 IntroductionKorea comprises the Korean peninsula between China and Japan in Northeast Asia. The Peninsula in the present day is split into North Korea and South Kor

Korea comprises the Korean peninsula between China and Japan in Northeast Asia. The Peninsula in the present day is split into North Korea and South Korea, despite the relative homogeneity in the racial makeup, culture, language, and history. This partition of Korea is one of the political outcomes of the Second World War, with each half of the peninsula becoming a sovereign territory. The two sides engaged in border skirmishes finally leading to the Korean War of Reunification from June 25th, 1950 to July 27th, 1953.

The essay will delve into the Korean War of Unification and its breakout, creating an arena for the global superpowers to compete for dominance and influence in the newly unstable region. This war, which has its roots in the separation of Korea after World War II, highlights the complex interactions between national sovereignty, ideological rivalry, and regional dynamics. In the end, these interactions shape the path of efforts to reunite Korea and alter the geopolitical environment of East Asia.

Before World War I and the annexation of  Korea under the empire of Japan, Korea had remained unified as a single state for centuries under great dynasties like that of the 

, which we know today as the Korean Empire. But after the end of the Second World War in 1945 and at the beginning of the Cold War era, a short-lived unified provisional government named the People's Republic of Korea served as the last government before the division of the peninsula.

“The Cold War in Asia has had its most tragic consequence in the Korean peninsula, separating Korea into two parts.” (Hong 1991, 117)

 The other countries that were partitioned after WW2 saw reunification but such cannot be said for the Korean peninsula, which till today is divided. The peninsula was divided along the 38th parallel, into two zones the Soviet and the American. Which ones thought to be temporary soon became permanent “with the creation of a South Korean government in Seoul in August 1948 and a North Korean government in Pyongyang in December 1948.” (Ali 1973, 40)

 Both governments claim sovereignty over the other and threaten to achieve this by force.

“The United States in South Korea and the Soviet Union in North Korea established military occupations and separate governments” (Chang 2010, 23)

, thus highlighting the ideological divide and rivalry between the two countries from the Cold War era being manifested in the Korean peninsula. The communist bloc in the north of the 38th parallel and the capitalist bloc towards the south marked the primary divide. Secondly, the interest shown by international powers like the US and USSR and even the neighboring powers like China further complicated the situation. And lastly, the ideological difference between the two Koreas was visible in their economies, with neither side finding the other's system easy to swallow.

From the American perspective, the division was temporary, but both sides could not agree upon a unified Korea. This was due to the complex situation where the unification of Korea is not less than a dream as, “In almost every practical aspect - ideological, political, economic, and military - the two Koreas are worlds apart from each other.” (Lee 1989, 359)

 In 1947 US President Harry S. Truman convinced the United Nations to take responsibility for the country with the US military taking nominal control in South Korea till 1948. This led to the coming up of the policy of Independent South Korea by the UN in 1948. “In the meantime, Kim Il-Sung strengthened his control over the communist party and the administrative and military forces of the North.” (Millett, 2024)

By 1949 both the US and USSR had withdrawn from the peninsula. “Meanwhile, the North Korean leader, Kim Il Sung, requested permission from the Soviet Union to invade South Korea.” (University of North Texas)

 After repeatedly declining to provide authorization for the invasion of South Korea, Stalin had now accepted Kim Il-Sung's request. By 1950 “Stalin saw an opportunity to build on Communist success in Asia” (O’Neil 2000, 21)

  This was achieved by Stalin by giving Kim Il-Sung permission in the condition of the Chinese to support North Korea’s action.

 Mao, who was in desperate need of soviet aid quickly agreed to join. “Mao also released over sixty thousand combat-hardened ethnic Koreans from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) for duty with the Korean People’s Army (KPA, North Korean Army).” (O’Neil 2000, 21)

 KPA’s Soviet advisory carved out the plan to attack South Korea, on 25th June 1950, with the crossing of the 38th parallel taking place by the KPA. Two days later President Harry S Truman for US soldiers to be in action to stop KPA and to block the strait of Formosa. With the combined support of the USSR and China, the KPA was able to drive up to the South thus pushing South Korea and the US army into the Pusan permitter (extreme South Eastern corner of Korea).

The US mobilized the support of the UN and in September the UN forces landed in Inchon. Behind the Pusan permitter, thus also breaking it, in early October UN forces were preparing to cross the 38th parallel. “Meanwhile, Stalin was pressuring Mao to send the Chinese infantry to defend North Korea, but the Chinese leader demanded Soviet air support in exchange for his cooperation.” (O’Neil 2000, 21)

 The UN forces pushed past Pyongyang and reached the Manchuria border, leading to Mao sending more troops into North Korea. The Chinese army went to fight the combined forces of the US and South Korea without any air cover, this was seen as a betrayal by China from Stalin also leading to worsening Sino-Soviet Relations.

In 1952, the US Navy and Airforce took a more aggressive posture, like the successful cutting down of the power of South Manchuria and North Korea, which also marked a failure of soviet fighters who were there for defense. However, “the US air power could not stop the flow of supplies to Communist ground forces.” (O’Neil 2000, 23)

 However, it was able to reduce it and it aided in the peace talks taking place in Panmunjom, which is present between North and South Korea.

The death of Stalin on 5th March 1953 brought the Polittbro (Soviet Political body) of the communist party to vote leading to the decision to end the war. Mao was shocked to hear the news but he had no option other than to end the war as he needed Soviet assistance. Finally, on the 27th of July 1953, an Armtrice was signed in Panmunjum which agreed on Korea to be divided into two different countries. It was signed by the officials of the US, China, North Korea, and South Korea, “this agreed to bring the fighting of the Korean War to an end.” (Imperial War Museum)

The Korean War shows how homogenous people can still be engaged in war and be divided by borders. Especially in the case of Korea, where colonization, the Cold War, and the interplay of regional and foreign powers have created such radical political situations where “the two Koreas have become virtually alien countries whose common cultural heritage is steadily being eroded.” (Koh 1971, 476)

 Looking at the present two countries are unrecognizable and worlds apart, where South Korea has been a capitalist dream, on the other hand, North Korea has been the Hermit Kingdom.

Moreover, reunification is out of the question, especially after the incident of demolition of the reunification arch situated in Pyongyang. This move by the leader of North Korea Kim Jong Un sends a message to the South that it moving away from “the goal of reunification and instead is increasingly portraying South Korea as an implacable foe.” (Lendon and Bae, 2024)

 Moreover, the successful testing of missiles by North Korea has been an increasing threat to South Korea and even the US. With the US being a great ally of South Korea, the armed developments pose a great threat to Washington itself. China being one of the only allies of North Korea and the growing Chinese economy and military has again posed a great threat to the US.

Moreover, in case of any conflict, the axis of China and North Korea against South Korea and the US is somewhat reminiscent of the Korean War. But such a conflict in the present is hard to occur since the repercussions of it would be unimaginable and would lead to a full-fledged international conflict. But the tensions in the region do not seem to be reducing anytime soon and a serious escalation of a full-fledged war seems quite impossible. Furthermore, international organizations like the UN have been involved in the peninsula from the start of the war in 1950, and are still playing a vital role with both the North and South being part of the UN.

Finally, the Korean War scared Koreans the most out of all, the division may be because of ideology for the superpower but for the people it was more than that. Reunification does not seem an option anymore for both sides, leading to the North falling under an autocratic regime and the South being a liberal democracy. But this also doesn’t mean the 38th parallel is free from tensions, the dictator of the North’s immense enmity towards the South and the people of the South having a favorable attitude towards the military service for protecting the South and the hope of freeing the North of the dictatorship spins a complex story of this peninsula.

Ali, Mehrunnisa. “THE UNIFICATION OF KOREA.” 

“A Short History of the Korean War.” Imperial War Museums. Accessed April 20, 2024. 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/a-short-history-of-the-korean-war

Chang, Ohn. “The Causes of the Korean War, 1950-1953.” Columbia University, 2010. 

https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/journals/ijoks/v14i2/f_0019548_16694.pdf

Hong, Kim Byong. “Korean Reunification.” 

Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science

Koh, B. C. “Dilemmas of Korean Reunification.” 

LEE, CHARLES S. “KOREAN REUNIFICATION: THE DREAM AND THE REALITY.” 

Lendon, Brad, and Gawon Bae. “North Korea’s Kim Vows to Dismantle Father’s Unification Arch as He Declares South Korea ‘Principal Enemy.’” CNN, January 16, 2024. 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/16/asia/north-korea-kim-unification-arch-intl-hnk

Millett, A. R.. "Korean War." Encyclopedia Britannica, April 19, 2024. 

https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War

 O’Neill, Mark. “Soviet Involvement in the Korean War: A New View from the Soviet-Era Archives.” 

 “The Korean War.” University of North Texas. Accessed April 20, 2024. 

https://web-clear.unt.edu/course_projects/HIST2610/content/08_Unit_Eight/25_lesson_twenty-five/05_kor_war.htm

...........................................................................................................................................

 Hong, Kim Byong. “Korean Reunification.” 

 Ali, Mehrunnisa. “THE UNIFICATION OF KOREA.” 

 Chang, Ohn. “The Causes of the Korean War, 1950-1953.” Columbia University, 2010. 

 LEE, CHARLES S. “KOREAN REUNIFICATION: THE DREAM AND THE REALITY.” 

 Millett, A. R.. "Korean War." Encyclopedia Britannica, April 19, 2024. 

 “The Korean War.” University of North Texas. Accessed April 20, 2024. 

 “A Short History of the Korean War.” Imperial War Museums. Accessed April 20, 2024. 

 Koh, B. C. “Dilemmas of Korean Reunification.” 

 Lendon, Brad, and Gawon Bae. “North Korea’s Kim Vows to Dismantle Father’s Unification Arch as He Declares South Korea ‘Principal Enemy.’” CNN, January 16, 2024. 

The story of the Korean Peninsula and its attempt at reunification during the Korean War

The policy of Vietnamization during the Vietnam War illustrates a pivotal turning point in the military and foreign policy during the turbulent Cold War Era.

“The Vietnam War (1955-1975) traces its roots to the colonization of Vietnam by France in the late 19th Century.” (Pritzker Military Museum and Library).

 The war in the country of Vietnam popularly known as the Vietnam War is a prime example of the proxy wars that took place in the Cold War era between the two superpowers: the United States which backed South Vietnam and the USSR which supported communist North Vietnam. But US President Richard Nixon began troop withdrawals in 1969 to end the US involvement in the Vietnam War, the policy came to be known as the policy of “Vietnamization.” This essay will look at the policy of “Vietnamization” during the Vietnam War which illustrates a pivotal turning point in military and foreign policy during the turbulent time of the Cold War era, thus highlighting the shifting interests of the superpower while undermining the indigenous population in the face of asymmetric circumstances.

In the year of 1941, the Viet Minh Party was founded by Ho Chi Minh, who was a revolutionary communist leader and opposed French and Japanese rule. France which the United States backed in the Indo-China War soon saw its defeat by Viet Minh and led to the end of French rule in the region. This conflict led to the Geneva Accord in 1954 which devised a 17th parallel that distinguished the military forces of the French from the Viet Minh. The North of the line was now North Vietnam, which was under the control of the Vietnamese Communist Party led by Ho Chi Minh. On the South of the line was South Vietnam which was now under the control of the Emperor of Vietnam Bao Dai who gained control after the French transferred most of the power to the South Vietnam State. (Spector, Britannica)

While Vietnam was divided into two by the Geneva Accord the rest of the Southeast Asian Nations, also saw a transition from colonial to a state with an independent status.  Conflict and tension started to occur between communist and non-communist movements in countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia. The non-communist government of the region supported South Vietnam and saw its existence as a barrier against communism in the region. This region of Southeast Asia was also internationally important to many. Consequently, the United States formed the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) which pledged to prevent the spread of communism in the region. However, the Vietnam conflict played into Cold War superpower rivalries, where the US gave economic and military aid to South Vietnam while the USSR and China gave a similar kind of aid to North Vietnam.

The intervention of the US was a gradual process and was supported by the idea of containing communism, supporting non-communist governments, and aiding democracy. But soon the US policy in the region became a major controversy, as the large-scale military intervention in eastern Cambodia took place, it broke the silence to the public about the intentions of the US. Looking at all this, “In November 3 the president offered a strategy based upon the twin approach of negotiation and Vietnamization” (Johnson, 629).

 The policy of Vietnamization was accompanied by the withdrawal of the US troops and the ability of the US to disengage in war even if negotiations failed. “The Nixon administration was thus committed to the public rhetoric of mutual withdrawal with North Vietnam.” (Miller, 4)

 What it seemed to carry out was a unilateral US troop withdrawal but it claimed that the South Vietnamese Troops were replacing the US troops.

This was also the period when the US was close to its presidential elections thus this withdrawal had to be quick enough for the election of Nixon and to gain the support of the public in the US. This strategy of Vietnamization thus showcases “the “decent interval” thesis: withdrawal was not a strategy for securing US interests, but for accepting defeat gracefully, in a politically affordable manner.” (Miller, 7)

 This eventually allowed Nixon to showcase that he brought peace and ended the role of the US in Vietnam, which the past presidents were unable to do, thus making it a centrepiece for his re-election.

 Nevertheless, looking at the policy of Vietnamization from the South Vietnam perspective we observe that “By far the widest loophole of the Vietnamization program was its failure to provide the South Vietnamese Army with enough time for an overall improvement.” (Miller, 11).

 This can be understood by understanding the psychology of the South Vietnamese troops after the withdrawal, who felt betrayed, abandoned, and even accused the US of breaking its commitments and promises. This eventually can be seen as contributing to the loss of unit cohesion in the conflict's final months. The policy also brings the question of whether it is really “Vietnamization” because at its core the policy advocates for the interest of the US but rejects the idea of the Vietnamese, showcasing the character of “Americanization” which includes a stronger American self-interest and compromising with the indigenous population of the region.

Finally, as seen above through the case study of the Vietnam War and the Policy of Vietnamization, we often view the superpowers as flag bearers of peace, stability as well as human rights. In addition, upholding the law is often built on a foundation of self-interest, thus disregarding others and what they are supposed to stand for. One may argue that the power structure and the mechanism for accountability have changed since the 1970s, and may have to reconsider. The prime example remains the US involvement in Afghanistan which has often been justified as bringing peace, stability, and democracy to the region but instead, the US decided to exit the 20-year-long war, without achieving anything. Moreover, the power in Afghanistan is now in the hands of the terrorist group ‘Taliban.’ Thus, this brings the question of “With Great Powers Come Great Responsibility?” The phrase often attributed to Spiderman focuses on one who has great power and should bear significant responsibility to use the power for the greater good. In conclusion, the policy of Vietnamization highlights the decision to find a military solution for the war in a highly political and social conflict, due to shifting interests, which undermined the indigenous circumstances and population of the region.

  “Origins of the Vietnam War.” Origins of the Vietnam War | Pritzker Military Museum & Library | Chicago, 

https://www.pritzkermilitary.org/explore/museum/past-exhibits/faces-war-photography-front-lines-vietnam/origins-vietnam-war

 Spector, Ronald H. “Vietnam War.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc., 9 Mar. 2024, 

 Johnson, Robert H. “Vietnamization: Can It Work?” Foreign Affairs, vol. 48, no. 4, 1970, pp. 629–47. JSTOR, 

 Miller, Paul D. “VIETNAMIZATION, 1966-1973.” Withdrawal Deadlines In War: Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Atlantic Council, 2020, pp. 4–12. JSTOR,  

http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24664.4

The story of the Korean Peninsula and its attempt at reunification during the Korean War

Vietnamization: The Shifting Interest and Responsibilities of the Great Power