Why Did The Korean War Break Out?

Why did the Korean War break out?
Introduction
The origins of the Korean War are still a subject of research for many political scientists and historians who claim various reasons are responsible for the outbreak. It is confirmed that North Korea’s Kim Il-Sung was responsible for the start of the Korean War as he commanded the invasion across the 38th parallel on June 25th, 1950. The Korean Peninsula comprises of two nations the communist Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), and the capitalist Republic of Korea (South Korea). The division took place in 1945 when the Korean Peninsula was divided at the 38th parallel where the United States (U.S.) and the Soviet Union (USSR) agreed on the surrender of the Japanese forces in Korea
following World War II. The North was taken by the Soviets and the South for the U.S.
The paper looks at the themes of absence of democratic institutions, national identity and individuals’ personalities. In North Korea the highly centralized processes where all decisions are made by Kim and his inner circle without any opposition provided Kim the opportunity to invade South Korea easily. Unlike North Korea where there is an absence of democratic institutions South Korea has checks and balances which blocked Syngman Rhee’s multiple attempts to go to war with the North.
Korea’s national identity of one powerful peninsula which played a significant role in the region was split by the U.S. and the Soviets without taking into account the views of the Korean people. The Korean people believed in one nation and claim that the splitting of the Peninsula was unjust. Even today families are separated on either side of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) who yearn to unite as one. Furthermore, the North and South Korean governments led by Kim and Rhee continued to use propaganda to convince their citizens that the Peninsula must be one and under their rule, this resulted in the rise in nationalism in Korea.
The personalities of Kim and Rhee who were hardliners that believed in unification under their command played a key role.
They each provoked each other multiple times for an all-out war. Both Kim and Rhee had personalities which were driven by war to bring the other Korea under their command. However, Kim’s extreme desire for war and unification is brought out with his constant pressuring of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and Chinese leader Mao Zedong to back him. The personalities argument is similar to the U.S. War in Iraq which was driven by the ideologies of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld whose ultimate goal was to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein and did whatever necessary to achieve it; whether it was lie to Congress or falsify intelligence reports.
Additionally, this paper will examine how the escalation of war was due to the growing international conflict between the competing ideologies of the capitalist U.S. and the communist Soviet Union who were both backers of South Korea and North Korea. It is argued that the splitting of the Korean Peninsula may have been for both superpowers to show the other the success of capitalism and communism. After all Stalin did successfully invade the Korean Peninsula and later did the U.S. show up and ask for the division of the
Peninsula.
Literature review
Realism
Realism is the most common paradigm to explain state behaviour and causes of war. Realism has a neorealist view who believe that survival in the global arena drives state behaviour, hence states survive try to alter the balance of power (military force, population, and economic power) in their favour by expanding their power.
Neorealists like John Mearsheimer explain that because of the anarchic nature and structure of the international system forces states to behave in a particular manner to ensure their survival. Mearshimer’s offensive realism theory makes the assumption that states will act rationally in an anarchic system because of the lack of higher authority. However, this means that there is no clear understanding of what the intentions of other states within the system are.
Mearsheimer’s offensive realism leads to Robert Jervis case of the “security dilemma”, where one state’s defensive action can be interpreted by another as an act threatening its survival.
Therefore, the rational response for states are to ramp up their power to ensure their survival. This will lead to balancing of power.
With the balance of power theory war is one of the strategies adopted by great powers to maximize their power and ensure their survival. However, the possibility for great powers to make miscalculations are high when they fear other states are making strides in harnessing power for their own survival which may put the great powers on a countermove on a path to war.

Liberalism
Liberalism is a competing view on international relations and war, the main idea behind liberalism is that the security dilemma that most states suffer from in an anarchic system can be alleviated under three guiding principles.
Bruce Russett and John Oneal identify these principles as follows:
1. the state’s regime type and if it is a democracy;
2. the interdependence of free trade between states; and
3. participation in international institutions which can foster co-operation and acceptable
norms.
Russett asserts that when these three Kantian principles are increasingly coexistence war is highly unlikely. For instance, highly, autocratic states are more likely to be involved in war, lack of trade means that there is not incentive for states to maintain peaceful relations. Finally, the lack of participation in international institutions hinders the option for states to communicate clearly and creates misconception.