In an age when globalization is blurring the lines between countries and creating interdependence on each other, international relations are more impactful than ever before. Succeeding in isolation is no longer feasible; the most powerful countries are the ones that have the widest influence, the ones that exert dominance through finance or power—the ones that most effectively utilize diplomacy with other countries. Yet, international relations are the very cause of some of the world’s largest concerns. The Russian invasion of Ukraine—an attack eerily reminiscent of Hitler’s attacks that began World War II—has reminded us of the ever-present threat of violent conflict. China’s Silk Road Initiative has left many countries at its mercy, and it has allowed China to further other ambitious, inhumane schemes. Here in Korea, our strained relationship with Japan is a constant topic of political discourse, affecting everything from everyday purchases to elections. In this issue, we hope to shed light on these matters and present our opinions regarding them.
A No-Fly Zone In Ukraine: Clever or Delusional?
F
or decades on end, the world has been discussing the prospect of a third World War, a war that could bring unimaginable amounts of death and suffering upon this Earth. Russia seemingly looks to bring this dusk unto our planet. As of April 10th, 2022, according to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), there have been at least 3,838 civilian casualties caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Additionally, war crimes such as the destruction of maternity and
children’s hospitals have been carried out by the Russian forces, while Russian military officials have lied to young Russian men, pressuring them to fight in a war they do not want to. Countries around the world have thus proposed numerous ways in which the Ukrainian forces could be helped, and the leading idea was in a no-fly zone. With so much talk around it, though, what is a no-fly zone, and why could it do more harm than good?
by Jason Lee Layout by Alice Lee
Firstly, what is a no-fly zone? A no-fly zone refers to the banning of aircraft, especially the aircraft of a specific party in a conflict, from flying in or over specific areas. In the invasion of Ukraine, this would disallow Russian aircrafts from entering Ukrainian airspace. To then understand the potential importance of a no-fly zone and why so many support it, one must understand Putin’s Russia. Russia’s military trounces Ukraine’s military in every category on paper. As a result, Russia’s superior military (including their airforce) would likely destroy Ukraine’s and ultimately win the war. This would also have ramifications for the rest of Europe in a potential domino effect. Why, then, is a new fly zone not being implemented? While it sounds good in theory, a no-fly zone would call for regulation, enforced by the likes of NATO or the U.S., to shoot Russian planes out of the sky. This act would essentially call for the start of WWIII, or some form of direct interna-
tional conflict between global superpowers. To avoid direct conflict as much as possible, many parties such as the U.S. have opted not to attempt to enforce a no-fly zone. In the end, a no-fly zone has potential but severely lacks in almost all other departments, particularly practicality. While superficially implementing one could still be a tokenistic form of support, the risk of creating a facade of solvency or aggravating Russian forces could prove to be devastating in the long run. So, despite the worldwide support for this solution, we must go back to the drawing board to put an end to this travesty.
Yoon Goes All-In On America
O
n March 9, 2022, South Korea’s next President was elected as Yoon Suk-Yeol of the conservative People Power Party defeated Lee Jae-Myung of the incumbent liberal Democratic Party in the closest presidential race in Korean history. Although Yoon previously worked under the current liberal President Moon Jae-in as Prosecutor General, he has taken a decidedly conservative stance as the President-elect with respect to key policies—most notably in regards to foreign relations. On multiple occasions, Yoon has clearly stated his intent to further strengthen Korea’s ties with its closest ally, the United States; he has even gone so far as to state that “a deeper alliance with Washington should be the central axis of Seoul’s foreign policy.” Korea’s relationship with the United States as its closest ally originated in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II. After Korea was liberated from 35 years of colonial rule by Japan, Korea was not prepared to immediately establish a functional central government. As a temporary solution, the U.S. and the Soviet Union agreed to govern Korea under a joint trusteeship, with a plan to ultimately transition the government to the Korean people in due course. As part of the arrangement, the U.S. and the Soviet Union agreed to geographically separate Korea at the 38th parallel, with the U.S. governing the South and the Soviet Union governing the North. Although the U.S. and the Soviet Union were allies in World War II against Germany and Japan, the two countries’ political ideologies grew significantly divided, as the U.S. was the staunchest proponent of free democracy while the Soviet Union was a stalwart of communism.
The joint U.S.-Soviet trusteeship of Korea originally began as a straightforward and practical solution to facilitate the development of Korea, but instead, led to an early battleground of the Cold War, as the Soviet Union was determined to expand communism in Asia while the U.S. was intent on containing the spread of communism. The Korean War broke out in 1950, when North Korea, with the backing of the Soviet Union and China, crossed the 38th parallel and invaded South Korea. Several days later, the U.S. came to the aid of South Korea and supplied nearly all of the foreign troops on the ground in Korea on behalf of the South. Even to this day, the U.S. has maintained a strong military presence in Korea, with 28,500 troops currently stationed in Korean military bases. Once inaugurated on May 10, 2022, as the President of South Korea, Yoon’s strong emphasis on a pro-American alliance is expected to materially impact Korea’s existing military alliances, bilateral trade, and geopolitics in Asia. As a key part of its U.S. alliance, Yoon is expected to take a more hardline stance against North Korea than the previous President Moon administration and is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of Korea-U.S. joint military exercises. Economic ties between Korea and the U.S. are also expected to strengthen, with stronger cooperation in key technology industries such as semiconductors and electric batteries. Consequently, this will have implications on the U.S.’ technology and trade war with China, which also happens to be South Korea’s largest trade partner. Surely, there will be a lot of change in South Korea in the next five years under President Yoon.
by Jay Choe layout by Andrew Ham
EFFICACY & ETHICS OF SANCTIONS DURING WAR by Tomo Ishikawa layout by Andrew Ham
F
rom the invasion of Ukraine, Russia is currently under some of the most severe economic sanctions ever placed on a country. Countless Western companies have pulled out, factories have closed, there’s been an increase in interest rates, and the list continues to grow. There is clearly a lot of pain and suffering for the people of Russia, and even Vladimir Putin has admitted that his country is undergoing an extreme economic crisis. So this all begs the question: How historically effective are sanctions, and are they ethical? Economic sanctions can be seen as some sort of financial penalty on a nation guilty of wrongdoing. Many times, these economic sanctions are not placed for purely economic reasons, but for military, political, or social issues. However, sanctions rarely ever achieve their goals. An example of this could be seen in the extreme sanctions placed on Iraq after the Gulf War. Though those sanctions had the aim of convincing the regime to change its ways, they ultimately made no change. They instead simply caused unbearable economic and physical suffering to innocent civilians. So if we are aware of the fact that placing sanctions only hurts the civilians of the country, why do we still impose them? Frankly, there are only so many tools that governments can use in order to convince or coerce another government to do something, barring the use of military force. So
sanctions are seen as the golden standard for nonviolent actions. We’ve seen some success from economic sanctions in Chile, where, under Reagan’s second term, the United States imposed sanctions against Pinochet with the intent of speeding up the reform process. The economic pressure on Chile not only resulted in harder conditions for the Chileans but also had the important effect of increasing pressure on Pinochet to keep promised timelines. Eventually, he met his goal of liberalizing the economy and removing trade tariffs. A referendum was soon offered, which allowed the people to decide for Pinochet to not be able to run again. Still, sanctions are not completely ethically sound, either. Though many prefer these economic weapons over firearms and bombings, the true effect of economic restrictions can sometimes mirror that of physical violence. The civilian population takes the fall and is seen as an instrument in the political machine; despite being the “gold standard,” sanctions are often considered morally bankrupt. As stated before, undermining the economy often disproportionately hurts the country’s lower class without creating change in government policy. So, innocent citizens suffer from the mistakes of a failing (and often guilty) government. Though at many times, there is not really a choice, there is no need for civilians to be killed economically due to a corrupt or malicious leader. There is no need for sanctions.
Chinese Geopolitics of the 21st Century by Peter Kim layout by Eunice Rhee
The Chinese call their country “Zhong Guo,” or the “Middle Kingdom.” This name reflects very well on how the Chinese think of their own country, as well as their attitudes toward foreign policy. For centuries, the Chinese have thought of themselves as the most powerful and civilized country in the world, meant to dominate and lead the world in every aspect of life, technology, and philosophy. In fact, when the British first came to China, then led by the Manchu Qing Dynasty, they were stunned by the astounding pride and arrogance of the Chinese court. The Chinese Emperor refused to talk with the British diplomat until he agreed to “kowtow” or bow to the Emperor and declare his nation subservient to China. The Chinese indeed believed that every nation on Earth should be subservient and loyal to it, for why shouldn’t the world bow down to the most civilized and powerful nation on Earth? Throughout history, China sought to dominate its neighbors and establish tributary states, ensuring Chinese hegemony and loyalty to nearby societies. And in the modern world, China is still no different. The Middle Kingdom still seeks to dominate the 21st century and all its nations. Ancient Chinese dynasties have historically had some influence not just in the Han homelands of China, but also in East Asia, South Asia, and Central Asia. However, after Europeans in the 19th century forcefully opened up China to the Western world, the Chinese faced what they call the “Century of
Humiliation,” when China was weakened to become economically subservient to foreign powers. Now, China under the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) regime has once again built itself up as an economic and military powerhouse of the world and seeks to regain control of its surrounding regions and nations. First and foremost in Southeast Asia, China has been trying to gain influence over the smaller nations in the region. Most recently, there was a coup against the democratic government in Myanmar, where the military overthrew the Burmese government and established their own military junta. What a lot of people do not know is that the CCP was deeply involved in this coup, supplying and politically supporting this new regime in Myanmar. As a result, China will now have massive influence in Myanmar and have the ability to use it as a puppet state to gain greater access to the Southeast Asian region. Besides Myanmar, China has been subtly trying to influence other countries in the area as well. In Thailand, the government has been slowly warming up to the Chinese, accepting Chinese cultural, economic, and political influence for Thailand’s short-term economic benefits. China has also used the fact that there are wealthy and influential Chinese minorities in both Indonesia and Myanmar to its advantage: considering that the Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia own a substantial
portion of the wealth in those countries, the CCP is leveraging those minorities to economically influence the Indonesian and Malaysian governments to ensure that they do not go against the wills of China. Broadly speaking throughout Southeast Asia, the Chinese have also been funding politicians and political parties that promise to be “nonconfrontational” and “cooperative” with China. The Chinese have spent substantial amounts of money and effort in installing loyal politicians and governments in foreign countries in the Southern Pacific. What is most concerning is that Chinese influence has reached Australia as well; they have been funding pro-Chinese politicians and lobby groups to ensure that Australia, a militarily and economically powerful nation in Oceania, does not become a threat to China and instead comes into the folds of Chinese influence. In East Asia, China also ensures that the countries surrounding it do not get any more powerful than it as well. The most notable example is China’s policy in North Korea and Taiwan. China is one of the few countries that support the North Korean regime, supplying it with raw resources as well as food to ensure the regime’s survival and possession of nuclear weapons. North Korea essentially acts as a nuclear deterrent to South Korea as well as other Western allies in East Asia without China having to directly go against the West. Additionally, in Taiwan, the Chinese have been flexing their military muscles for quite some time now. The Chinese regularly violate Taiwanese military airspace multiple times a day now and do not intend to be intimidated by American naval forces anymore. That being said, Taiwan is of little actual strategic value to China, but it is much more symbolic to the Chinese than anything. Taiwan’s existence and independence is a show of weakness for the CCP, and its integration into the Chinese People’s Republic will be a strong political victory for the CCP. The Chinese would try to slowly economically and politically integrate
Taiwan into its fold, just like how it does with other foreign nations currently, but to a much more interventionist extent. Essentially, China is currently undertaking a massive geopolitical plan to gain strong economic and political influence in the Asian continent in hopes to restore its former glory as a “Middle Kingdom,” where China would be in total political and economic control of its surrounding regions. It is crucial for the security and well-being of the democratic world that the Chinese and their geopolitical goals are quickly stopped. The developed, democratic world must cooperate to ensure that China is contained and cannot spread more economic and political influence elsewhere. If not, the democratic world and weaker nations from East Asia to Western Europe will face economic hegemony and political strongarming from China. Steps such as pulling manufacturing industries and corporations out of China would severely cripple their economic ability to pressure other nations and steal foreign technologies. Supporting the militaries of countries surrounding China would be a bold move against it, showing that the democratic world will not be influenced by China’s whims and demands. And domestically, countries should be much more wary of corruption and foreign influence in their elections to ensure the integrity of the sovereignty of their own nations. It is crucial for the safety and security of the world that China is treated as a serious geopolitical threat.
What we can expect from
Yoon Seok-youl by Sam Hong
layout by Eunice Rhee
I
n a presidential election for the ages, Yoon Seok-youl of the People Power Party defeated Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party on March 9, 2022, becoming the next president of South Korea. This election was one of the closest in history, with Yoon winning the election with a difference of 0.73%. Yoon’s victory has countless implications on domestic issues such as economic inequality from the pandemic, the strong anti-feminist sentiment in Korea, and the housing bubble. But it is equally as important to examine his influence on Korea’s relationships with its foreign neighbors, especially North Korea, the US, and Japan. President-elect Yoon is seemingly taking a more harsh stance against North Korea, going as far as labeling the country as South Korea’s “main enemy” on his Facebook page. In a series of interviews, Yoon outlined his policy against North Korea, stating that he would implement a series of defense strategies, such as adopting a “Kill Chain” system that allows South Korea to preemptively attack North Korea, as well as bolstering the Korean Air and Missile Defense system. All of these policies oppose the actions Yoon’s predecessors have adopted in dealing with North Korea, thereby potentially increasing tension between the two countries. With Yoon adopting a more aggressive stance and showing more resistance to ongoing North Korean missile launches, these acts of aggression from both sides could ramp up to unprecedented tensions. On the other hand, President-elect Yoon’s foreign policy with two of South Korea’s most
influential allies, Japan and the United States, is also something to monitor throughout his presidency. Yoon has stated multiple times that he intends to strengthen and foster a more communicative relationship with the United States by maintaining a strong economic bridge between the two countries. For Biden’s administration, the news of Yoon’s nomination should come as a relief, as Lee, the other candidate, was seemingly looking towards a more neutral position between the United States and China, something that the Biden administration would certainly dislike. For Japan, Yoon also pledges to have a more open relationship with Japan and to focus on the future rather than the past, as relations between the two countries have never been worse. Given that Japan and President Moon’s administration have failed to make significant ground on having a good relationship, the news that Yoon was nominated is also certainly bound to be good news for Japan. Overall, the prospect of the nomination of Yoon Seok-youl on international relations between South Korea and its neighbors and allies is intriguing, as there are many different ways that these relationships can develop. Given Yoon’s comments on what his stances might be for North Korea, how he goes about fulfilling these comments is something to keep an eye on. Furthermore, many South Koreans can most certainly hope for better relations with a long-time enemy in the form of Japan, and stronger relations with South Korea’s arguably strongest ally, the United States.
A historical feud: Korea v. Japan by Junseo Lee
layout by Irene Nam In November 2018, the Korean Supreme Court brought its gavel down on one of the most significant court decisions in Korean history: the Mitsubishi Heavy company was ordered to compensate 28 South Korean victims for placing them under forced labor during the Japanese Colonial Period. However, the Japanese government did not concur. They claimed that all of the reparations that they owed Korea had already been paid in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations that had provided South Korea with $800 million. Without proper knowledge of Korean history, this disagreement, as well as the economic conflict that resulted, may be difficult to understand. The years of building tensions that have led up to this conflict stem from Korea’s long history of conflicts with the Japanese. The first example of an organized Japanese military invasion of South Korea occurred in 1592, in an event known as the Imjin War. Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the emperor of Japan, attacked the Joseon Kingdom with the intent of conquering all of East Asia. The conflict ended with Hideyoshi’s death in 1598, and Japanese forces withdrew from Joseon, leaving behind greatly worsened relations between the two nations. The incident that contributed most significantly to the current Korea-Japan trade war was the Japanese Colonial Period from 1910 to 1945, in which the Japanese Empire, at the height of its power, overthrew the Joseon dynasty and took over Korea. Throughout this era, the Japanese army committed numerous war crimes and attempted to extinguish Korean culture, forcing all Korean citizens to take on Japanese names and banning the usage of the Korean language. Furthermore, large Japanese firms forced over 220,000 Korean men to work in coal mines and steel factories, splitting them away from
their families. This action was the main cause of the conflict that we see today. Many of these firms, including Mitsubishi Heavy, still benefit from the forced labor that they received during this time, while many families of the victims have yet to reunite with their family members and often live in poverty. Because of this, the Korean Supreme Court made the decision to force the company to make further reparations to the Korean citizens that were affected by this issue, yet the Japanese government refused. With both sides unwilling to yield, tensions had been rising between the two nations until a trade war erupted as the Japanese government cut all trading relations with South Korea. The South Korean republic responded with a complete boycott of all Japanese products, and the Moon administration, along with large corporations, focused on finding domestic sources for goods that they had usually received from Japan. The boycott of Japanese goods, also known as the “No Japan” movement, had significant socioeconomic effects on both countries. For example, there were massive decreases in the purchasing of imported Japanese beer in South Korea, with sales plummeting by 97%; it lowered Japan from the top source of imported beer in South Korea to 13th. Japanese cars, such as Honda, Toyota, and Nissan, were also affected, with their sales lowering by 74%. Furthermore, the trade war brought several issues between Japan and Korea into the spotlight, including Japan’s consistent refusal to acknowledge the issue of “comfort women,” who were Korean women that were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese army. It also brought attention to the lack of proper education in the Japanese curriculum regarding the atrocities committed by the Japanese Empire, with both the Nanjing Massacre, an event that killed over
200,000 Chinese civilians, and the issue of Korean comfort women not being mentioned in a single line in most Japanese history textbooks. However, the trade war began to settle down in late 2020 as Japan agreed to export one shipment of various restricted chemicals that South Korean technology companies had depended on from Japan. The South Korean government also agreed to stay in their military intelligence pact with Japan as long as the trade restrictions were being negotiated. Significant damages to both nations’ economies were ultimately evaded, but it proved that tensions from
the Japanese Empire’s actions during the Japanese Colonial Period still exist to this day. Due to the Japanese government’s attempts at keeping their people ignorant of the atrocities that they committed during World War II and their constant denial of issues that South Koreans know too well to be true, the diplomatic relations between the two countries have continued to be hostile, and most experts believe that neither country will likely attempt to fully repair their relationship in the near future.
China’s
Web of Debt
by Paul Moon
layout by June Jeong
S
ince 1890, the United States has been the world’s largest economy and can currently be regarded as the only truly global superpower. However, this is not expected to last past this decade, as China is slated to surpass the US as the top economy by 2030. China’s economic rise has truly been exponential, and its foreign investments have also tripled, reaching 175 billion in 2020. They are lending billions, especially to underdeveloped nations such as those in Africa. However, rather than lending sustainably with a feasible expectation of return, they have been using debt-trap diplomacy to gain international power.
Firstly, when viewing the debts of 74 of the world’s poorest countries, a staggering 37% are owed to China. It is highly unlikely that these countries will be able to paWy back such an immense debt, which is how China has gained great leverage. For example, ever since China got a seat in the UN, they have been unofficially rewarding or punishing developing nations depending on their stance on Taiwan: they reward countries that officially refused to acknowledge Taiwan with financial aid and punish countries that fail to do so by withholding funds. This has essentially prevented Taiwan from creating formal diplomatic relations with almost all nations, as only 14 of the world’s 193 nations in the UN recognize Taiwan as an independent country. It could be argued that even though China is using this financial aid for political control, they are helping these poor nations by funding infrastructure projects and hiring many workers. However, investigations done by BBC
news on several Chinese-funded projects in Africa discovered that a significant portion of the workforce was composed of native Chinese workers. This was especially true for higher positions, in which almost no jobs were held by citizens of the developing nation. When these developing nations fail to repay their impossible debts, China has even threatened to seize control of vital, preexisting infrastructure such as in the case of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port, where a Chinese state-owned company now holds a 99-year lease. However, it would not be fair to put the blame solely on China and its predatory debt policies, because developing nations often have no other choice. Developed nations are increasingly unwilling to invest in less economically developed nations for projects that don’t fulfill their own self-interests, so nations turn to riskier sources of money such as China. For example, in 2020, Iraq received $454 million USD from the US as foreign aid, but 55%
went towards military funding, and very little was left for other projects that could be used for infrastructure and reorganization. While more foreign investments from developed nations would be nice, it is unrealistic to expect nations to forgo their own self-interest and altruistically help other countries. Doing so might even jeopardize the domestic peace, as citizens who don’t see a need to help other nations might be displeased with the government. The Chinese debt trap is a worsening problem that threatens to jeopardize the sovereignty of many developing nations and has no obvious solution as long as Western countries are unwilling to aid poorer nations. Without immediate intervention or change in policies, it is likely that the number of underdeveloped countries being trapped in Chinese debt will increase year by year.
Catastrophes of the Russia Ukraine War The Russian and Ukraine war has caused much damage all around Ukraine as it had already caused $60 billion in damages. Many countries have made an effort to support and donate to Ukraine, yet these damages are still apparent, especially to the families and the soldiers. This artwork represents the catastrophe that is apparent all around the war. I tried to portray this as I painted tanks, bombs, and the destruction that the war has caused. In order to make this, I collaged different images from the war in order to show the different aspects of the war and I used gouache paint in order to paint this piece.
Celine Yan
ng
David Kim
Consequences of Russia-Ukraine Conflict The Russia and Ukraine war first started when Ukraine tried to join NATO(North Atlantic Treaty Organization) to receive military protection. After this attempt, Russia started the war by sending tanks and military vehicles into Ukraine, trying to take control over its cities. My artwork shows the consequences of the war, where destruction and havoc is created in places where citizens reside. Using the Procreate software, I included various colors to portray the war and its causes.
Bryan Kim Aimee Choi Woojune Kim Rachel Yoon Jihoon Kim Eunice Rhee Andrew Ham June Jeong Alice Lee Samuel Hong Nate Wilson Peter Kim Tomoki Ishikawa Lauren Kim Junseo Lee Paul Moon Lindsey Lim Sahngwon Lee Eric Cho Jay Choe Sopheen Lee Jason Lee Leo Sugino Irene Nam Sophia Park Ellen Ryu Hana Ito David Kim Minji Kim Celine Yang
President Vice President Writing Editor Writing Editor Production Manager Layout Editor Layout Editor Layout Editor PR Manager Japan Branch Head Japan Branch Head Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer Layout Layout Layout Layout Artist Artist Artist Artist