Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kim Jong Un, a more balanced perspective

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kim Jong Un, a more balanced perspective

    Kim Jong Un is usually portrayed as a dangerous buffoon. On the other hand, he has maintained absolute power and seems very much in control of North Korea. North Korea seems to be showing some signs of change and economic improvement. So just how and bad is he?

    I found the attached article very thought provoking. Perhaps you will find it interesting.

    Everyone knows that North Korea’s leader is a bloodthirsty madman and buffoon—or is he really? Mark Bowden digs into the hard facts for an unusual portrait.

  • #2
    Fascinating read, thanks Gertrude!

    Comment


    • #3
      When you're talking about economic improvement in NK, you're starting with the bar set reeeeaaaly low.
      The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland

      Comment


      • #4
        Libraries are state sanctioned, so they're technically engaged in privateering. - Felch
        I thought we're trying to have a serious discussion? It says serious in the thread title!- Al. B. Sure

        Comment


        • #5
          To us, it is the BEAST.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, one has to admit that (according to pics/vids) in NK they have something we in europe or the USA can only dream of:

            Huge highways without any traffic congestion anywhere ... which is no surprise as you hardly find all too many cars driving on them
            Spoiler:


            Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
            Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"

            Comment


            • #7
              I wonder what the fine is for littering.
              To The Hijack Police: I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't do it. I wasn't there. I don't even own a computer.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny View Post
                When you're talking about economic improvement in NK, you're starting with the bar set reeeeaaaly low.
                It seems a very low base when you consider that North Korea is now getting close to the point of producing enough food to feed itself. It seems the big change is that farmers are now allowed to keep some of the food they produce allowing a small element of "free enterprise".

                Apparently Kim Jong il was dead set against any kind of free enterprise as it might develop into a threat to the regime, partly by reducing the omnipotence of government and the complete dependence of the people on the government. He did finally relent and show some tolerance for small market traders, as a sort of necessary evil.

                It seems Kim Jong Un is yet more tolerant of these free markets and introduced the above mentioned liberalisation of agriculture.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Another interesting read. Access is tightly controlled for foreigners, you see only the parts of Pyongyand that is permitted.

                  A bus full of journalists saw residents on the dusty side streets of Pyongyang today as they got a rare opportunity to see a part of the city that is usually hidden from view.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Any study of Kim Jong Un would necessarily require mature consideration of how his power base is maintained, and the constraints placed on the exercise of his powers by his supporters and potential opponents. What must he do to retain the loyalty of his supporters? What must he do to prevent the emergence of threats to the regime?

                    What might be the likely consequences of his departure from office, both to himself and to his country?

                    Here I think of Colonel Gadaffi. He ruled a rather fractious country which he held together in ways that were repressive. He was removed from office and Libya is now beset with internal strife and conflict. Libya appears to have gone from bad to worse.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You can't take a country that's been ruled by a despot for decades and expect it to suddenly be awesome overnight though. Libya didn't have chance to work through its division because he basically papered over the cracks using brutality. We see the same issues in the African and Asian nations which had dictators and oppressive regimes. It takes time for those problems to be sorted out in a way that has long term potential for success, and the road to that is often quite unpleasant.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                        You can't take a country that's been ruled by a despot for decades and expect it to suddenly be awesome overnight though. Libya didn't have chance to work through its division because he basically papered over the cracks using brutality. We see the same issues in the African and Asian nations which had dictators and oppressive regimes. It takes time for those problems to be sorted out in a way that has long term potential for success, and the road to that is often quite unpleasant.
                        Good points kentonio. And sometimes that road takes a wrong turn.

                        I am inclined to regard democracy as a means to an end rather than an end in itself even though I think democracy is the only known way of preventing tyranny. No other political system seems capable of preventing tyranny. however even democracy allows tyranny, a tyranny of the majority but a tyranny nonetheless. (I am influenced by the writings of Lord Acton).

                        The development of democracy in England had a long, winding and at times bloody road. That included the rebellion leading to the signing of Magna Carta, a civil war, Habeas Corpus, various revolts and legal disputations, conflicts between Parliament and Crown particularly involving control of the purse strings. The United Kingdom now has a strong and workable democracy and yet democracy is not simply self sustaining. It must be buttressed by societal expectations and norms, a sort of implied "social contract", laws, customs, traditions, checks and balances. Quite a soup really.

                        The USA had something of a head start as a goodly part of this road had already been traversed by the mother country. This newly independent nation had a population with a tradition of personal liberties, checks on the powers of the crown (abolished by independence), parliaments, independent courts and so forth. They started out with voting only for the landed and later extended the franchise to all adults and that worked out well.

                        Poland introduced an elective monarchy with voting restricted to powerful magnates. That lead to great liberty to the magnates and a weak king with the eventual consequence that Poland, a large and powerful nation, was partitioned by her neighbours. And the magnates oppressed their own people with little restraint. That didn't ork out for Poland.

                        Other places such as latin america, Greece and Portugal have gone back and forth between democracy and dictatorship.

                        Egypt recently tried democracy but seems to have slipped straight back into dictatorship.

                        This all raises the rather difficult question of what, if anything, should we do with dictatorial countries. One can not simply "instal democracy" as if it were a kitchen sink. There may be countries where democracy simply can not work due to historical divisions and traditions.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          There may in the short term. Obviously long term there's no reason why it can't spread, but we seem to increasingly struggle to follow the strategy of the last century.

                          For a long time America held its position in much of the worlds eyes as a beacon of hope because it sent out the message that having a system like the US delivered a huge raft of benefits to peoples lives. Coupled with limited information spread (and much of that being in the form of fiction via movies, music etc), carefully propagandized military actions and of course vast aid programs, people genuinely thought that the west was something to dream of copying. Now with the rise of the internet and its mass globalized spread of information, people in developing countries can see the workings of the west a lot more clearly. Sure they still want the prosperity, and a lot of the freedoms are attractive, but they also see the bitter political infighting, the hypocrisy and the contemptuous way much of the west talks and acts towards their home countries and even more importantly towards their own governments and system.

                          I think the problem now is that with so much conflicting information available to anyone with an internet connection, to really appreciate democracy you almost have to visit one and experience the difference in lifestyle, freedom and prosperity.

                          As for what to do about dictatorships, we have to make a choice. Either we follow the traditional route of not caring and putting our national interests first and foremost, or we decide that spreading our ideological system is worth sacrificing national interest for. The problem there though is that it almost never happens, and even though the people might say they want it to happen, that soon starts to wane when people feel an economic impact. Ask people if we should break ties with Saudi Arabia given how harsh and brutal that regime really is, and they'd probably say yes by a large majority. Remind them that doing so would almost certainly cause not only the price of fuel but of everything else to rise hugely and suddenly they'd start having second thoughts.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                            You can't take a country that's been ruled by a despot for decades and expect it to suddenly be awesome overnight though. Libya didn't have chance to work through its division because he basically papered over the cracks using brutality. We see the same issues in the African and Asian nations which had dictators and oppressive regimes. It takes time for those problems to be sorted out in a way that has long term potential for success, and the road to that is often quite unpleasant.
                            We also have Iraq as good example ...
                            not even more than one decade under occupation was enough to create an Iraq that is as stable as it was under Saddam
                            Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
                            Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                              There may in the short term. Obviously long term there's no reason why it can't spread, but we seem to increasingly struggle to follow the strategy of the last century.

                              For a long time America held its position in much of the worlds eyes as a beacon of hope because it sent out the message that having a system like the US delivered a huge raft of benefits to peoples lives. Coupled with limited information spread (and much of that being in the form of fiction via movies, music etc), carefully propagandized military actions and of course vast aid programs, people genuinely thought that the west was something to dream of copying. Now with the rise of the internet and its mass globalized spread of information, people in developing countries can see the workings of the west a lot more clearly. Sure they still want the prosperity, and a lot of the freedoms are attractive, but they also see the bitter political infighting, the hypocrisy and the contemptuous way much of the west talks and acts towards their home countries and even more importantly towards their own governments and system.

                              I think the problem now is that with so much conflicting information available to anyone with an internet connection, to really appreciate democracy you almost have to visit one and experience the difference in lifestyle, freedom and prosperity.

                              As for what to do about dictatorships, we have to make a choice. Either we follow the traditional route of not caring and putting our national interests first and foremost, or we decide that spreading our ideological system is worth sacrificing national interest for. The problem there though is that it almost never happens, and even though the people might say they want it to happen, that soon starts to wane when people feel an economic impact. Ask people if we should break ties with Saudi Arabia given how harsh and brutal that regime really is, and they'd probably say yes by a large majority. Remind them that doing so would almost certainly cause not only the price of fuel but of everything else to rise hugely and suddenly they'd start having second thoughts.
                              The internet

                              Perhaps the internet will accentuate the desire for personal liberty. If government censors delete your tweet you will see that it has gone and consider deletion an unreasonable intrusion. In the old days the newspaper could be censored without you ever knowing. For example, it remains to be seen how much the Chinese government will antagonise citizens with its heavy handed censorship of Weibo and its "Great Firewall" and so forth. And how the Chinese people will react to these restrictions and repressions.

                              Our increasingly connected world make Kardashians, Beckhams, Dr Phil, Oprah and other garbage more widely distributed. That makes the West look like undesirable IMO.

                              Our choices

                              Too much "activism" is of the no cost variety such as the Facebook campaign to free the Nigerian schoolgirls. Pushing a "Like" button is useless. No chance of Boko Haram caring about Facebook likes.

                              I agree that, for many people, all enthusiasm will quickly disappear if a cause will actually cost anything.

                              I think a lot of human behaviour is driven by selfishness, stupidity and wishful thinking. I recognise their are a great many people who are generous in heart, spirit and money.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X