The Patriotic Internationalist’s Dilemma
By Jonathan Joseph Chiarella
Facts
Japan has exploited its long-running position of superiority over Korea. Japan has cut corners on nuclear safety. The water from the Fukushima power plant, if the numbers are true, is totally safe. The coal power industry is responsible for far more deaths than nuclear power.
Possibilities
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has forestalled nuclear proliferation. The IAEA may have been lax on testing Fukushima’s water.
The Future
The Republic of Korea cannot stand alone on the world stage and must carefully navigate international politics to preserve its prosperity and autonomy.
Making Sense of It
The scientific question is whether coal or nuclear is safer. When you consider the continual mining, smoke, and greenhouse gases, coal is quite deadly. In fact, coal power plants leak quite a bit of radiation due to naturally occurring uranium in the ore. On the other hand, the Fukushima disaster itself is proof that we should be more selective in where we deploy nuclear tech. Further, the “rushed” release of the treated wastewater and selective testing should raise eyebrows. [See Chung Hyunhwa’s article from July.]
Setting that aside, the social dilemma is how we react when an inter-governmental organization (IGO) to which our country belongs does something that people in our country oppose.
Those in favor of global governance support IGOs, and they tend to prefer single, universal institutions instead of conflicting jurisdictional battles and regional balkanization. The success story to emulate and repeat is the Montreal Protocol under the aegis of the UN. This 1989 treaty got the world away from using CFCs as a refrigerant, and before we completely destroyed the ozone layer, meaning that the sun’s UV would mostly reach the surface, burn our skin, ruin agriculture, and end all beach holidays. What worked? Monitoring and a series of incentives and disincentives. Get caught behaving badly, get sanctions. Clean up your act, see sanctions lifted. Rather than spiral into the trap of the prisoner’s dilemma, most states opted to wear their compliance status as a badge of honor. Unlike some regional currency union (e.g., the Eurozone), this international framework only worked if it was alone and world-wide.
The IAEA dates back to 1957, but to most people, it only makes the news during big events: monitoring weapons development in North Korea or Iraq, or in its endorsement of the release of the water from Fukushima. However, the IAEA’s effectiveness is in the day in, day out monitoring of the non-outliers, the countries that want to prove to others that they are good team players, in the hopes that this will encourage others to be good or create a culture that “shames” the bad players. If you want to show the world that you have no nuclear shenanigans going on, just cite the IAEA’s publicized data on your country regarding fissile material manufacture and storage. Presto! The UN Security Council is not going to ever sanction you. Almost all South Koreans appreciate this aspect of the IAEA (or would if they knew about its role).
However, we now have a dilemma.
Neoliberal Institutionalism vs. Realism
If you oppose the IAEA right now because it endorsed the release of wastewater from Fukushima, then you risk undermining the IAEA’s authority. If you say nothing, the IAEA may continue to side with more powerful countries, and Japan may get the green light to act unilateral in other ways. One also has to assess the risks with limited data. Should we accept some level of unsafe water if the IAEA remains intact? How unsafe is “too” unsafe? How unsafe is that water really?
One can question whether the IAEA is “its own thing” or merely a tool of enforcement of regulations dictated by a club of countries. Does the IAEA have an existence independent of its origins and independent of the presidents and prime ministers of powerful member countries? In International Relations Theory, the “neoliberal institutionalist” says these institutions have lives of their own. They create order and predictability, too. Most states will want to obey or support such institutions because having these IGOs is overall more materially beneficial than not having them. The “realist” argues that these institutions are merely reflections of the desires of the powerful member countries. The IAEA or NATO would cease to have any existence if the most powerful members withdrew their support. These organizations are merely tools, the realist argues. If one is a realist and a Korean nationalist, then opposing the IAEA is the clear choice. If one is a neoliberal institutionalist and a Korean nationalist, things get complicated.
The Progressive Party and the Honam Region
Area residents may have noticed banners by the Progressive Party opposing the Fukushima wastewater release explicitly and before even the big, center-left Minjoo Party did so. The least cynical way to oppose the Fukushima wastewater release is to be principled from the get-go. “Is a delay in criticism caused by deliberation or by waiting to see how to opportunistically play one’s cards in this controversy?” voters may wonder. Let’s say you oppose right-wing politics and President Yoon’s unprecedented praise for Japan. (On two holidays commemorating Korea’s independence, he lavishly praised Japan, even redefining independence fighters as not anti-Japan but anti-communist.)
You want to vote for the people who can best fight for you and who are sincere, but be sure of what you actually want. Reflect on the IGO aspect of this issue. Should it temper or strengthen your opposition to the wastewater release? Korea has to play a careful balancing game in international politics, but I think that there is enough proof now to see that not all IGOs are automatically deserving of trust.
The Author
Jonathan J. Chiarella grew up in New York. He holds a B.A. in History (Rochester) as well as two M.A.s (Chonnam, Florida), and a Ph.D. in Politics (Florida). You can spot him riding the river trails or read his analysis of current affairs related to Honam or international relations.