2.  North Korea’s authoritarian regime has remained in power for over 70 years  World’s only dictatorship that has witnessed 3 rd Generation hereditary succession, surviving long after fall of the USSR  Despite glaring human rights abuses, international community does not intervene and allows NK regime to persist  Recent downfall of dictators such as Saddam / Arab Spring leaders did not affect Pyongyang’s grip on power  What factors explain this anomaly?  Which factor is most crucial for NK regime’s survival?

3.  Most NK observers focus on 1 st and 2 nd Levels  1 st Level Analysis (Individual)  NK leader’s character and personality (ranging from rational, calculating, ruthless, brutal to eccentric, crazy and bizarre)  2 nd Level Analysis (Domestic)  Internal political institutions and control mechanisms ▪ Worker’s Party of Korea / Korean People’s Army / Constitution ▪ Tightly controlled information / Indoctrination / Extreme methods of suppressing dissent

4.  3 rd Level (Structural)  Support from China  Status quo serves interests of regional powers  Nuclear Deterrence capacity  When it comes to analyzing NK dictatorship, these structural factors tend to be: ▪ Understated (more focus on 1 st and 2 nd levels) ▪ Studied as an isolated case in Northeast Asia geopolitics without comparisons with other parts of the world

5.  My proposal: I want to assess the impact of 3 rd Level (structural) factors that perpetuate NK regime by conducting comparative study with similar cases in other regions  Main Arguments:  Great Power(s) will allow dictatorial regimes to perpetuate so long as those regimes serve their interests and are within their “spheres of influence”  Regardless of its strict censorship, brutal HR abuses and its possession of nuclear weapons, the NK dictatorship would collapse without the support, or at least acquiescence, of Great Power(s)

6.  Proposed Theory: Great Powers will acquiesce dictatorships to perpetuate their regimes so long as they serve Great Powers’ interests and remain within their “spheres of influence”  Proposed Hypothesis: Great Power Acquiescence is the most important factor for a dictatorial regime’s continuing existence (assuming domestic power base has already been consolidated)

7.  Definition of “Great Powers” / “Dictatorship” / "Spheres of Influence  Theoretical Framework: Structural Realism  If 3 rd level analyses is applied to NK case, focus is usually solely on Northeast Asia geopolitics, with only a few comparisons between NK and Libya / Iraq cases (Will there be a Pyongyang Spring…?)  To my knowledge, there has yet to be a comprehensive systematic comparative study of the relationship between Great Powers and dictatorships in the Post-Cold War era  I want to focus on dictatorships in the Post-Cold War World, since during Cold War Great Powers and dictatorial regimes were tinged with ideological fervour (US – Latin America / Soviet states) and they have already been much studied and well documented

8.  Six detailed “Crucial” Cases to be compared across geographies:  North Korea  Libya  Iraq  Syria  Kazakhstan  Zimbabwe Brief overview of few other cases to further test hypothesis:  Other Sub-Saharan African Dictators (Cameroon / Angola / Uganda / Gabon)  Other Central Asian states (Uzbekistan)

9.  Constant Effect Assumption  All regimes are post-Cold War dictatorships  All were in power since before end of Cold War!  All implemented typical “dictatorial” methods (cult of the leader, de facto one-party rule, strict censorship, HR abuses)  All were supported, or at least acquiesced, either implicitly or explicitly, by Great Powers who have vested political / econ. interests ▪ NK – China Libya – Italy/UK (oil trade) ▪ Syria – Russia Iraq – US (1980s) ▪ Kazakhstan – Russia ▪ Sub-Saharan Africa – Various powers including China

10.  Dependent Variable (outcome)  Regime downfall (Libya / Iraq)  Regime stagnation (Syria)  Regime perpetuation (North Korea, Central Asian and Sub-Saharan African dictators)  Independent Variable (input)  Support (or at least acquiescence), from Great Power(s) and being within their “spheres of influence”

11.  Comparative method:  Compare and contrast case studies  Hold certain variables constant  Examine impact of independent variable on different outcomes