North And South Regimes Of Korea example essay topic

What forces and factors led to the division of Korea in 1945, and how have they affected the political development of the two divided states? Introduction Korea was a unified country for 13 centuries from the mid-7th century until the year 1945 when it became an early victim of the Cold War and got tragically divided into two countries. The Republic of Korea in the South and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the North have since developed into two very different countries. The greater majority of Koreans wish to re-establish unified Korea and bring an end to the Cold War legacy. Forces and factors leading to the division. The struggle for occupation.

Japan's earlier than expected surrender and Truman's domination policy forced the US foreign policy makers to pay attention to Korea where Japan ruled. The US did not wish the Soviets to occupy all of Korea for several reasons and also moved into Korea to secure the area below the 38th Parallel which is now known as South Korea... Security of Japan. The United States saw Korea, even if it had to be split, as a means of securing Japan's security and coupled with the fact that the Soviet was also concerned about Japan's re-armament and re-emergence, an agreement was reached to split Korea. Korea was then divided into two hostile zones with the Koreans nationhood sacrificed and their people divided... US foreign policy.

The foreign policy of the United Stages of America prior to April 1945 was Roosevelt's hegemonism. This policy relied on mutual assistance and understanding whilst the United States of America played leadership roles. This policy contemplated of a world in which the United States of America defended and protected its political and economic interests. This, to the United States, would be achieved through the effective management of their allies, the third world nations and the USSR, as well as portraying an image of fairness to the rest of the world.

After this period, (April 1945) the United States of America's foreign policy changed to Truman's domination policy, which heavily relied on subjugation of other nations via military and other means. This tactics ensured a "zero-sum" game in which United States interests were asserted above all. It became evident that the United States way of domination was through military force and single directional demands, not through concessions or negotiations. Many are of the opinion that this domination policy ultimately plunged the World into a Cold War and led to the division of Korea, although the United States stressed the idea that it had joined the Korean War in defence of democracy. There was the opinion that the United States had joined the war in defence of its interests in the wider regional considerations.

[1] The United States' domination policy was formulated during the final moments of World War II after Hitler's Germany crumbled and upon realising that there was little need for an alliance with the Soviet Union. The United States therefore wanted to ensure a post-war domination of the world and to also secure markets for its wartime industrial production. The United States also planned to use its monopoly on atomic bomb possession to defend and protect its markets... The Soviet Occupation.

Unlike the United States' occupation of South Korea, the Soviet's occupation of the North had the effect of completely wiping out all remnants of the former colonial order that had existed for forty years, in a matter of months. All collaborators of the Japanese were expelled from positions of power. In contrast with the American occupation, the North lacked a formal military occupational structure. Rather, the Soviets endeavoured to cooperate and work with the already established "people's committees" instead of imposing a military occupational government on the North.

Involving the various "people's committees in the decision making process, the Soviets implemented a policy of land reform that ended centuries of landlord dominance in Korean society. Those landlords that were deemed to have been collaborators of the Japanese occupation had considerably more of their land confiscated and redistributed to the general populace. Korean landlords that were not accused of collaboration with the Japanese were able, under the new land reform, to keep enough land to live off of. Unlike the land reforms in China that would occur after the CCP victory over the Guomindang, the land redistribution in northern Korea under Soviet auspices were carried out with little violence. None of the brutal village denunciations, mock trials, and public executions of landlords, that were such a common sight throughout China, took place in the North after liberation. In addition to land confiscation and redistribution, other steps were made including the nationalization of the largest industries, reduction of the workday to eight hours, the enactment of social security, and various labour reforms.

These reforms in the North, under Soviet guidance, seemed to have mirrored the 27-point platform created under the Korean People's Republic. In areas where "people's committees" did not exist, the Soviets sought to create them. And in areas in which the local "people's committees" had an under representation of communists, the Soviets would recreate them "in their own image", so to speak. Indicative of careful planning on the part of the Soviets, the occupational forces brought with them many Soviet Koreans trained to act as an "advisory arm" for the Koreans of the North to help establish a Korean government, a Korean government that would be friendly to Soviet interests.

Whereas the American occupation of Korea lacked foresight and a coherent plan, the Soviet occupation was better-organized and carefully constructed to safeguard Soviet interests in Korea. Effects on the political developments of the two states. The above mentioned forces and factors which brought about the separation of Korea into two distinct and contrasting states have had major contributing effects on the political developments of these states and cumulating in the following: -. Non-existence of true Nationalism and the polarization of Korean Politics. Quite clearly the very foundations of Koreans nationalism had been severed and eroded by the split and Korean politics had been completely polarized as a result of the completely differing policies of the two occupying powers...

Political stalemate. The first challenge, which faced both the north and south regimes of Korea, was one of attaining legitimacy, and naturally, the existence of the "other" state was an obstacle to achieving this. Both the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea made the claim that their regime was the sole legitimate government in the peninsula. Consequently, spelling the undoubted fear that the ROK and the DPRK were in direct competition for the allegiance of the nation. Each state now viewed each other as the main barrier impeding national unification. In view of these diametrically opposed positions, it was little surprise to find both leaders soon denouncing each other and calling for a crusade to crush the illegitimate regime on the other side of the 38th parallel, thereby unifying the country under the rightful government.

At the end of the day, the two regimes have to contend with each other as well as deal with a domestic opposition that seriously endangered the consolidation of one-man rule... Political instability and civil unrest. o The refusal by the United States when they arrived in South Korea, to give recognition to the Korean People's Republic brought them into direct confrontation with the many labour unions and peasant associations that had backed the "people's committees". In some areas, violent clashes between the U.S. military (aided by the Korean National Police) and the "people's committees" occurred. A campaign to eliminate all the "people's committees" in southern Korea was implemented. By 1946, the campaign had succeeded in disbanding most of the "people's committees" in the South. o The separation of the Korean peninsula by the United States and Soviet forces was an unwelcome gift for the Korean people, who are still dazed by the emotions of the liberation from Japan in 1945. The intense nuclear anxieties on the Korean Peninsula now demonstrate the lingering effects of this gift.

The regimes imposed by the Soviet Union and the United States on North and South Korea after the Second World War evolved quite differently from what the Americans' had originally intended. North Korea got what it was promised (the North). But South Korea, failed to develop into the strong democracy it was expected to become, principally due to the obtuseness and confusion of its imperial benefactor. The Soviets, who had been thwarted by nationalistic sentiments while trying to export the socialist revolution to Eastern Europe in the 1920's, immediately handed North Korea over to the group led by Kim Il Sung and withdrew, leaving no military administration behind. Kim, therefore, seized power with very minor damage done to his nationalistic credentials.

He quickly created a system of one-party rule which was a good basis for his idolization. Similar to how the Korea's Yi dynasty was replaced with a Japanese emperor in 1910, Kim Il Sung took control of the throne left void by the Japanese emperor, who had been banished by the Soviet troops. Comparing with what transpired in the North, South Korea's search for its proper role was chaotic and well drawn out. Although the US forces arrived as liberators, the military government they established in 1945 resembled the heavy-handed one the United States imposed on the Philippines after the Spanish-American War in 1898 Without regard for the nationalistic feelings among Koreans, the military administration put people who had collaborated with the Japanese in official positions.

Only after three years of questionable military rule did the United States approve the establishment of an independent government in South Korea. In the name of democracy, the three years (1945-1948) did untold and lasting damage, and among other things, brought about the following two changes in the consciousness of South Koreans: 1. The idea of a monarchy was completely eroded and never properly debated, as an outlet for voicing out South Korean's nationalistic sentiments. 2.

The South Koreans also had hope for freedom of expression and thought since the government in the South was obliged to permit every kind of political party in the name of democratic pluralism (This was quite contrary to the North, however.) These two factors set the stage for the Korean War. In South Korea, there was the lack of a strong leader and the excessive openness of society enabled the country's Communists to grow stronger and stronger. The chaos they created, and the acts of terrorism they committed, made civil war inevitable [2]. o Had it not been the intervention of the US and the Soviets, the Korean nation would have developed into a strong self-reliant, socialist, nationalist state. This is because a power vacuum had been created by the defeat and exit of Japan and Korean leaders were largely economic in character and had no political agendas. o An opinion poll taken by the US Military Government in Korea in August 1946 showed that 14% of 8,453 Koreans polled, favoured capitalism, 70% favoured socialism, 7% Communism and 8% non-committal.

The overwhelming majority wanted socialism in Korea. Instead the US intervention and occupation in South Korea had lead to the handing over of control of the army and police to a minority pro-US Korean Democratic Party (Han-min-dang) thus began the tragedy of modern Korea - half century of corrupt dictatorship and genocide. It should be clear that the Cheju 4.3 Insurrection was an unavoidable consequence of anti-conservative, anti-US, anti-partition, nationalism of the Korean people. o Chinese negotiators signalled a change in policy when they accepted the UNC's proposal for an exchange of sick and wounded prisoners and then recommended turning non-repatriates over to a neutral state. Also, in late May and early June 1953, Chinese forces launched powerful attacks against positions that South Korean units were defending along the front line. Far from being intimidated, Beijing thus showed its continuing resolve, relying on military means to persuade the United States to compromise on the final terms of the armistice. In the end, both sides conceded points on the POW repatriation issue [3]...

Growing Anti-American sentiments o Maintaining the myth that US intervention in the Korean War was an act of idealism and altruism reinforces the wrong lessons about the conflict's meaning, serving to fuel the anti-Americanism in South Korea that has been a destructive force in U.S. -Korean relations for at least the past four decades o The Cheju April 3rd (4.3) Insurrection. When it was realized that the division of Korea had been part of the United States' policy of domination of Korea, anti-US sentiments were triggered which then led to the April 3rd (4.3) Insurrection. This was a struggle of the people of Cheju do to gain basic human rights by eradicating the oppression and discrimination by the central authorities. It was effectively a nationalist movement to dismantle the United States' imperialist domination of Korea and manifested itself as the Korean people's struggle, in the aftermath of World War II, to achieve self-government. By the systematic slaughters of Native American tribes, the 4.3 Insurrection became an extension of the inhuman pacification of the American West. The 4.3 Insurrection was clearly a symbol of the Korean people's determination to build a free and independent nation devoid of any foreign interference.

It got in the way of the United States Truman's domination strategy and to suppress this, the United States adopted a tactics of scorched earth and large-scale genocide, resulting in indiscriminate killing of civilians... Civil War and Unrest. The Korean War was seen by some as a civil conflict whilst others considered it as a true civil war. Whilst the Korean war can be seen as an example of a Soviet-inspired, eternal aggression for the North to invade the South, the Bruce Cumings, insisted in his two-volume study titled The Origins of the Korean War that a conventional war started in Korea in June 1950 because the United States prevented a leftist revolution on the peninsula during 1945 and imposed a reactionary regime in the south during the years immediately following World War II [4]. Callum MacDonald wrote that the North Korean "attack was the latest act in a civil war which had been taking shape since the liberation of Korea from Japan in 1945 [5]... The establishment of a US Korea Policy in the South.

This policy was formulated in September of 1945 in which it was agreed to establish an administration in South Korea, which can be extended to North Korea. It was imperative that the Soviet be kept out of any knowledge of this. It was hoped that talks on Trusteeship would begin in early 1946 and transfer of US military government to the trusteeship made a year after. In full knowledge of the 3-nation Moscow conference in December 1945 to establish a Provisional Government of Korea, the United States had proceeded to establish a pro-US right wing civilian administrative body in South Korea as the de facto provisional government with its control to be extended into North Korea. The United States was putting in place pro-Japanese and right-wing traitors in administrative and police organisations, and yet pretended they were brokering a left-right reconciliation. For example, a "Council of Korean Advisers' " meeting was conveyed on October 5, 1945 by the United States Military Government in Korea with the agenda of putting the national interests above all else.

There were a total of 10 South Korean advisers in the Meeting which was chaired by Kim Sung Soo, one of the well-known pro-Japanese traitors, and 9 other right-wingers. The main agenda for the US Korea policy was to have a pro-US government in South Korea and then take over North Korea with the view to ensuring the delivery of goods from the United States into Greater Far East of Japan, Korea and China [6]... Voluntary repatriation of POWs. Truman's stand on voluntary repatriation had little to do with moral considerations. His main goal was to win a propaganda victory in the Cold War, even though this necessitated a misrepresentation of the facts.

For example, the US stand on the principle of non-forcible repatriation may have seemed moral, however, it contradicted the Geneva Convention, which required the return of all POWs, as the Soviets have demanded. Truman administration had purposefully to allowed those POWs refusing repatriation to be seen as Communists defecting to the "Free World". A large number of North Korean POWs were actually South Koreans who either had joined voluntarily or were enlisted into the Communist army. Also several thousands of Chinese POWs were Nationalist soldiers trapped in China at the end of the civil war who now had the chance to escape to Taiwan. Moreover, Chinese Nationalist guards at UN POW camps had used terrorist "re-education" tactics to compel prisoners to refuse repatriation.

Those who resisted, risked beatings or death. This disrupted peace in Korea for more than a year [7]... The threat to peace in the region. o Implied threats were made by the Truman administration in 1951, when B-29 bombers carried out atomic bombing test runs over North Korea with large conventional bombs [8]. o Eisenhower's threats of an expanded war using nuclear weapons and the bombing of North Korea's dams and irrigation system in May of 1953 went further to threaten peace in the region

Bibliography

1]. Korea: Division, Reunification, & U.S. Foreign Policy, by Martin Hart-Landsberg. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1998.
ISBN 0-85345-928-2 cloth; ISBN 0-85345-927-4 paper). [2]. The Country America Cannot See By MUN YOU TI July 27, 2003 [3].
Ding man, "Atomic Diplomacy During the Korean War", pp. 50-51; Mark A. Ryan, Chinese Attitudes Toward Nuclear Weapons: China and the United States During the Korean War (1989), p.
156; Edward Keefer, "Eisenhower and the End of the Korean War", Diplomatic History 10 (Summer 1986): 267-268;
Daniel Calingaert, "Nuclear Weapons and the Korean War", Journal of Strategic Studies 11 (June 1988): 177-202.
4]. Bruce Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War, 2 vols. (1981, 1990).
5]. Callum MacDonald, Korea: The War Before Vietnam (1986);
6]. Dr. Kang Chung Ku, The US Korea Policy, Division of Korea and The April 3rd Insurrection. A paper presented at the International Conference: The 50th Anniversary of the Cheju April 3rd Insurrection. [7]. Foot, Substitute for Victory: The Politics of Peacemaking at the Korean Armistice Talks (1990), pp.