Essay Example on South Korea-North Korea Relations: Consequences of the Korean War

Introduction

Political and diplomatic relations between South Korea and North Korea have been in jeopardy since the early 1950s. In June 25, 1950, war broke out between the two countries as each claim the control of the entire Korean Peninsula. Although the Korean War involved more than 26 democracies, it had far-reaching consequences on the two countries in comparison to other wars of similar scales. In this regard, the armed conflict not only led to the death of more than 6 million people, but it also divided the once homogenous nation into two. In recent years, the world's attention has shifted to the two Asian countries as international relations between North Korea and South Korea face ups and downs. Nonetheless, attempts to reunify the divided Peninsula have provoked sociological and cultural responses from both the South and the North. Today, the once united Korean Peninsula stands as the only nation that divided as a result of the cold war. Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has been developing nuclear weapons for decades since the outbreak of bitterly fought war. The United Nations, alongside politically-advantaged countries, have used both diplomacy and sanctions as a way to compel North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions, which is a threat to international peace and security. At the moment, DPRK remains one of the most repressive nations of the 21st century. Providing financial assistance and food aid to North Korea has raised dilemmas, considering that the Asian country is a nuclear threat. Foreign aid to DPRK also poses policy and moral dilemmas among the world's most significant donors. Given the mission of the United Nations humanitarian assistance, denying North Korea monetary assistance is not only unethical but also inhumane. As such, foreign aid offered to North Korea is justified because the world has a moral duty to rescue people from mass despair.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Ethical Foundations of Giving Monetary Aid to North Korea

While North Korea is a nuclear threat to the world, there is a need to involve applied ethics and ethical reasoning in weighing the morality of monetary assistance. Developmental and foreign aid ethicists split into two groups. One camp consists of the Universalists who believe in the Kantian philosophy and the ethical principles of utilitarianism. On the other hand, are the particularists who incorporate relativist critique to argue against giving foreign assistance to countries that do not promote specific causes. Universalists argued that the world should combat inequalities, suffering, and human poverty between and within states without giving them conditions. Also, the Universalists support the practice of giving aid provided that it does not pose potentially destructive effects on the environment and, more importantly, the populations.

Ethical reasoning and applied ethics support the art of giving foreign aid to vulnerable populations as a way to alleviate human suffering. So, it is immoral and inhumane to deny North Korea monetary and other kinds of aid as one of the approaches of compelling the country's regime to denuclearize. The United Nations should instead explore diplomatic and other ways that would denuclearize North Korea without posing adverse effects on the well-being of society. Scholars in the field of international relations have engaged in a contentious debate since the 1970s on whether or not giving aid should be in peripheral. Singer, a renowned utilitarian philosopher, argued that the world should sacrifice anything of equal moral importance to assist those in need, independent of their interests, differences, and distance. Singer's argument applies in the case of DPRK. The reason is that the question of whether it is a moral obligation to support North Korea despite its nuclear threats is still valid in a similar context.

Food is a biological necessity, and it is different from monetary and developmental assistance, among other forms of aid. This aspect implies that food aid is a matter of rescuing lives and enhancing the well-being of vulnerable populations. According to ethicists, humanitarian or disaster aid is only ethically acceptable in situations of emergency. For humanitarian assistance to be morally right, it ought to be given of charitable hospitality that people presume to be well justified by comprehensive statements of moral principles. The primary sources of comprehensive statements of the moral tenets are communitarian, utilitarian, Kantian, and Aristotelian philosophical reasoning. Humanitarian assistance is given to North Korea, therefore, has its foundations in ethical reasoning and the ethics of humanitarian aid.

The Decline in Foreign Aid Given to North Korea

Research shows that there are several misunderstandings of how and why ROK among other international donors offer humanitarian assistance to DPRK. One of these beliefs is that the government of North Korea diverts monetary support and food aid to fund military and nuclear programs. However, facts on the ground show that the main benefactors of food aid are not state officers, government institutions, or military institutions. In 2018, the United Nations disclosed that it was in an urgent need of $111 million to provide necessities to alleviate the situation in North Korea. The UN call for humanitarian assistance came in the wake of significant sanctions placed on the Asian country, expanding its nuclear weapons. The money was needed to procure food, health, and sanitation to the country's 6 million most vulnerable people.

The country's population at risk of starvation consists of more than 340 000 breastfeeding and pregnant women, including 1.7 million children under the age of 5 years. Despite the UN's calls for humanitarian assistance, the support offered to North Korea has declined significantly over the past few years. The country received aid worth $22.9 million in 2018 in comparison to $103 million in 2012. International donors, including humanitarian organizations, have increasingly become reluctant to support DPRK because it is a nuclear threat. In 2018, for instance, only Russia, France, Canada, Sweden, and Switzerland heeded the UN's call to provide funds to the Asian Country. Previous donors like South Korea, Ireland, Japan, Australia, and the United Kingdom, among other democracies, remain uncommitted. There was a funding gap of $88.1 million in 2018 despite economically-advantaged countries funding humanitarian programs.

International donors have cited several reasons for their reluctance to support North Korea financially and through other aid. One reason is that it is not ethically correct to finance the programs of a country whose defense programs are a threat to the world's peace, security, and stability. The second reason is that the government tends to divert humanitarian aid to fund missile programs, including nuclear weapons. There is a concern that foreign aid is diverted to feed its army. Another reason is that providing monetary and food aid support to North Korea takes the pressure off of the government to provide critical necessities for its people. Also, there are ethical conflicts between the welfare of the citizens and the needs of the military.

Research shows that more than 90% of humanitarian assistance that crosses into the borders of North Korea, excluding support in the form of capital are not embezzled. The chances of diverting and misusing humanitarian aid in the form of supplies, medicine, and food are also limited. Nonetheless, there is a possibility that these goods can still be sold or misappropriated. Although there is no evidence that the country's regime diverts aid, it is in records that influential individuals redirect foreign-procured goods to the private market. Estimates culled from multiple sources show that only 30% of foreign-procured products could be lost through embezzlement and resale. Moral philosophy is concerned with what is good for society and individuals. As such, there is no moral principle to justify an activity of curbing foreign aid given to North Korea even if the country is pursuing its nuclear weapons.

Applying Ethical Principles to the Case of the Korean Peninsula

Ethical theories are the foundation of decision-making, especially in instances where people are facing moral dilemmas. Moral principles, therefore, are of great importance for decision making when ethics are in play. Ethical theories represent different viewpoints that many people in today's world encounter as they strive to make moral decisions. While ethical theories utilize different principles, each emphasizes different points. This aspect implies that each theory has a distinct decision-making style and, more importantly, decision rule. There are several principles of ethical principles that guide people whenever they are facing moral dilemmas. The most common principles re beneficence, least harm, respect for autonomy, and justice. The four main categories of ethical theories are utilitarianism, deontology, rights, and virtue theories. These theoretical frameworks are similar in that it guides people in making decisions that maximize benefits and also minimizes harm to others in society.

The ethical principle of justice asserts that decision-makers should focus, prioritize, and implement decisions that are fair to the people involved. This aspect implies that the decisions ought to be consistent with ethical theories, unless in circumstances that decision-makers can justify. The guiding principle is that while a person may face ethical dilemmas, he/she should strive to make a decision that leads to the most ethically correct resolution. If this principle were to be applied to the case of North Korea, it would require ROK, donors, and the international community to support vulnerable communities despite the threat of nuclear weapons.

The ethical beneficence principle states that people should make decisions that lead to doing what is right and good. It is related to the principle of utility, which asserts that decisions that generate the largest ratio of good over evils are deemed right for anyone facing ethical dilemmas. Beneficence further stipulates that ethical theories should guide people to achieve the greatest amount of good. The justification for this decision is that a significant proportion of people, if not all, benefit from the most good. However, the beneficence principle supports an argument that it is not morally right to offer monetary assistance to North Korea. Nuclear weapons pose significant threats to a large section of the society in North Korea, including its neighbors. So, the world benefits from the best if DPRK abandons its nuclear mission. The priority of beneficence is to "do good." International donors, therefore, "do good" to many people by recognizing that it is immoral to provide monetary, food, and other kinds of aid to a country that threatens millions of lives.

The least harm ethical principle is similar to beneficence because it deals with situations where the decision-maker is facing multiple choices where none appear beneficial. In such instances, a decision-maker ought to choose an action or a choice that leads to the least harm possible. It is also worth noting that a person's decision ought to harm the least number of people. In the case study of North and South Korea, international donor organizations face a dilemma about whether withdrawing their support will pose harm than exceeds the threats underlying nuclear arms. Weapons of mass destruction pose threats that have far-reaching consequences on South Korea, alongside other neighboring countries in South Asia. This way, withdrawing monetary support necessitates North Korea to heed to calls to abandon nuclear weapons. In other words, it is morally wrong to suppo...