Week 12: Kim, Feffer, and Klinger

What most struck me about the Kim/Feffer reading was the intelligence on DPRK's nuclear program versus the perceived extent of their nuclear capabilities and testing. As an American media consumer, I admit that I came into this course with a prescribed view of DPRK, but even I didn't realize the extent to which that view was misguided in many ways. Now, to see that I was missing so many nuances in the US-DPRK situation is embarassing, to say the least. Further, it is infuriating to know that, once again, our media and government have done a sufficient job of covering up the disparity between our intelligence reports and the lines we are fed. To read in the article that, from relations with Syria, to the estimated extent of DPRK's nuclear goals, we have been misinformed and led astray is downright unnerving. How many other countries do we have ridiculously skewed perceptions about? The number I know of is already too high, and I would not be surprised to learn that the reports we are fed about most countries in the world are throughly distorted to serve the "American" global agenda. How are we as citizens who do become informed about these issues deal with the problem of disseminating correct information? On a personal level, how do I go into this field of politics and international relations knowing that there is such a disconnect between what government officials must know and what citizens are told? How could an individual within the system ever hope to change that pattern? Could principled foreign policy ever be conceivable in a system where the media and government are so infused with cover-ups? This entire Korea unit seems like an example of very typical US foreign policy, probably because, as we've discussed in class, it is a case of the US viewing the DPRK with a Cold War security mentality, and this mentality has, unfortunately, been applied to many countries regardless of the security needs of each particular case. Before taking this course I never thought I'd be one to want to study security. In fact, I was one of those quasi-hippies who think about studying peace. But now it seems that security studies are more valuable in understanding how to remedy our misguided foreign policy, and are a better means of understanding geo-politics in general. As someone very interested in working with transitional democarcies, I am seeing how valuable a background in security studies could be to navigating the field of foreign policy.