Understanding contemporary international relations

By Eugene Lee

Like it or not, it is simply impossible to remove oneself from the election campaign Korea is consumed by today. In particular, the most recent debate focusing on foreign policy showed an appalling lack of knowledge from all participants.

To some degree it is understandable, as they are not specialists in the field of international relations, however, the lack of relevant advice that is being provided to them by so-called "experts" made every one of them look quite bad, especially in the eyes of international observers.

Some disturbing quotes by the candidates struck a nerve with me even. So, I decided to make this piece a "brief manual to world affairs," if you will. In other words, I would like to give a brief summary to understand what is happening in the world and what we should make of it. However, there are a few things that we need to remember before we start.

First and foremost, the world is very complex, and saying that one leader or another or one country or another should be blamed for a particular situation would be a very poor appraisal. Consequently, we may misjudge and act wrongly based on this kind of thinking. Also, we must see things taking place on various levels: the individual level (relationships between leaders), the country level (for example, Ukraine and Russia) and the system level (alliances, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the European Union, or financial systems, if we are talking about global economic crises).

With that in mind, let's consider three perspectives in order to look at the world. Of course, there are many other perspectives, but keep in mind, this piece is meant to be "a brief manual," so let's just look at three major ones.

The first perspective, or view of things, is the realist one. It dates all the way back to the father of history, Herodotus, who first described the war between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece. This view is very simple; it sees everyone and everything as greedy and selfish. There are no laws and power plays the number one role in it. So, if you are strong, you can beat weaker players. And no one is going to be willing to stop a bigger country from doing so.

That is why every country has an army and tries to stay strong, or at least, be stronger than nearby countries. If you aren't strong enough, then you try to join a group of other countries for protections, in other words, you ally with others (for example, the U.S. and South Korea alliance). In this view of the world, words mean little, it is all about how many guns, tanks and battleships you possess versus those of your potential opponent(s).

From this particular perspective, it isn't about why another country is going to attack you, it is about when and how. Actually, it was how the world largely operated until roughly the end of World War II, when countries came together and created the United Nations, an organization where countries could come and resolve issues between themselves without resorting to violence.

Now the second perspective is the liberal one. It sees countries and people not as inherently bad, but as desiring peace and prosperity. That is the reason why countries help each other and they create what we call international law. The key element here is your sovereignty, and other countries must respect it.

Through the law we can resolve issues, and punish if necessary. So far, the law has worked, especially in finance and trade. This view sees the situation as more than just countries ― there is a community. The problem here is how to stop "badly" behaving countries from doing "bad" things within the community. The issue essentially revolves around defining what is actually "bad" or "good."

Finally, here is the third perspective to consider: the constructivist one. This view sees countries as creations of themselves. Countries have their own views about themselves, their histories and the way other nations see them. In other words, what we understand as "North Korea" today is very much a construct made by us and the North Korean leadership on the international stage. We also need to keep in mind that what we are in reality and what we think may all be quite different.

These differences are the reason why countries and their leaders make mistakes in their calculations or even in their understandings of what is actually going on. We usually pay attention to things we believe in or really dislike and we have a tendency to see them first, even if they may not be that important. In other words, every time you judge things, double-check whether they are real and important or not.

So, there you have it. If you are pondering any issue in the world or a conflict between countries or even within countries, use these three valuable perspectives. Switching between them, or even considering them together is likely to give you a much better understanding, and therefore, will prevent you from making similar mistakes. Certainly, you will avoid the folly we have observed recently. My only hope is that our candidates are good at understanding these various perspectives and applying them wisely when needed.

Eugene Lee (mreulee@gmail.com) is a lecturing professor at the Graduate School of Governance at Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul. Specializing in international relations and governance, his research and teaching focus is on national and regional security, international development and government policies in Northeast and Central Asia.