http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/410272/1/.html
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/410272/1/.html
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/410036/1/.html
more can be found in http://www.channelnewsasia.com/
Given the current conflict, the next round of fusillade of gunfire would most probably break out at the 38th parallel. Ever since the collateral destruction at the Gaza strip, this would be the next glaring issue that the world would be scrutinizing. There has been some finger pointing done before this recent turmoil in Korea. Both parties accuse each other of conducting precarious military exercises and experiments and they are doing so because of the speculation surrounding them. We all know of North Korea’s efforts in concocting new weapons of mass destruction. The world’s superpowers had tried their best each time to come up with agreements and plans to tranquilize such aggression to maintain the peace and security.
This is what has been happening: DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) claims they have the right to test-tire for a space research program which no one actually believes that they are really doing research. This particular ‘research’ arose after the North-South relations soured and the DPRK accused the ROK (Republic of Korea), of violating summit accords caused the tension. ROK rebutted stating whatever military exercise that is being conducted has got nothing to do with harming the North. Since then, neither party has given in. USA intervened demanding that the DPRK halts the provocation and answer for the abduction of Japanese citizens to train their spies.
The communication theories discussed here would be the dissimilar cultures of the two neighbors. Here in the above example of the DPRK and ROK, their cultures had influenced and programmed the respective mindsets of the Koreans. In the case of DPRK, we see a collectivist society. The collectivist culture describes how:
1. Social behaviour is determined by the views, needs, and goals of the ingroup rather than of self
2. Social norms and duty defined by the group, rather than for self pleasure
3. Beliefs shared with ingroup rather than to distinguish oneself from the ingroup
These are especially transparent in the communist part of Korea. Citizens of North Korea also display collectivist characteristics like conformity and self sacrifice for ingroup members just to name a couple. The actions and response (test fire of long range missiles) of the DPRK in this hostile situation further depicts their communist and collectivist culture in addition to the human rights encroachment, economy, foreign relations etc.
In Seoul, we see how social behavior is largely determined by personal goals, attitudes and values of collectivities and S.Koreans are more liberal and advocate hedonism like many common westernized cultures. Now, they are are garnering support from similar individualist societies like USA who also condone such repugnant and preposterous proposition.
Lastly, I have been wondering how political leaders from S.Korea and USA are acting more like collectivists, taking the same stand against the nuclear armed North, and N.Korea thinking and acting like an individualist, isolated and driven by motives that only benefit them...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In this case, can we say that cultures are something that the government embedded to the people? In this case, we see that N.Korea and S.Korea, although in the same island, they are having completely different cultures. We noticed that they are both govern by different governments. So, what did it say?
ReplyDeleteDPRK and ROK hasnt exactly enjoy a close political and diplomatic relationship. as we all know, the type of governance and culture is very different. the disparity gap is so different as well.
ReplyDeleteas such, it is hard for both the countries to see things from each other's perspective. as DPRK wishes to remain a closed country, there is limited in what ROK can do in terms to help DPRK financially or diplomatically. as much as ROK would like to help, DPRK would avoid and refuse negotiations.
appeasement would definitely seem to be the best solution. it would enhance economic growth as well as stability. however, if DPRK decides to nuke or exploit her citizens or neighbouring countries, then war is unavoidable.
as far as tolerance and peace is concerned, there can only be peace with both parties coming to a compromised agreement. war may not solve anything, and in fact, cause more long term damage to the conutries' infrastructure, development, economy etc.
no one likes to go for battle too. i really hope that these 2 countries are able to come to a common consesus. avoid war at all cost please
to fs29. Right the citizens in Korea have not much of a choice but to conform and follow much like the rest of the world. We common folk are governed by our political leaders and hence, accepting our respective cultures.
ReplyDeleteto shadysnapshots. The neighbors in conflict have often find it hard to reach a consensus or in your argument, an appeasement. Their hatred for each other runs deep. Even the most delicate trivialities can rattle their relationship. I find that it is more of DPRK’s reluctance to part with nuclear power. Their fascination with weapons of mass destruction put innocent countrymen in hostile light. Until the day North Korea puts an end to its deleterious and incredulous concoction, the world will find it difficult to accept their culture.
ReplyDeletesometimes i really wonder.. does the US really see North Korea as an important issue? looking at the pitiful state of the 6-party talks, all the US seems to be doing is giving out diplomatic statements.. "all talk no action"
ReplyDeletelook at how the US jumped in so "eagerly" (thanks to Bush!) for the Iraq War even when the claim of Iraq possessing WMD couldn't be confirmed. if the US is sure that North Korea has plans to test her nukes, why hasn't the US jumped in for another Korean War?
To TWR
ReplyDeleteWell I guess the North Koreans’ aggressions are not directed at them, so they feel less compelled to stand up against them. What they can do is offer ‘advice’ of which I personally have doubts over its feasibility.
when it comes to nuclear, every country has reasons to be concerned. US disapproval of DPRK nuclear is usually accompanied with the claims of "it could theoretically reach Alaska". i believe nuclear proliferation is a big issue because of the extent of destruction it would cause if used. right now, nuclear warfare is meant as a deterrence measure and many even argue that it will not be used due to "moral obligations". however with a rogue state like the DPRK... its intention to use nuclear as an offensive should not be dismissed.. so i think the US should be worried.
ReplyDeleteTo nuclearboy
ReplyDeleteNuclear power should never have been a deterrent. Instead, it must be eradicated and proponents like DPRK should be kept under surveillance.
yeah the DPRK should definitely be kept under surveillance... but the US is now struggling to maintain all her external commitments... and trying to be the "moral police" of international society.
ReplyDeletethe US doesn't have the capabilities anymore... looking after domestic affairs (ie. struggling economy) comes first. also.. public opinion on the Iraq War has dwindled so much that fronting another Korean War would be unacceptable... especially since the Korean War in Cold War era was deemed a failure...
To c42
ReplyDeleteTrue. The US should be minding their own business instead of intervening and delving into problems that do not really concern them at this point of time and hence, the lack of commitment and actions stated by another comment.