The Next Succession in North Korea

I'm no North Korea expert (by a very long shot), but the emerging transition from Kim Jong Il to his youngest son Kim Jong-un, portends a possible shake up in North Korea down the road. No doubt, the son has been "groomed" for a leadership role and the path paved for his succession, but as the lineage extends from the original Kim (Kim Il Sung) to his son (Kim Jong Il) to his son (Kim Jong-un), the loyalty the family line almost has to weaken. Just as important is the debilitated condition of the North Korean economy--Kim Jong Il is reported to have told the Chinese on his recent visit there, that things aren't so bad, since "only" 20 percent of the population is suffering from famine, while 80 percent are "doing fine." It's all relative, I guess. At some point, the pressures for radical "reform" (really transformation) are simply going to be too great to resist. The incremental and limited reforms the North Korean state has implemented in the past have proven to be utterly inadequate. But, as long as loyalty to the regime was strong, the pressures could be tamped down. Soon--especially when Kim Jong Il is no longer in the picture (he seems to be in ill health)--this may no longer be the case.

The Domestic Factor in Foreign Policy

One of the things that is supposed to differentiate foreign policy analysis (FPA) from international relations is the stronger focus on or inclusion of domestic-level factors in foreign policy decisions. To put it very simply, FPA assumes that foreign policy decisions do not simply reflect factors or forces that impinge upon a state from the outside-in, so to speak, but also reflect, quite strongly, internal political processes and dynamics. Now, this may seem common sense to many casual observers, but realists (or more accurately, neo-realists) have long argued that domestic political considerations are largely irrelevant to the foreign policy decision-making process. Consider, on this point, what a well-known realist, Hans Morgenthau, had so say:

“We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out. That assumption allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps a statesman—past, present or future—has taken or will take on the political scene. We look over his shoulder when he writes his dispatches; we listen in on his conversation with other statesmen; we read and anticipate his very thoughts. Thinking in terms of interest defined as power, we think as he does and as disinterested observers, we understand his thoughts and actions perhaps better than he, the actor on the political scene, does himself. The concept of national interest defined as power imposes intellectual discipline upon the observer, infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. On the side of the actor, it provides for rational discipline in action and creates that astounding continuity in foreign policy which makes American, British, or Russian foreign policy appear as an intelligible, rational continuum, by and large consistent with itself, regardless of the different motives, preferences, and intellectual and moral qualities of successive statesmen.”

The point is clear: outside forces make political leaders behave in rational and essentially similar ways--regardless of their own interests, motives, perceptions, etc. and regardless of what sort of domestic pressures they may face--when it comes to foreign policy.

To get back to my main point, though, I was recently listening to news about recent peace negotiations between Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As usual, the talks are off to a very rocky start as result of the end of a moratorium on Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinian negotiators are threatening to walk away from the talks unless the moratorium is extended, but the Israeli side, thus far, has shown little willingness to extend the moratorium, and, in fact, has already let it expire. Arguably, though, both sides would be better of "talking" than not talking, and both sides would be better off with an agreement. As almost everyone knows, though, "Middle East peace" generally, and Israeli-Palestinian peace has been one of the most intractable problems in the post war period.

But, why should this be the case? There are, of course, many, many reasons. Almost all of which, not surprisingly, can be found at the domestic and even individual level of analysis. In the current negotiations, a major part of the problem are the domestic political pressures that both Abbas and Netanyahu face. For Netanyahu, extending the moratorium would create a powerful backlash from conservative forces in Israel. He has little choice but to adopt a hardline stance, even though he wants the talks to continue. On the other side, Abbas would be extremely hard put to continue talks with Israel if building in the West Bank continues: he would, "lose credibility in the eyes of Palestinians." As Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group, "The irony is we have two sides that want to get the negotiations, who don't want the settlement issue to stand in the way, but because of their domestic politics, are incapable of bridging the gap, and are hoping and relying upon the US to do it for them."

Who Speaks for a Religion?

The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a small and "virulently homophobic, anti-Semitic" religious group that regularly stages protests at the funerals of U.S. soliders killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why? Because the WBC believes that U.S. soldiers are fighting to promote tolerance of homosexuality. To make their point, members of the church may fly 1,000 miles or more to stage protests with signs reading, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Planes Crash, God Laughs," "Pray for More Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags," and "You're Going to Hell."

By and large, most people try to ignore the WBC, hoping they'll tire of their crusade and melt back to obscurity. Certainly, few people suggest that the WBC represents Christianity at large or even a sizable segment of the Christian population. But, what if it did? What if the WBC were a m

ainstream Christian organization? Would this make the word of its founder, Fred Phelps, the word of Christ and of the Christian world? Certainly not. Yet, many of these same people believe that when a handful of radical Islamic clerics espouse their conception of Islam that it must, by definition, be the word of Islam.

The point is simple: any world religion is complex and multivocal. There is can be no one true interpretation--that is, when it is mere mortals who must do the interpreting. Yet, it is often the case that the interpretation that receives the most notice, especially among non-believers, is the one which is most virulent or the most fanatical. When we add into the mix an understanding that the interpretation of religious "texts" does not occur in a vacuum, but is instead influenced by an array of political, social, economic forces, it is easy to see that we must be very careful about ascribing universality to any view of any religion.