North Korea and diversion: A quantitative analysis (1997–2011)

Abstract

In this research I propose that the concept of diversionary theory provides at least a partial explanation for North Korea’s conflict activities. I examine and analyze the country’s data on diplomatic and military activities from 1997 to 2011 and argue that North Korea’s domestic conditions influence its willingness to engage in external conflict. I also examine the impact of such external influences as UN sanctions, leadership changes in the region, national capacities of the US, South Korea and Japan, and strategic military exercises on DPRK-initiated conflicts. This study provides insight into the activities of this reclusive state and also demonstrates useful techniques that can be applied to analyze other similarly closed nations. The findings suggest that there are identified links between internal conditions and the Kim regime’s aggressive actions between 1997 and 2011 in support of the diversionary argument. Concurrently, there is less evidence that North Korea’s hostile diplomatic and military activities are based on external pressures.

To condone, condemn, or ‘no comment’? Explaining a patron’s reaction to a client’s unilateral provocations

“…These visits are prestigious events that are highly publicized in the official media, and allow their domestic audience as well as the outside world to infer the state of the leadership. Previous scholarship has employed the North Korean leaders' on-site inspection visits as a proxy for regime stability (Ishiyama, 2014;Wallace, 2014). Based on the propagandistic nature of the visits, we infer that frequent visits are associated with leadership insecurity.…”

Geopolitics of International Relations, Ethnic Polarization and Internal Conflict

“…Livelihood, peace and endurance of many countries in the world pretenses to fragility and risk due to one or the other dimension of geopolitics (Braithwaite & D'Costa, 2018;Flint, 2017;Reuber, 2009): countries like Iraq and Syria have been facing guerilla warfare and stringent military operations by coalition led forces, due to geopolitics of oil (Flint, 2017;Quy-Toan et al, 2018); North Korea and Iran were pushed to wall through sanctions due to geopolitics of nuclear capabilities (Wallace, 2014;Dudlák, 2018); China and Laos, Turkey and many others are in a conflict like situation due to resource endowment or the geopolitics of fresh water; while some countries paid high opportunity cost and negative spillovers due to their geostrategic location and the resulting geopolitics of international relations, such as Pakistan (Nasir, Rehman,& Orakzai, 2012;Flint, 2017;Braithwaite & D'Costa, 2018).…”