Introduction
The policy previously adopted by Australia towards North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or DPRK) has more or less been the same one the US has in place (McCormack 39-50).
The results aimed at convincing the DPRK to adopt the trends the rest of the world adheres to, have not been forthcoming. The Koreas (both North and South) have been in existence as separate states since 1948.
The conflict that sparked between the two nations arising from ideological confrontation and manifest as the civil war has continued, even up to this day, to influence inter-Korean politics.
Whereas the South is seen as being a more democratic state, hence liberal, the north is projected as being communistic and therefore more closed.
Australia has been actively involved in the politics on the Korean Peninsula and has cultivated a very close relationship between it and South Korea and even fought on its side during the Korean War that occurred between 1950 to1953.
Today, South Korea is the third largest trading partner with Australia. On the contrary, Australia and the DPRK have had a very odd relationship. In 1947, when the UN formed a temporary commission for Korea that oversaw the successful creation of the two states, Australia was actively involved. Relationships were cozy for the two countries around mid-1970s but eventually broke off.
There was another brief stint of cooperation in 2000, however, the nuclear crisis took place and relationships continued to sour, further strained by a drug-smuggling incident in Victoria.
Australia continues to have formal diplomatic relationships with the DPRK, albeit very minimal, evidenced when it refused to open its embassy in Pyongyang and opted to having its ambassador to China double up as the North Korean envoy.
The DPRK is associated with its insistence on having a nuclear program that manufactures weapons which is against the treaties and agreements contained in the UN charter.
Due to this reason therefore, the country is continually in strained relationships with many other nation around the world. Australia in particular has had numerous trade barriers imposed on it that have halted trade and denied the countries the benefits that accrue from it. Trade has been at a minimum however with Australia ranking the DPRK at number 125 among its trade partners.
In this debate, we are going to discuss how the relationship between the two countries can be beneficial to both of them and also analyze what negative impacts arise from this open policy that Australia has adopted towards the DPRK.
In order to do this, we are going to analyze the cultural gains and losses expected from this relationship and also analyze the political and economic implications associated with an alliance between them.
What influence will cultural interchange between Australia and DPRK have?
The two countries are richly endowed with diverse cultures and would greatly benefit from an interchange of these cultures. For other countries to understand the DPRK, there must be a complete shift in policy that dictates their relationships.
The DPRK has one of the most unique systems of government in the world and its role in influencing the rest of the world cannot be overlooked.
There are a number of pros and cons that are associated with this cultural exchange that will reflect on both the political and economic systems of these countries.
Pros
- Both countries will gain knowledge about their different cultures and can learn from the positive ones.
- As a result, there will be increased trade between the two countries dealing with the exchange of cultural artifacts and related materials.
- Korea will gain since its citizens will acquire Australian visas and can be exposed to conditions outside their own country.
- Australia will gain in that it will exercise a greater impetus over the DPRK in a bid to improving its image.
Both countries will have to learn the each other’s language and with it their attitudes, beliefs and morals. These will assist in building a trust between them and creating an interchange which will involve the movement of people from either country in a bid to being exposed to the other’s culture firsthand.
There is a lot of good that can come from this and if this exchange is cultivated, it will tighten the relationships, placing the countries in a better position to further their interests with each other.
With increased cultural exchange comes the movement of those aspects that define culture and make it unique. For starters, movement of teachers of either language into the other country will be accompanied by the movement of teaching aides and books which will increase the trade between the two.
There is also the fact that increased cultural exchange will lead to holding of cultural events that may include exhibitions (Brain 354) and other joint initiatives thus increasing trade.
Magazines, newspapers, fashion and other arts that compose culture will also be interchanged. This will cause the growth of associated industries and increases trade in them.
North Koreans have over time been more or less stationed in their own country; as there have been numerous travel advisories against them. The political landscape of the world has secluded the DPRK, straining its development as it does not relate to the rest of the world hence does not learn from it.
However, the open policy developed by Australia opens a new avenue for Koreans to be exposed to a world outside of their own and can thus further their knowledge and in turn their ambitions.
For Australia opening its policy towards the DPRK, it will exercise more power resulting from the trust they build. The exchange of culture would mean a building of a stronger relationship based on mutual understanding of each others background.
This kind of mutual understanding has a greater chance of finding a long lasting solution to the crisis in the DPRK as it would have been solved out of trust and from the perspective of the DPRK. Understanding the north would also go a long way in persuading it to soften its stand on the south and attempt to make amends.
This new policy, adopted by Australia could have a better chance of success where the rest of the world has failed, putting Australia in a better position in the world and becoming a better trade partner with the DPRK; which has large untapped resources resulting from its seclusion.
Cons
Inter cultural exchange can have some negative effects on both countries and it is paramount to understand the implications of these effects in order to be extensively involved while having all the facts at hand.
- Interchange of culture will mean the inevitable influence of a culture over the other which may involve the influence by more negative aspects of culture.
- Australians are at threat of being isolated by the rest of the world if seen to be supporting what has constantly been opposed.
Earlier, we discussed why both these countries have had an on and off relationship. One of the reasons was because there was a drug trafficking case in Victoria that involved the DPRK.
There have been numerous accusations brought against it by its opponents, that there are gross human rights abuses in the DPRK and a whole hoard of other negative trends. If the allegations were true, it would mean that drugs are readily available in the DPRK which would thus open a supply source for those people looking to profit from drugs in Australia. All the negative aspects of the Korean culture would ultimately find themselves engrained in the Australian culture.
Australian culture also greatly resembles that which is called the western culture. This culture is liberal and it gives the individual great autonomy to exercise his rights.
It is a capitalistic culture and considered inappropriate in most of the other closed cultures. The DPRK being a communist country is composed of a culture that is more controlled along the doctrines of communism.
There is therefore going to be a crisis if the cultural interchange is successful. It will mean that the negative aspects of a capitalistic culture will find themselves engrained into that of a communistic culture which could be a major source of confrontation.
With the continued development and testing of nuclear weapons, the DPRK remains a threat to the stability of the world. The United Nations has already expressed its opposition to the DPRK’s continued insistence on having a nuclear program specifically aimed at manufacturing weapons.
A problem arises since the weapons could find themselves into Australia which is a gateway of the rest of the world. Continued relations with the DPRK could be detrimental to the relationships Australia enjoys with the rest of the world.
What are the ramifications of improved political involvements between the DPRK and Australia?
In the past, Australian policy towards the DPRK has been more of what America’s policy was. However, Australia has always had an interest in improving the relationships as was evident in the numerous number of attempts made.
Every time the government of Australia seemed to be taking a step towards the improvement of relations with the DPRK, American policy would be seen to step in and thwart the effort.
The Australian policy has been three fold. First, there is the tendency to have warm relations with America, believing this to be in its best interest.
Second, is the internationalism ideal which considers the ideals brought forth by the international organizations and third is a more liberal policy that advocates for close relations with Asia, their closest neighbours in an attempt to forming an Asia-Pacific alliance.
A close political alliance could have numerous opportunities associated with it as well as threats. It is therefore in the best interests of both countries to be aware of these factors in order to avoid a crisis.
Opportunities
- Improved infrastructure and systems in North Korea with help from Australia.
- A chance of peace between the north and south assisted by Australia’s presence.
- Increased trade between the countries.
- A chance at forming a beneficial union.
The DPRK is impoverished. Their industries have been hard hit in the past years due to floods. The worst affected was the agricultural sector where most crops were washed away and land considered uncultivable.
This projects a very desperate picture for the DPRK as its continued isolation does not attract food aid from other countries. In order to deal with the recurring threat by natural disasters, Australia’s open policy towards it will open a political association that will make it possible for the DPRK to receive the assistance it needs.
The relationship stems from a mutual understanding as Australia is itself prone to natural disasters especially fires. Therefore, in a bid at helping the DPRK, Australia may find a solution for its own problems.
A political understanding between Australia and the DPRK would go a long way at attempting to review the crisis between it and the ROK (Republic Of Korea) and making recommendations.
This attempt would be founded on the mutual understanding that in order for Australia to actively and continuously help at rebuilding the DPRK, then the DPRK has to also offer something to Australia in return and this may manifest itself as peace or abandonment of the controversial nuclear program.
This political power that Australia may have over the DPRK will largely be assisted by the cultural exchanges and can not succeed on its own as is evidenced by past failed attempts.
Political alliances usually entail the discussions about interests that countries may harbour in others. The DPRK is aiming at opening up its mines which have great potential and have largely been underutilized due to its isolation.
Australia, which has numerous resources, could benefit enormously from investing in these mines and also in other industries in the country. Australia would also be in a position to increase its exports especially chemicals to the DPRK which are used in its manufacturing industry. Trade in chemicals is already ongoing, however, at a very minimal level.
Already, there are talks between South Korea and Australia about the formation of a free trade area. This would open up markets for each other and presents a very good avenue for increased trade without any tariffs in place. The DPRK would also benefit if it joined this arrangement. It would be a first stage towards regional integration leading to the formation of a larger more sustainable union like the European Union.
Threats
There are a number of threats that may be accompanied by the political relationship between Australia and the DPRK.
- Strained relations with the US.
- Increased crime.
- Increased number of refugees.
The US has for a long time considered the DPRK, Iran and Iraq “as an axis of evil” (Petrov 10). This strong sentiment advanced by President George W. Bush has not been dispelled until today (Mazarr 3) and seems to form the basis of American policy towards these three countries.
Already, there was military action in Iraq that was largely sponsored by the US and this has since been largely condemned by Australians and majority of other nations worldwide.
Continued political relations between the DPRK and Australia may be seen as anti-American hence straining relations (Ayson andTaylor 263-279).
There a number of negative attributes associated with countries that have a large population of poor people in it. Crimes and drug abuse seem as some of the most common and improved relations between the DPRK and Australia could open up an avenue for criminals and drug dealers to cross into either country with negative effects.
The dire living conditions in the DPRK have continued to strain the lives of a large number of its population. If the political environment between the two countries was to improve, the boundaries between both countries will be open to each other and this may cause a massive number of North Koreans migrating into Australia in a bid to searching for better living conditions and jobs.
This may, in the long run, affect the stability of both countries and put a strain on the economy of Australia.
Conclusion
For there to be true development in the world, as we look forward to being a global village, all nations must move in one general direction. Australia has the biggest stake in the development and integration of the DPRK into the global village. Obviously, it also has more to gain economically, politically and socially in its relationship with the DPRK.
A lot is pegged on the opening up of diplomatic ties between the two countries boosted by the adoption of an open policy by Australia towards the DPRK.
The continued crisis between the DPRK and the ROK could be solved if the relationship blossomed. The continued isolation of the DPRK could also be addressed if Australia was to successfully convince it to abandon the nuclear program that has been the major reason for the isolation.
In this discussion, its is possible to conclude that this open policy could have both negative and positive outcomes, obviously, the good traits outweigh the bad and the policy should be lauded as it promises to intervene in one of the world’s longest tussles. If the DPRK was to change to a better global citizen, the winners would not only be the Australians but the world in general.
Works Cited
Ayson, Robert and Taylor, Brendan, ‘Attacking North Korea: Why War Might be Preferred’, Comparative Strategy, 23 (2004): 263-279.
Brain, Steven. “Peaks and Troughs: Australian-DPRK Relations in the 21st Century”, Korea Observer, Vol.38, No.2 (2007): 354.
Mazarr, Michael. The long Road to Pyongyang. Foreign affairs vol.86, no.5 (2007). Web.
McCormack, Gavan. Cold War Hot War. An Australian Perspective on the Korean War. Sydney: Hale & Iremonger, 1983.
Petrov, A. Leonid.” Australia and the DPRK: The Sixty Years of Relationship.” Policy Forum Online 08-09A. (2008). Web.