South Korea successfully balancing on a wire

David Simon’s critically acclaimed show “The Wire” was notorious for the ease in which long-standing characters and fan-favorites were killed off in its harsh yet accurate depiction of the realities of Baltimore. One of the program’s more well documented scenes revolves around the comparison of life on the streets to that of chess. The king rules all: everything else is ultimately disposable.

And yet some observers have recently called for South Korea to exercise more of its might on the world’s political chessboard. For the country to flex some of the economic strength it has undoubtedly attained in its impressive and rapid rise up the financial hierarchical ladder. With its dealings with North Korea, America, China and Japan, many advocate South Korea being more assertive and demanding more of a say in the way in which the game is run and in accordance with the theoretical sovereignty of nations.

This call for South Korea to start punching its weight and asserting its prestige is therefore one that deserves some analysis. The question at hand seems to be this: Should South Korea, in light of its economic capacity, be more forthright in its relations with other countries? One can only really know the existing state of international affairs once it has passed from time; however, I would encourage the South to show some restraint in this game and provide three reasons for my tale of prudence.

First is from the psychological perspective of the individuals calling for the country to expand its prestige. There are now various social barriers created in modern nations designed to control our desires for power — these exist as competitive examinations, elections, organizations and other difficulty-arranged corridors of bureaucracy. Such obstacles prevent all members from finding full satisfaction in their lives. And so the rise of nationalism has seen many associate their own lives with the success of their state. They live vicariously through the rise and fall of the vast and teeming ethereal concept that swells above them as a transformation of individual frustrations into that of collective identification: Civis Romanus sum. Such motivations for national prestige are not based on valid qualifications in international politics.

Second is that the factors that determine the power of a nation vis a vis other nations are not solely economic. Instead, a nation’s strength is composed of a series of components, some permanent and others malleable. Those of the first group include geography and natural resources, such as food and raw materials. More flexible elements are industrial capacity, military preparedness, population distribution, national character and quality of leadership. One must consider all of these important facets before making a case for the demand of more global recognition.

Third, and the most important, is the very nature of international relations. The world is an anarchical system and thus oligarchical. Might makes right and power perpetuates inequality so that states are born unequal. Moreover, the stakes in this particular game are of the very highest order. Yes, success can bring extreme glory. But defeat can also bring with it the most serious of consequences imaginable: the end of the realm as we know it. As incomprehensible as this may seem to some, it is a fate that has befallen nations, federations, kingdoms and even empires. It would be wise to remember, therefore, that there are no restarts or continues in this particular game.

Historically, in light of the frequent and disruptive incursions it faced, Korea often found it prudent to form alliances with the predominant power of the region. Such relationships helped the state survive. This process was also carried out domestically as the various kingdoms of past dynasties allied with each other as well as those to the north and east for their survival and prosperity. Those that succeed endured — those that didn’t became absorbed into history.

South Korea, like many others, has had a troubled recent past — and yet it not only remains, it flourishes. A large part of that continuance can be attributed to its understanding of the necessity of balance and alliance — both endogenously and exogenously. One can only hope that despite the ever louder clamoring for greater prestige in this most dangerous of games, it remembers its long-standing and documented past and makes decisions congruent with the survival and the continued development of this proud and noble nation.