Comment at the North Korea Debate

Exeposé Comment‘s Debate Correspondent Fiona Potigny reviews Debating Society‘s Friday night debate discussing the credibility of North Korea’s threat to the West.

Once the audience had seated themselves to the smooth tones of “Groove Series 003” – oh DebSoc, you never disappoint in providing us with a toe-tappingly good yet arbitrarily-chosen soundtrack – the debate was prompt to begin. This week’s motion: “This house believes that North Korea presents a credible threat to The West”.

Dr John Heathershaw started by defining his definition of “threat” as uncertainty, drawing on his knowledge gleaned as a leading academic in the field of Security Studies. He argued that this uncertainty stemmed from North Korea’s three previous launch attempts, unceasing antagonistic rhetoric, and complete hostility to the international relations that Western nations have sought to defend since 1945. “In Security Affairs, if there is any uncertainty, measures must be taken in order to decrease potential impact. And so to oppose this motion,” he concluded, “is to oppose the maintenance of national order.”

“Equally, due to [North Korea’s] isolation from international expertise, their declarations of possessing ten warheads are likely no more than a nationalism-stirring device and, moreover, a distraction from the widespread starvation and malnutrition in their country.”
Photo Credit: yeowatzup via Compfight cc

Dr Heathershaw’s argument was succinct, logical, and carefully detailed with examples, thus it is a shame that much of this was directed at the sheet of paper before him rather than to the audience. Nonetheless, he flourished under audience questioning, providing swift yet well-thought-out responses (even if they did include over-usage of the word “bellicose”).

Sir Nick Harvey, MP and former Minister for the Armed Forces, expressed doubt over the actual capabilities of this “basket case” nation. He outlined the absurdity of believing that North Korea would take on the giants of the West owing to the vulnerability of their already “cranky” regime, and their notable lack of allies. Equally, due to their isolation from international expertise, their declarations of possessing ten warheads are likely no more than a nationalism-stirring device and, moreover, a distraction from the widespread starvation and malnutrition in their country.

Sir Nick’s delivery was tinged with well-justified cynicism and an honest disbelief that anyone would consider North Korea a genuine threat. Despite thorough audience questioning that kept both sides on their toes, Sir Nick remained unflustered, providing a good range of counter points. For example, when the proposition rightly pointed out that even an attack on South Korea would at very least send ripples of economic instability throughout the West, he responded that North Korea would only be threatening itself in doing so, being just miles from the border.

Providing the night’s injection of humour was Richard Foord from Exeter’s International Office who spoke in favour of the motion. His argument was based around the fact that if technology in its “infancy” includes a nuclear warhead able to reach Hawaii or Guam, North Korea will soon be able to perfect a missile with a range far enough to reach the UK. He also spoke of North Korea’s rejection of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the fact that they are still technically at war with the South.

Foord’s delivery radiated confidence and conviction – as one Tweeter pointed out, “someone’s been attending the Monday workshops”. During audience questioning, Foord would wait patiently for his partner to reply before providing his own humorous  addition and looking sufficiently smug after doing so – perhaps thinking that he had secured himself the “Zinger of the Year”, DebSoc’s prize for the best quote. One such example would be his play on George Bush’s “axis of evil”, referring to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of ebay”, due to their constant “bidding” for international aid, which merited a chuckle from the audience. Nonetheless, it was Foord himself who had the last laugh, as he had only been defending the motion as part of his research – he was actually in full agreement with the opposition.

Ryan Aldred of the South-West faction of the Socialist party was sent in place of Deputy Secretary Hannah Sell, who had pulled out at the last minute. Though Aldred started strongly when dismissing North Korea’s rhetoric as a way of being internationally assertive and indicating the discrepancy between their words and actions, he perhaps lost sight of the motion a little as he began his lament of the real threat: the capitalist class.

As his discourse became increasingly aligned with his political stance, the credibility of his argument seemed to become undermined, at least for some members of the audience who audibly tutted and “hmm’d” when he expressed his belief that North Korea serves as a “boogie man” distraction from poverty and austerity in the West. Despite this, credit must be given to Aldred for taking the stand despite the short amount of time in which he had to prepare. Equally, he did not shy away from audience questioning, and provided a series of persuasive responses: that Kim Jong Un’s inadequate leadership would undermine his own position in a war scenario, and that the West must therefore engage in diplomacy that allows the leader to save face.

The final vote showed a remarkably even split, with the opposition winning by just two votes.

Fiona Potigny

Next week’s debate is discussing the best sport in Britain. Vote now to give us your initial thoughts.

[poll id=”43″]

Did you attend last Friday’s debate? Is this an accurate version of events? What could the opposition (or proposition) have done or said for a more convincing victory? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

North Korea: Where do we currently stand?

Image credits to giladr

As events in the Korean Peninsula continue, Features Editor Imogen Watson takes account of the stability of the region’s future.

To many of us born in a certain generation, in a certain part of the world, the events leading us to the situation of today on the Korean Peninsula are lessons learnt in history books, and often only partially remembered. Isolated, inverted North Korea has always to us been a quirky country in Asia with a funny regime, bizarre fascination with its leaders, and an immense talent in putting on a well-choreographed mass display. Also in indoctrination. Good luck to you if you were interested enough to want to visit, as you will just as likely get in as North Koreans will get out.

Apart from a few citizens, what has got out of North Korea? Well, as is quite evident in recent weeks, international threats. Thus far we have avoided serious, large-scale conflict. But North Korea has been speaking out again lately, and just how worried ought the rest of the world to be?

Of course, the US is acting. As the world’s only remaining superpower, with big allies in South Korea and Japan, and relations to maintain with China, as well as being the main fear and supposed target of North Korea, it is not half surprising. Seoul has moved two warships to its coasts as a reaction to Pyongyang’s moving missiles around.

The whole situation sounds precarious, and it is. Wrongly-chosen words or the seemingly smallest of slip-ups could legitimately tip a balance that rests on that knife-edge which so often comes into play with the Korean Peninsula. But in that is a point worth making: threats, words and videos have often been broadcast in the past by the North Korean state. Residents of Seoul going about their daily business are yet to be particularly concerned, with one telling the BBC, “This tension has existed for more than fifty years, so I don’t see the difference this time.” Is there in fact something which makes this a bigger worry than normal?

A section of the De-Militarised Zone between North and South Korea.
Image credits to Justin Ornellas

The US has been flying planes over the peninsula, panicking Pyongyang. Pyongyang is moving weaponry, and Seoul is reacting. North Korea, despite never having ended the previous one from the 1950s, has openly declared an official state of war with South Korea. Whilst this all may yet come to nothing, and could well be action to give the new leader of North Korea Kim Jong-Un some standing both abroad and at home, the escalation is enough to set teeth on edge. With such a volatile state, proceedings must be cautious and thought-through. Having previously attacked the South, there is nothing to necessarily stop the North from doing so again.

How far is this all likely to go? Clearly the argument has been presented that there is sufficient to be concerned about, but there is faith also that this will be resolved. Whilst it is always possible, I have an inability to see a world where North Korea succeeds in its plans to reunite with the South under its mindset, and where the USA has been beaten into its submission. When another short-term solution to the current struggle will happen is clearly unknown, but once found we must work towards another solution, a long-term one, if only for the safety of its people; the reoccurring famines of a nation desiring to be self-sufficient are insupportable, and the indoctrination needs to end.

That is where more problems are to be found, of course, for North Korea is, if nothing else, stubborn.

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor