Korea and creative stagnation in foreign policy

The Korean Peninsula is a late capitalist pastiche of failed policies

South Korea’s response to North Korea’s balloons of trash is representative of the creative stagnation in foreign policy thinking.

After months of trash balloons, the government’s response on 24 September was:

“If North Korea's continued trash balloons are judged to pose a serious threat to the safety of our citizens or to have crossed the line, the military will take stern military action.”

Yes. Stern military action. A threat of military force. If you feel like you’re on a merry-go-round, you’d be right. South Korea’s response to the balloons of trash is a late capitalist pastiche of failed policy. How did we get here? How do we explain this situation?

One answer may be capitalist realism. In the landscape of contemporary foreign policy, the echoes of capitalist realism reverberate with a disquieting monotony.

Mark Fisher's concept of "capitalist realism" posits that we are increasingly conditioned to believe there is no viable alternative to the current capitalist order. We are ensnared in a reality that enforces a grim pragmatism, stifles imagination, and encourages nostalgia and pastiche of time past.

As examples, think of music and movies. Music today turns to the past not as an inspiration but as a source to sample and re-cover. This is because the music industry fears the risk in creativity and instead favors proven money makers. In the same way, in movies we are treated to a constant regurgitation of Star Wars, Marvel and Disney rehashes, rather than anything new.

This stunted creativity is also reflected in the realm of international relations. Policy is trapped in a loop of repetition and a narrow range of accepted norms rather than anything new. Foreign policy decisions are dictated by a fear of destabilization rather than a bold vision for the future.

The Korean Peninsula in particular has become representative of creative stagnation in foreign policy thinking. Take, for example, the U.S. approach to North Korea. The recurring cycle of provocation and reaction—marked by missile tests followed by U.S. bluster and tit-for-tat provocations—illustrates a foreign policy trapped in a loop of repetition. Each new administration returns to the same strategies without considering more creative avenues for engagement. 

While the summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un in 2018 initially sparked hope for a fresh diplomatic approach, it ultimately revealed the limitations that are embedded in the system. High-profile meetings without the willingness or ability of the system and its bureaucracy to support the substantial groundwork or follow-up is emblematic of a late capitalist approach. This episode highlights how, in the absence of creativity, even promising opportunities dissipate into familiar patterns.

Within South Korea, it’s the same. Both the progressives and conservatives, the pro-engagement and the anti-engagement sides, “satisfice” - they accept available options as satisfactory rather than upset the status quo. Engagement is surface level and acceptable to the center, and confrontation is surface level and acceptable to the center. Neither side wants to upset the apple cart. This means that whatever North Korea does, the only response possible is a repetition of what has been done before.

Fisher's critique extends to the cultural dimensions of foreign policy, as the stories we tell about ourselves and others shape our actions. The U.S. narrative regarding North Korea often reduces a complex society to a caricature of dictatorship and aggression, leaving little room for understanding the diverse perspectives within the region. Equally, we are unwilling to go further and accept it as the epitome of dictatorship and aggression necessitating a solution.

This lack of engagement with alternative narratives not only stifles potential pathways to peace but also reinforces a limited view of global relations.

In the face of this stagnation, Fisher's call for a radical reimagining of our political and cultural landscape becomes more pressing. We must ask ourselves: what would a truly creative foreign policy look like in the context of the Korean Peninsula? How can we break free from the constraints of capitalist realism and embrace a more imaginative approach to international relations?

North Korea does not suffer from the same creative stagnation in foreign policy thinking. This is demonstrated by the balloons of trash. It has dumbfounded most foreign policy analysts.

Why balloons full of trash? North Korea has been floating balloons full of trash southwards for months now. Straying from academic verbiage for just a few seconds, WTF? What on earth convinces a state that weather balloons tied to trash bags floated to a neighbor could serve a specific purpose?

Are they a response to South Korea’s propaganda speakers? Then why not send balloons of propaganda? Are they a provocation? Then why not tie them to a specific objective? Are they for the collection of data in preparation for a future, more nefarious purpose? Then why not send more advanced technical data collection tools? Why on earth does a state float trash across its borders?

At this moment of time, we have no real answers, so we just repeat what we’ve done before.

By fostering an environment that values creativity and encourages bold ideas, we can begin to shift the paradigm of foreign policy. It is time to move beyond reactive measures and embrace a proactive approach that seeks not just to manage crises but to envision solutions. A holistic approach that sees balloon trash bags not as something that requires “stern measures” but rather creative solutions.

The challenges that the Korean Peninsula faces demand creativity, courage, and a commitment to imagining a future that transcends the limitations of our current reality. Don’t expect the Korean Peninsula to change until creativity returns to foreign policy.