Making Sense of the Korean War: IR Perspective

This academic essay was written for a school paper assignment in grad school. 

The Korean War is one the most disastrous war in history with almost 5 million lives lost, both soldiers and civilians. The origins of the war can be traced back to the collapse of the Japanese empire at the end of World War II. This imperial defeat left Korea in the hands of the Americans and the Soviets. For administrative purposes, the two superpowers divided the Korean peninsula in half along the 38^th parallel. The North was occupied by the Soviets, while the South was occupied by the United States. Subsequently recognized as states, pro-communist North Korea led by Kim Il Sung and anti-communist South Korea led by Syngman Rhee were both discontent to remain on their designated side of the 38^th parallel. Eventually, tensions developed and border skirmishes that took some 10 000 lives from both parties ensued even before the battle began.

The Korean War commenced in 1950 when 75 000 North Korean People’s Army troops marched across the 38^th parallel boundary in a clear invasion effort. This action signaled the first military action of the Cold War between the US and USSR. The invasion surprised the American leaders who feared that the invasion is not merely a border dispute between two states but as a sign of something bigger and more alarming: the expansion of communist ideology over the world. Immediately, the United States deployed military forces on behalf of South Korea to “contain” communist expansion.

Having made significant territorial advancement in the south, North Korea continued her military attack. This offensive was defended head-on by the American troops. The action of North Korea was utterly condemned by the UN Security Council who recommended UN member states to assist the South Korean military. The arrival of forces from the UN member states greatly strengthened the military might of South Korea. With UN and Truman’s deployment of a strong navy and air force into action, the North Korean troops were pushed back and territories of the South were reclaimed.

With General Douglas MacArthur on the lead, post-invasion of the South against the North was initially successful. The strategic assault on Inchon proved to be a success as North Korean soldiers retreated fully to their side of the 38^th parallel. By this time, the resolve of President Truman and General MacArthur to end the war was stronger than ever. Eventually, the initial goal for a defensive strategy to protect South Korea shifted to a total offensive one focused on exterminating communism and liberating North Korea. 

However, the tide had quickly turned against the American troops. The fear of China meddling the war to support the communist North Korea materialized. The confrontation at the Yalu River had overwhelmed the American troops with the unannounced presence of Chinese military. For Communist China led by Mao Zedong, protection from armed aggression associated with the proximate attack of the free nations against neighbor North Korea was a top priority.

The war dragged on and a long stalemate period continued. However, it was during this timeline that significant events occurred including the removal of General MacArthur for his criticism of US policy and insubordination. Most importantly, the beginning of the peaceful negotiation process was opened up. For two years, while the battle is ongoing, the negotiation was stalled and held up. The two warring parties accepted a ceasefire but had disputes on the right course of action for prisoners of war.

Finally, an armistice agreement was signed by the adversaries on July 27, 1953. One of the most important outcomes of the agreement was the creation of a demilitarized zone that exists up to this day.

Over the years, scholars have debated what triggered the Korean War and how could had it been prevented. Numerous schools of thought have offered an explanation to make sense of the war. Some scholars gravitate towards one theory over others that are equally useful and powerful in viewing the war. But understanding world phenomena, particularly wars, calls for a holistic and unbiased lens to fully paint a clear picture of the Korean War. Hence, in pinpointing the cause of the war, it is imperative to explore different traditional and emerging perspectives: realism, liberalism, and constructivism.

According to realism, the Korean War was caused by the innate nature of human to be selfish and greedy. This tendency is manifested by the desire of both parties, especially North Korea, to go beyond their designated territory. This utter greediness was present when North Korea invaded South Korea to seize her neighbor’s territory. North Korea wanted more and acted on her desire thru military power. As a necessary tool for self-preservation and survival, power was coveted. Consistent with the main principle of realism, anarchy operated in the Korean War period. Nobody was present to help secure the safety of the two states. It can be asserted that the preemptive invasion of North Korea was a necessary measure to secure her welfare and ensure survival against the threat brought about by South Korea. Similar can be said to the participation of China who secured the Yalu River to guarantee its security. Looking beyond the two states, bigger superpowers were at play. The sour relationship of the United States and the Soviets was marked by mistrust and tension as each state acted on their fear of one another. The military mobilization of the Americans in South Korea was a clear effort to secure their survival and maintain their ideology. In its true nature, the US military power was focused on weeding out communism that could potentially pose threat to the US capitalism ideology; supporting South Korea then was a second priority and a by-product of America’s goal. As suggested by realists, their “alliance” was necessary to restore power in response to North Korea’s attempt to become powerful. Balancing of power was considered a prudent strategy to justify war and aggression between the disputing parties.

Liberalism, on one hand, argues that the possible cause of the Korean War was the lack of functional democracy between the two Korean states. Kim Il Sung and Syngman Rhee were both unstable dictators who robbed the right of their people to decide for the state welfare. The monopoly of power on the hands of a single individual made Korean warfare a reality. The undemocratic image of both Korean states increased the elusiveness of cooperation. The same case applies to the US declaration of police action against North Korea. It can be remembered that Congress had no knowledge and approval of the war initially. Also, it is noteworthy that the war lacks public attention because of the 1950s conflict censorship in the United States which is a pure violation of democratic practices. Although it claimed to be a democratic haven, the US failed to follow one of its defining process as a democracy. Liberalists put emphasis on the right of an individual person to life, liberty, and wellbeing which are all not valued during the Korean War. Another basic tenet of liberalism is the role of the free market and capitalism in bringing peace. The 1950s in Korea is characterized by chaotic trade system (if existent), slow economic development, and the rise of communism. Hence, it is apparent, according to liberalism, why war broke out in Korea after World War II. The continuing struggle of the poor people and economy implies that both Korean states have nothing to lose in terms of economic prosperity. Further, even though several international laws were in place, their strict implementation and monitoring by a third party were flawed. Liberalist believes in the interference of a third party can foster balance as what the United Nations did.

While realism and liberalism consider states as main actors and therefore, can eminently cause war, constructivism observes the agency of individuals, identity, and ideas in fanning the flame of war. In the case of the Korean War, constructivist would argue that the extreme subscription to ideologies—capitalism and communism—as the ideal philosophy guided both parties to construct a world consistent with this belief. The action taken by all parties involved in the Korean War was motivated by their inclination to maintain and follow their own prevailing ideology. Constructivist scholars would stress that the existing social structure of the Korean states and their allies involved was that of enmity and since they have the capacity to reinforce this structure, the tension and conflict were construed accordingly. Identity was also central to constructivism. Using the identity lens, the Korean War could be puzzling as the people had a virtually similar identity: similar physical attributes, a similar religion, similar culture, etc. What contrasts the two Koreans somehow was their political ideology—one being a communist state, one supportive of a free state—which was a significant difference considering how autocratic the leaders of the time were. In other words, the obvious identical similarity of the Korean was negligible in the face of dictators who amplify their slight difference. Relatedly, the social norms prescribed states to act according to how they appraise themselves relative to the enemy. In the case of the Korean War, North Korea was relatively more powerful and able to deploy military power compared to weak South Korea.

In retrospect, the Korean War could have been prevented as explained by International Relations theories. Realism theorists would point to two major points to manage insecurity during the Korean War: balance of power and deterrence. First, although balancing of power was used to rationalize the war, it can likewise be used to prevent the escalation of tensions between the Korean states. South Korea, realizing its relatively low power compared to North Korea, could have started forging strategic and flexible alliances to nearby strong states to balance the playing field. This would have pushed North Korea to hesitate to invade the south. Similarly, if the South had gain overwhelming and superior force prior from alliance could have deterred the attack. Most importantly, what if there was a third party to challenge and change the mindset of insecurity and greediness evident among the states? It would have made a big difference if states think objectively and refuse to be a product of their fears. Nevertheless, acting with the moral responsibility to human life could have mitigated the inhumane offensives.

For liberalism, the Korean War could have been prevented provided two conditions are met: a democratic state and robust trade & economic interdependence. Generally, individual citizens of countries do not desire war. It is the state thru autocratic leaders that prompt warfare. In an alternative universe where the US, Russia, South Korea, and North Korea valued democracy and people’s liberty and participation, peaceful options are more promising. Consistent with the democratic peace theory, democratic states tend to view each other as legitimate and non-threatening. Hence, war is uncommon. Second, had trade and economic interdependence was given a chance, a preemptive invasion would have been abominated. This makes sense as war would disrupt economic prosperity and cancel the mutual benefits of both trading states. Had the Korean states and the superpowers at that time exchanged goods prosperously, war is not even an option since it would have been unprofitable.

Finally, constructivist would put emphasis on cultivating a collective identity to prevent the Korean War. Supposedly, this would have been a relatively easy task since the divided Koreans are one Korean nation with a striking resemblance in way of life, traditions, among others. Constructivism also postulates that reality is under an enduring process of construction. Social reality is construed by the individual actors in the state which implies that the Korean states could have cultivated a more optimistic reality of society since the prospect for change is achievable. Had each party stepped back and evaluated their perception, thoughts, and actions, they might realize how distorted they were. Nonetheless, states had the capacity to alter the course of the war.

Indeed, the Korean War is one of the most devastating wars in the history of mankind. The war is known as the “Forgotten War” but it will always be remembered for the significant events and changes that transpired over the three-year conflict. Tracing the history of the war is instrumental in providing context for the present status of Korea. Understanding its cause and prevention takes a multidimensional perspective from the traditional and emerging International Relations theories. Moreover, looking back at the Korean War gives us insights in making sense of Korea and the interconnected states over the globe. 

*This essay was submitted as a requirement for POS 190 (International Relations).
*Still on the process of editing to avoid plagiarism. References are listed in the original file.