Russia Invaded Ukraine, and North Korea is Watching

By: Addie Simkin

On February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine in a shot heard halfway around the world in North Korea. Europe and supranational organizations like the UN (and, more specifically, the UN Security Council) are regularly discussing the consequences of this attack. However, this assault is also salient to authoritarian world leaders, East Asian politics, and the so-called Hermit Kingdom, North Korea. This  piece considers the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on North Korean international relations. 

Politically, North Korea has supported Russia and used the invasion to make a statement against U.S. imperialism. North Korea was one of five countries to reject the UN resolution to condemn Russia, along with Russia itself, Belarus, Syria, and Eritrea. In the statement, diplomat Kim Song criticized the “hegemonic policy” of the U.S. which threatens the “territorial integrity of sovereign nations”. Not only does this statement reinforce North Korea’s historic policy towards the U.S, but it also contains concerning rhetoric about territory and sovereignty. The Korean Peninsula is in armistice, not peace; although the U.S. treats North and South Korea as separate states, neither country sees themselves that way—this is the discursive niche of both the pursuit of reunification and the Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine presents a model of and establishes a precedent for violent border revisionism. Looking to the future, this precedent may lead to similar, inter-Korean violence. North Korea has been diligently amassing nuclear strength since 2006; that, along with its unprecedentedly frequent missile launches this year—nine as of March 9—indicate that it is experimenting with both its own armaments and the norms and responsiveness of the international community.

Economically, North Korea’s hard currency intake has been damaged by the invasion. Here’s why: North Korean workers in Russia have quotas for how much remittance they must send to Pyongyang, converted from rubles to U.S. dollars. As the ruble has tanked in value, workers cannot meet their quotas. Consequently, North Korea and China must develop closer trade relations for Pyongyang to supplement the remittances it can no longer receive from Russia. Fortunately for North Korea, Xi Jinping has reportedly expressed that he is ready to work on China-DPRK relations “under a new situation,” although he has failed to define the new situation. Meanwhile, ex-CIA analyst William Brown warns that the growing force of sanctioned countries—North Korea, Iran, and now Russia—may begin to trade amongst themselves, forming closer financial ties. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has served to reassert North Korea’s animosity toward the U.S. and the West, redouble its alliance with China, and redefine its relationship with Russia, given that North Korea supports Russia even when it can no longer rely upon remittances from Russia. More than that, Putin has established a precedent of violent invasion which Kim can use to help justify a breach to the inter-Korean armistice.

In Retrospect: On China Hosting the 2022 Winter Olympics

By: Victoria Djou

The Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics brought many inspiring stories: Nathan Chen gained redemption winning gold in the men’s figure skating singles; Chloe Kim defended her halfpipe gold; Erin Jackson became the first black woman to win gold in speed skating. In China, viewership of the Olympics reached an all time high, with nearly 600 million people closely following the games. 

However, for many others, abuses of power by Russia and China marred the beauty of this year’s Winter Olympics. In contrast to soaring Chinese viewership, an all-time low of 11 million Americans followed the Olympics this winter. A dark shadow has hovered around the games since allegations of concentration camps and human rights abuses against ethnic Tibetans and Uyghers were brought to light on the international stage. In December of 2021, the U.S. and Canada stood against China’s abuses with their diplomatic boycott of the Olympics. However, the move was largely symbolic, and one that should not have had to take place; authoritarian dictatorships should never hold the Olympics. 

As a unifying force for the world, the host country should not espouse ideals that threaten other countries’ sovereignty. In the past, Nazi Germany and Russia both used the Olympics not for the good of the world, but rather for selfish self-promotion before invading another country. In 1936, the Berlin Olympics served as a propaganda mouthpiece for the odious Nazi regime immediately preceding Germany’s invasion of Poland. In 2014, the Sochi Olympics served again as a display of strength before Russia invaded Crimea. This year, China collaborated with Russia. Russia then launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine merely five days after the end of the 2022 Winter Olympics. Will Taiwan be next? 

Given the attention that the Olympics receive, countries that respect fundamental norms of international sovereignty should hold the games. Countries known to disrupt the international order in violent ways have no place hosting a peaceful gathering of other countries. China demonstrated its willingness to encroach on freedom, use force when necessary, and violate international norms even before it was given the Olympics in 2015. Since then, China’s aggression has only increased with conflicts in the South China Sea and the forceful seizure of Hong Kong. 

The Olympics should be an international tournament for peace. Sadly, the games are too often misused as a tool for dictators to glorify their power. This autocratic manipulation of the Olympics undermines the core credibility of the games.

The 2022 Winter Olympics was the least watched Olympics of the modern era with good reason. The public simply does not want to watch or afford credibility to dictatorship spectacles. The International Olympic Committee can restore public trust in their institution, both in the US and around the world, only by refusing to place games in authoritarian nations.

The Olympics have long been a global event for inspiring athletic talent to promote international cooperation. But this standard will not endure as dictatorships increasingly use and abuse the Olympics for brutal trans-national power grabs. The time has come for the International Olympic Committee to adopt a new policy against locating humanity’s global games in any authoritarian dictatorship.

United Against Unity: The Troublesome Rise of Right-Wing Authoritarianism in European Democracies

By: Clare Atkinson

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier was recently quoted during an interview regarding the conflict in Ukraine stating that one should not “underestimate the power of democracy”. However, democratic backslide among Western European nations is a worrying symptom of the recent reemergence of right-wing authoritarianism. This threat does not just plague ‘peripheral’ Eastern European nations, such as Poland and Hungary, but also countries who have fought to ‘defend democracy’ in territories around the world. Current political parties and national leaders are using modern tactics to appeal to a new generation of potential supporters. While right-wing populists used to unite around anti-communist messages, this rhetoric is antiquated and does not resonate with most voters today. Politicians such as British prime minister Boris Johnson and French presidential candidates Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour preach nationalistic sentiments, opposition to international institutions, and a socially conservative religious worldview to demonize pluralism and subtly promote autocracy through new channels of communication. This demonstrates the fragmentation of right-wing ideology in Europe which has the potential to degrade the current rules-based order and disintegrate international cooperation.

         Freedom House cites the United Kingdom as being one of the most free nations in the world in 2022, and the government cites “defending democracy” as one of its main policy goals. However, the administration of Boris Johnson has not only undermined European integration, but also used the media to spread dangerous messages. Johnson’s Brexit campaign touted the slogan “unleash Britain’s potential”- proclaiming a return to the supremacy enjoyed by the former British empire. This was supplemented by lies about the implications of continued EU membership, including costs incurred by the National Health Service from immigrants and foreign laborers, in an attempt to vilify European unity in favor of self-interested national unity. Furthermore, Johnson has been cited on several occasions for speaking out against immigration and making Islamophobic comments. While these messages may not seem detrimental to democratic order in isolation, the current media environment allows leaders to reach individual voters in ways that will specifically appeal to them, changing political discourse completely and allowing the Brexit referendum to pass.

         Although only candidates, Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour represent a chance for the far-right in France to gain a foothold in government like never before. Their blatant xenophobia – exemplified by Le Pen’s campaign promise of “keeping France for the French” and Zemmour preaching the “great replacement theory”, the idea that Muslims immigrants will ‘replace’ Europeans – has gained popularity. Beyond an outward hatred of immigration, Muslim immigration in particular, the only politician that rivals Le Pen in her stance against the EU is Zemmour. While these types of candidates have always existed in French politics, they rarely make it past the first round of elections, due to their lack of compromise and hence their inability to form a coalition. Now, with two politicians united in these fringe views and the growing unpopularity of the incumbent, the right-wing is more dangerous than ever in France.

         France and Britain are what many would consider two of the most stable democracies today, and yet they both exhibit worrying signs of right-wing authoritarianism. These two nations, and these leaders, are only a few examples of these sentiments in Europe, and their views and actions are relatively mild compared to others. Furthermore, the similarities in their respective ideologies show signs of potential cooperation around these anti-democratic objectives, further threatening the already struggling European institutions.

         Americans, and citizens of other long-established democracies, take the current liberal order for granted and do not consider the consequences that isolationism and autocratic rule could have on the entire globe. In an increasingly globalized world, we are now more than ever facing  complex problems which require unity, such as climate change and a global pandemic. Not only will a lack of cooperation prevent action against these issues, but it will continue to create conflicts and undermine the basic rights which we enjoy in our democracy. Right-wing populist leaders across Europe are spreading similar ideologies which not only undermines current European institutions, but could potentially facilitate new organizations who are unified on a platform of disunity. Becoming aware of the possibility of a democratic backslide in formerly stable democracies and recognizing the messages of leaders with authoritarian tendencies is the only way to curb the spread of this toxic ideology.

Note: This editorial was written prior to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.