Antoine Theater. The play tells the story of Goetz, a vicious and tyrannical warlord who decides to become a good Samaritan in an effort to redeem himself. The tipping point in the story is the Siege of Worms. Then, Sartre writes that ‘when the rich make war, it’s the poor that die.’ Challenged by a priest who tells him that doing good is harder than doing bad, Goetz decides to prove him wrong and embarks on a crusade to do good. Little does Goetz know that most of its attempts to do so will lead to suffering, disasters, and death. The existentialist Sartre makes the reader wonder about the nature of political power, the relationship between leaders and their people, and how striving to achieve good, if it is ever truly possible, might require suffering and harsh discipline. Ultimately, even the best intentions can turn into tragedy if they are entangled with the world’s complexities. Though Sartre was writing in a European post-war context, political power-play and conflicts were far from over despite peace treaties and creation of the United Nations. For one, righting wrongs was at the heart of North Korea’s invasion of the South, on 25 June 1950. With the proclamation on 7 September 1945 by General Douglas MacArthur , Commander in Chief of the United States Army Forces for the Pacific region (USARPAC), that every people and territory south of the 38th parallel on the Korean peninsula would be under his military authority, the stage was initially set for a conflict that would span decades. Just like Goetz’ political choices, this announcement was made for the greater good, or at least for the greater good of powerful parties involved. The aim, then, was to remove Japanese colonial structures in Northeast Asia and to reorganize and reconfigure military troops in the region to establish a lasting peaceful order after World War II. But sometimes, best intentions do not lead to optimum outcomes. More than seven decades after the Koreas’ partition , which was only ever intended as a temporary measure, the Koreas have established separate governments, discrete economies, independent foreign relations, and different identities. They have also, at times, fought bitterly against one another to regain control and unity over the peninsula. While the division was initially one of a territory, it has become one of a people. But the Koreas did not exist in a vacuum, and much of their separation was framed by the tug of Cold War between the Soviet Union on the one hand and the United States on the other. Despite the fall of the Soviet system and the apparent triumph of capital and neoliberal world order, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Republic of Korea (ROK) have both developed but as separate countries.
South of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), the ROK could very well be the poster child for the proponents of capitalism’s marriage to democratization and how they can, together, produce steady modernization. Seoul has indeed a lot to show for: it has graduated into the Group of Twenty (G20) and is a competitive player in a number of industries including shipping and high-end electronics. It has developed enough clout within the international system to be hosting prestigious and world-class sporting events. While the Seoul Summer Olympic Games in 1988 showcased the ROK as a new democracy, the FIFA World Cup organized with Japan in 2002 consolidated its broad appeal, and it is gearing up to host the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang. Beyond its own development, the ROK has become a middle power concerned with, and active within, global governance . A long-time recipient of military aid and support, Seoul is now able to participate in a number of multilateral coalitions. It has offered logistical and medical support to Operation Enduring Freedom as early as its inception in 2001 and has joined the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee in 2009(OECD DAC). So, the Korean Wave is not tidal, but it should also be reckoned with: Seoul is becoming an attractive destination for international students and travelers alike who are seduced by its culture, food, dynamism, and the values popularized by Korean television drama and pop songs.
North of the DMZ, there are few foreigners, little pop music but plenty of drama. With Chinese and Soviet support, the DPRK has developed a communist-style political leadership. The system has now graduated from its initial influences, and the DPRK has developed via the Chuch’e its own brand of ideology, mostly calling for independence and sovereignty and complete with a de-facto hereditary political succession. North Korea’s post-war development has been arduous and has tested the limits of planned economy. But its economic struggles have also been overshadowed by its efforts to develop a nuclear program. Numerous missile and nuclear weapons tests have led to political alienation, economic sanctions, and development despair. It also means that the North has very few friends prepared to lend a hand to such a decrepit and brutal political system.
Is North Korea on the brink of economic collapse? Looking at economic figures could provide the beginning of an answer but should be taken with a grain of salt, or at least with the understanding that there always is a degree of uncertainty when researching the DPRK, since it does not publish official trade figures. Second-best options, such as figures released in September 2015 by the South Korean Trade Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA), stress the central role that China has maintained for decades in North Korea’s trade balance. 1 This is not surprising, as China’s influence has been well documented in the literature, from Beijing’s border management to its investment and active role in the development of special economic zones in Rason and Hwanggumpyong . 2 But guessing what the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) endgame might be is a more challenging task, and a simple desire to avoid a North Korean collapse and thus the destabilization of the entire region might just be the most watertight explanation one will find. What is interesting in recent DPRK trade data, be they coming from KOTRA, the World Bank, or the Bank of Korea, is that they lend credence to what could be termed the ‘North Korean Ghost Economy.’ Essentially, the DPRK’s overall trade volume has expanded in recent years, but North Korea operates a perpetual trade deficit . What it means is that the DPRK essentially imports a lot more than it exports, or at least what we think it officially imports and exports. How can the DPRK survive, then, in this constant race against a perennial and essentially fundamental lack of revenue? Though the DPRK has been accused in the past of forging currency and especially producing millions of fake US notes, 3 there are just not enough ‘superdollars’ to fill up Pyongyang’s coffers and run the state machinery.
At the dawn of the new millennium, Hazel Smith argued in her Bad/Mad/Sad/ Rational Actor article that a paradigm shift in North Korean studies was needed. Her suggestion was to dispense with outdated Cold War perspectives that constricted the DPRK into specific roles and that did not allow for a frank discussion about constructive engagement. 4 Smith further claimed that North Korea had developed a new relationship with the rest of the world, one which had already led to ‘openness and trust between the DPRK government and representatives of the West,’ and one that amounted to ‘a policy of large-scale involvement with the international community.’ 5 Unfortunately, Smith’s important work came about at a very inopportune time: the 9/11 terrorist attacks on American soil. Suddenly, North Korea was not just mad and bad, it was also evil, and in a political climate where preemption had become the talk of the town, North Korea was in the rather short queue to be ‘dealt with.’ Failed Six-Party Talks and a successful nuclear test in 2006 added the ‘highly dangerous’ status to North Korea’s already hefty name-calling roster.
The decade and a half that has passed since Smith’s article cannot negate the potency of her argument: the DPRK is still surviving, and most likely doing so by cultivating economic and political relationships with a number of countries, individuals, organizations, and companies. This book builds on Smith’s argument by reviving its central thesis, the one that calls for considering the DPRK beyond a securitization approach, and by looking at the DPRK via ...