Predictions of a Second Korean War

According to international relations scholar Kang (2003) one of the greatest puzzles of the postwar world is why the conflict between communist North Korea and South Korea has not re-erupted, despite the prediction that this would occur by most scholars. The purpose of Kang’s essay is to answer how so many respected scholars were so mistaken. In one succinct and concise sentence, Kang states: “The case of North Korea provides a window with which to examine these theories of conflict initiation, and reveals how the assumptions underlying these theories can become mis-specified” (Kang, 2003, p.302). Kang argues that both the theory of how conflicts occur and the actual conditions on the ground in Korea were misunderstood.

Kang also identifies novel facets of the North Korean perspective which he says have gone unnoticed by the West. “The flurry of North Korean diplomatic and economic initiatives in the past few years show that far from having given up hope and seeing inevitable economic collapse, the North Korean leadership is actively pursuing a strategy they hope will ease their domestic problems” (Kang, 2003, p.302). The conflict perspective suggests that preventative wars are preferable from a rationalist perspective, but the North Korean perspective of the world situation and its own interests are not necessarily harmonious with this outsider’s view of the nation as a lesser power that has a vital interest in striking out at its neighbor lest it be attacked first. However, although Kang uses examples from real world events, he is less interested in analyzing why no conflict between the two regimes have occurred and more interested in understanding the failure of realism-based theories such as conflict theory to explain this.
Q2. Theoretical Debate and Historical Context
Although Kang’s research is founded in the Korean example of the postwar era, ultimately his article’s argument is a theoretical one. Realist and conflict-based theories of international relations see all interactions as the product of nations that function as “black boxes,” that are capable of making rational, unified decisions in a predictable and coherent fashion. Kang suggests that cultural analysis and an understanding of internal political conflicts is also necessary to fully paint a truthful picture of how and why international events occur. Kang’s essay draws upon a mix of scholarship, including theoretical works of realist political analysis (which he critiques); specific analysis of the Korean situation, and the specific research literature he is critiquing which predicted that a war between the two Koreas should have already occurred (predictions which date back to the 1960s).
All of Kang’s research is ultimately focused on the theoretical constructs regarding rational behavior of nation-states. Korea is used as an example or test case to test such theories. But Kang is more interested in explaining what he sees as the faulty logic of international political theorists versus a minute and careful analysis of the inner workings of North Korea. Overall, Kang sees international political theorists as stubbornly determined to prove what has ultimately been shown to be an inaccurate theory about the likelihood of war. “When outright North Korean invasion began to appear unlikely, scholars fell back on preventive war, and then preemptive war, the madman hypothesis, and then the desperation hypothesis as reasons to view the North as the aggressor” despite the fact that this prediction repeatedly refused to occur (Kang, 2003, p. 320).
References
Kang, D.C. (2003). International relations theory and the second Korean War.
International Studies Quarterly, 47, 301–324