Another Korea War
Another Korea War
By Jinyul Ryu, PhD
Sungkyul University, Korea
North Korea has kept a strained relationship with the United States ever since the 1953 truce. Now war clouds once again hang over the Korean Peninsula. As war seems to loom large, Korea cannot stand aloof from the war of "shock and awe" against Iraq, while seeking a peaceful solution to the current nuclear standoff.
Like Americans, Koreans are peace-loving people. Korea, together with the Mongolian Army, has once attempted to invade Japan and to expand its northern territory into Manchuria. However, the country long ago learned the principles of peaceful coexistence through compromise and cooperation rather than hostility.
As all human cultures and thought systems are developed in the dynamic relation to their environments, so this Korean spirit has grown in the context of the Korean Peninsula, which is geo-politically located between China, Russia, and Japan. The significance of location was emphasized much more in the previous century than in this time of advanced communication and transportation. All of Korea`s neighboring countries have coveted the peninsula and have wanted to place it under their influence. Korea was a crucial element for Japan to advance into the Asian continent and for Russia to secure an ice-free port positioned toward the Pacific Ocean.
In the conflicting situation between these nation`s interests, Korea, having not much room to maneuver, has sought to survive through compromise and cooperation with foreign forces. Despite such struggles, the peninsula was colonized by Japan for 36 years, and was divided into South Korea and North Korea immediately following its liberation on August 15, 1945. If we Koreans had had the right of choice, that is, if the division of Korea had not been decided by the leaders of America, England, and Russia at the Yalta Conference (February, 1945), certainly we would not have experienced such tragedies as resulted from the separation.
Divided into the democratic South and communist North, the Korean War saw its beginnings as Koreans began fighting against one another, stimulated by the then Russian expansionism. The war claimed countless young Koreans and foreign soldiers from fifteen nations including America, and many civilians died as well. Koreans admit that what we are now is due to their brave sacrifice, and so appreciate it highly.
However, the tragedy of the war itself left nothing positive, only ill effects. We Koreans are still under the aftermath of the war, as Americans are in some ways affected by the after effects of the U.S. Civil War. The peninsula became even more firmly divided and there are more than one million families with relatives living in both sides, yearning for a reunification. Now, 50 years have passed since the conclusion of the war. The then-young Koreans are getting older, and many of them are no longer with us. Though a handful of them are fortunate enough to have their long awaited meeting with family, it can`t compensate them for the pains of their division.
If another war breaks out under the current situation, will it be the will of God, who intends to build his kingdom of peace and righteousness? Can it be a war that we can justify? Would the looming war falsify the empirically proven fact that there are no winners, only losers in war?
Justified War in Korea
War with North Korea would be justified if North Korea were to seriously disturb the order of peaceful coexistence in Northeastern Asia, catering only to its own interest at the expense of bordering countries, and if its intent to use weapons of mass destruction is demonstrated in a clear as day manner.
China, Russia, and Japan are the neighboring nations of Korea. Although each has had internal conflicts and changes of political systems, they have remained sovereign nations. If the North were ever to attack any of these, it will certainly be the cause of a just war. However, it is not likely that such an impoverished nation has the capability and intention to do so. With a bankrupt economy, weakened morale, and worn-out conventional weapons, it couldn`t win any war against its neighbors equipped with up-to-date systems of weaponry. What then can the North break? It is the temporal peace and stability between the two Koreas. These two currently seem to enjoy at least limited communications during a nuclear-generated tension. The South and the international communities all attempt to engage the North and lure it out of its isolation. However, efforts are way short of leveling the vale of deep distrust between the two, which has been in place since their separation.
North Korea needs to abandon the red menace and its vain ambitions in order to avoid falling into deeper mire. Its leaders must realize what is really going on in the world and become aware of what a responsible country of the global village should do. Both Koreas are called to talk seriously about their future, to bring about some creative ideas, and to act step by step on what they believe best for the cause of their reunification. Only then can we expect any recognition and help from other countries.
A war may be called just if it brings about much more good than evil with a minimum of civilian casualties. If the economic principle – maximum profit by minimum investment – is applied to a war and actualized, we can hardly deny its necessity and usefulness. We can have patience with today`s pain if it results in tomorrow`s prosperity. Could the winning of a war set a new stage for Korean peace? Can a pre-emptive, surgical strike on nuclear sites contribute to the peace and prosperity of the peninsula? Or would it lead to another all-out war in Korea?
Even in less tense situations, the North used to threaten the South saying, "Seoul will be a sea of flames if America and its puppet-South Korea-attack our country." From this, the propensity is clear that a cornered North Korea, if attacked, would rave against its enemies, using all available weapons and military personnel.
A war usually stems from human psyche tarnished by egocentric temper and superiority complex. The ill result is a war, which demonstrates these dispositions in very destructive ways rather than sublimating them. As these become root elements in distorted human relations, so the collective egoism and excessive pride of a nation easily cause conflicts among the countries of the world. It is not being asserted that America will declare war against the North out of such attitude or of avarice-driven imperialism. Rather it is suggested that America fights not out of choice but of necessity. However, we can`t expect something desirable from a war if it is carried out to satisfy these abnormal desires, considering that even a war of sacred intention rarely yields good fruits.
If a nation that produces and exports illegal drugs, or an organization that perpetuates ideas which dehumanize people are also objects of just war, we may then justify a war against the North. The suspicion that North Korea infringes upon human rights and breaks international fidelity keeps many nations from investing in and helping the hapless kingdom. However, such behavior is not exclusive in its ability to produce evil effects upon our society. Drug-exporting countries poison human souls. Dehumanizing culture and mechanizing thought eclipse the bright side of the world. High divorce rate and mammonism destroy family and human relation little by little from within.
If the unpredictability of the North is just one of these evil-bearing elements, and if the difference between its acts and the actions of other`s is merely of degree and not of quality, how could it be correct to label a war against North Korea just, while not using weapons against others? What would be the rationale for the military threat?
It seems that the North acts on the instinct of self-defense in developing nuclear weaponry. If this is the case, its behavior can`t be an excuse for waging war against it. All living things have the right to protect themselves from anything that threatens their existence. With the collapse of communism and the old Russia, which had been the major supporter of North Korea, America became the sole superpower and has recently designated the North as one of the "axis of evil." In this circumstance, it is quite plausible for the nation to feel isolated and threatened. Thus its leaders want to have more powerful weapons as a self-protecting policy. Certainly they would think that their country is entitled to develop such a weapon because of the threat of the U.S.
What is wrong with this? All nations do so in their own interest of safety, and many other countries already have more than enough weapons of mass destruction. The problem is how they are used. If the North appears to be in the business of getting something by intimidating the South or Japan with nuclear weaponry, or if it exports plutonium to rogue states or terrorist groups designing mass bloodshed, these would be cause for a just war. A war may be inevitable provided that a nation uses its weapons to destroy the system of the world that orients toward a peaceful symbiosis based on the international laws and mutualism.
Now some Americans believe that they are engaging against Iraq in order to eradicate the root of terrorists, to preserve fragile world peace, and to keep their great country safe. America may attack Iraq or North Korea, following its own line of conduct, despite the current worldwide antiwar movement. In doing this, Washington may be more interested in satisfying its own needs under the cloak of peace and justice. They might be doing so even more confidently in the belief that God entrusts it to them, and therefore they identify the Christian truths with the American values. Is God on their side? Is every individual or nation not under God`s judgment? Is it a war between good and evil? What do they assume that eliminating the evil of the world is their job? Who has given America the right to launch preventive strikes on evildoers?
Biblical View of War
Although the Old Testament reports numerous war stories and contains statements that support armed conflict, it does not regard war as a better option or even recommend it as a solution to conflicts. Rather, we find many passages in the OT, which put emphasis on peace (Isa 2:4). Moreover, there are problems in using all the war-related passages applied to Israel in our situation.
In a fundamental sense, war and violence are condemned. For example, King David fought many wars and was victorious in most of them. But his plan to build God`s temple was rejected by God himself because of his war-career. In the OT, war was discouraged or even stopped by some prophets. God punished foreign countries because of their war crimes against Israel and others. If war was indispensable, it had to be carried out in reasonable ways. Soldiers were not allowed to use weapons cruelly or excessively. They were ordered to stop once they had achieved their objectives.
In the New Testament, Jesus accepted war as part of this world when he mentioned the omens of the end time (Mt 24:6). Soldiers who became Christians were not condemned. The apostle Paul and other writers like to use military terms and metaphors to describe the Christian life, and Christians were called soldiers who had to fight the good fight. Nevertheless, this fight does not mean violent war in today`s sense. It is a Christian struggle against evil with spiritual weapons, not with physical ones:
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil`s schemes. For our struggle is not against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph 6:11-12).
The NT too contains many statements that emphasize peace. In his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes clear that his followers should seek to live in a nonviolent manner:
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God (Mt 5:9); you have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.` But I tell you: Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also . . . . You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.` But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Mt 5:38-44).
In the letter to Romans, Paul the apostle made a similar statement:
Do not repay anyone evil for evil . . . . If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone . . . . Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God`s wrath . . . . Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Rom 12:17-21).
All these passages seem to suggest that true peace in the world and the cause of God are not advanced through the use of physical force. Historically, there were many more wars that left only a series of other sufferings than wars that gave rise to peace. Considering all these aspects together, can we still contend that war is an inevitable choice in some cases? It is a necessary evil?
Theological and Historical Views of War
The believers of the early church felt a tension between what they believed about war and what the emperor required of them, or between the church`s teaching and the nation`s demand. This incompatibility between the command of love taught by Jesus and the need to kill the enemy in a war made the followers of Christ perplexed. In this situation, most of them favored nonresistance and nonviolence, found strong support from their Lord and the Scripture, and became quite reluctant to join armed forces. When they had to serve in the military and the government, they wanted to perform alternative services such as police and fire fighting, rather than engage in killing other soldiers. Church leaders such as Origen encouraged them to pray to fight against the evil force that caused conflict and killing. They preferred Jesus` command to love the enemy to the emperor`s command to kill the enemy.
This pacifism of the early church remained a dominant view until around A.D. 170. However it was diluted with military triumphalism as more and more people became Christians and the Roman world was Christianized. There was growing pressure for the believers to serve in the army, and in addition, the northern barbarian faction threatened to destroy Pax Romana. In response to this brewing tension, Augustine formulated the just war theory. A war, he claimed, can be just if it is carried out to secure peace and justice only with love for the enemy in mind. The enemy`s will was to be respected and no massacre, looting, or burning was ever allowed. Under his influence, the medieval church undertook a holy war (the Crusade) to free the holy land from pagan control. The church even glorified war and warriors, and taught that showing mercy to the enemy of God`s kingdom was wrong. Its liturgy included the blessing of battle standards and weapons. Knights were consecrated in a sacred manner and became privileged leaders of the people.
With the advance of weapons, however, large-scale warfare and mass destruction became possible. Both rationalists and Christian humanists began criticizing the traditional view of war, and worked toward peace and harmony, encouraging international cooperation and humanitarian endeavors. Unfortunately, their struggle failed most severely in the two World Wars of the last century. Initially, Christians believed that the Wars were just in that they aimed at freeing people from unjust systems. However, history may be showing that the result was quite the opposite. Unwanted tragic events and circumstances have resulted in many parts of the world. Numerous civilians including children and women died in the conflicts. After seeing the Holocaust and the reactionary damage of the atomic bombs, people`s disappointment and weariness reached their peak. The dire consequences of the wars crushed people`s dreams to build a peaceful world, and made them seek to secure peace not by appealing to weapons but by establishing an international peacekeeping organization such as the United Nations. But in preventing war and keeping harmony, such endeavors have not been as effective as expected. There have been numerous regional conflicts including the Korean War even after such international systems and laws were installed.
As Christians, we hope and pray that there will never again be another war in Korea. Both North Korea and the United States play a crucial role in our future, and they are the partners we hope to get along with. However, the recent escalation of an already volatile Korean situation worries many Koreans who tasted the bitterness of the Korean War.
Is a Holy War Moral?
Are America and North Korea on a collision course? On what basis can another war on the Korean peninsula be justified? Americans may call it a "just war" or even a "crusade," But does this mean that God has given them the authority and power to preserve the peace and order of the world, and that they are always doing God`s will, and that the dualistic classification of all things as good or evil is a divine imperative. Yes, another Korean war can be a conflict between good and evil. Nevertheless, would it be moral?
At least in a historical sense, the identification of holy war (religiously motivated) with just war (morally justified) finds little support, and is thus rejected. The Crusades were a failure since they failed to achieve the supposed holy goal. A number of young lives from both sides were sacrificed for nothing because the wars were not holy or moral. If they were, why did they not win the wars against evil?
We may conclude that war is a moral option or even the only option we have if we exhaust all the available alternatives to war. Some oppose this idea, saying that war is always a failure no matter what the circumstances are. However, sometimes war could be moral. A war against insane dictators like Hitler is one clear example. Such wars can have positive effects on enhancing human welfare and making the world a better place to live. The reality, however, is that few wars have achieved this end.
We thus need to give peace and diplomatic endeavor many chances before we even think of resorting to a military solution. North Korean leaders want direct talks and a non-aggression treaty with America, probably because they know they are next in line after Iraq. In dealing with Pyongyang, Washington can be confident and flexible, for America is the only remaining superpower that has the means to handle the "hermit kingdom" and to make a "win-win" formula possible. Of course, America`s offer to have multilateral talks is more effective and binding than the bilateral meeting preferred by the North. Perhaps Washington could adopt both approaches to come up with a creative solution, without caving into blackmail or rewarding the North`s belligerent behavior.
Looking anxiously at Iraq`s unfolding story, Kim Jong II may find himself forced to choose between war and peace. His real interest, as he plays "hide and seek" or word games with America and South Korea, seems to be getting as much hard currency as he can, rather than posing an actual threat to his enemies. If this is his real motive, we need to rethink the "evil for evil" policy. A Christian way to deal with evil should be different from Talio`s law, which regulates the retaliation manner of "eye for eye" (cf. Lev 24:20, Mt 5:38).
We know that George W. Bush cannot give the North infinite opportunities for disarming the nation of nuclear weaponry. However, as a Christian leader he can try to find peaceful alternatives to war. We Koreans eagerly want to see North Korea achieve a soft-landing. In retrospect, Korea was victimized by the ideological conflict of the neighboring superpowers after World War Two. Why should we see this happen again to us? If any force, including the two Koreas and America, should make our country plunge into another fratricidal war and infringe on our precious freedom and rights, we will and should resist such a force with all available effort, for this would be evil.
What if all the non-military ways such as sunshine policy, UN resolution, humanitarian aid, and diplomatic endeavor fail to deter North Korea from its abortive nuclear program? Only then can we invoke economic or military sanctions against it. These would be unbearable for the North, and it would weaken its already ailing economy so decisively that its leaders would be forced to choose between military confrontation and whole compliance with international treaty. Surely North Korea will realize how miserable its situation is, and throw open its doors to the outer world if it is genuinely concerned for its people and future.
It would be hard to accept that Pyongyang is truly unreasonable, oblivious enough to resort to war. Its leaders are well aware of the fact that they can`t avoid the least wanted outcome, complete destruction and obliteration of their nation, if they were to wage war against South Korea and its allies. We need realism here. They have to come to their senses. North Korea cannot and should not wage such a reckless war. It would not dare to do such an evil thing. Thus we had better wait and see with endurance and confidence, doing our best to bring forth the stability of northeastern Asia. But if they should test our capability and readiness, challenge our peace-loving and reasonable stance, and make the first military move, then we certainly would together defend our countries and eventually free North Korea from misery.
It is the belief of this writer, in this sense, that we do not need a pre-emptive strike on the alleged nuclear complex in Yongbyun. Such a strike would hardly meet the traditional Christian criteria of a just war because of the unpredictability of war and the certainty of mass destruction. Our war must be a legitimate self-defense to be moral. It is unjust to attack a country on the basis of the presumption that it might strike another nation in the foreseeable future.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
