This just in: North Korea to End armistice!

[Urban Ranger]

I saw some guy who looked like Lee Tung-Fai several months ago. Poor sod.

[DarthVeda]

I for one would like Kim to invade the South so he can get thrown back in a month. Then we can end that insane regime that starves millions while Kim builds massive monuments to the state.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

In fact, I am not sure if the Korean War did any good at all. Who knows if it's not better to let the communists took over?

Of course it didn't do any good per se, it was a bloody stalemate. However I doubt you will find anyone here other than Comrade Troll who would agree that South Korea isn't better off for having maintained their independance from the Stalinist personality cult in the north. More people are suffering longer from that regime than suffered from the Korean conflict, and that is saying a lot.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Can we really blame NK?

I get the feeling that you can only blame the U.S.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
First the US declares them part of an 'axis of evil' together with Afghanistan and Iraq. Then they invade Afghanistan and leave the place in complete ruin and chaos. Now they are about to invade Iraq and what do you think they will do to Saddam if they catch him? So who is next on the list?

Iran is the other "pole" of the Axis of Evil, Afghanistan is not a part of it.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
It seems to me that NK feels threatened by the US. Don't you think that is reasonable. Unlike the other members of the 'Axis of Evil' NK may have a chance f fighting the US should they attack. Why are we so surprised that they are doing everything to bolster their military they possibly can?

We have had a nuclear advantage over NK from the get go, over 50 years. If we were going to take them out, we would have done so while the Cold War was still going on as a part of that conflict. What is actually happening is that NK has become a great deal less important in the world as everyone else has adopted more or less sensible economic policies and focused on their own development since at least the end of the Cold War. No one needs a gruff little bully boy to bolster their Cold War position, especially when that bully boy has been so much more trouble than he was worth over the decades that China and to a much lesser degree the Soviet Union paid his bills.

North Korea has in fact been contained by everyone (else) in the region for years now. Its leverage over anyone but South Korea has been very limited, and its only lever is raw military power. The missles and nukes are merely a means of increasing its only means of improving its position other than internal reform, which it regards in most substantive regards as anathema.

What in fact we are seeing here is what happens when one person gains so much power in a state that his every mental weakness is expressed on a national scale. North Korea under this regime is effectively dangerously mentally ill. They have no friends, they are paranoid, they refuse to bow to any decent standards of behavior, and they compulsively lie, even going to far as to break every treaty and agreement they have ever signed, even those that they managed to get sweetheart deals on. They are in short incapable of taking care of themselves, and a danger to everyone who has to deal with them. Unfortunately for the citizens of that unhappy place they bear the brunt of that danger every day in every way.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
And why not add the US violation of the test ban treaty to the list....

I am not saying that I would support NK in any way, but your supposed surprise at their actions is a little hard to swallow!

See top.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sikander
Of course it didn't do any good per se, it was a bloody stalemate. However I doubt you will find anyone here other than Comrade Troll who would agree that South Korea isn't better off for having maintained their independance from the Stalinist personality cult in the north. More people are suffering longer from that regime than suffered from the Korean conflict, and that is saying a lot.

I am not that sure.

Suppose the DPRK encompasses the entire Korean Peninsula. Right off the bat they have no need for such a huge standing army. Secondly, the lack of an ever present external threat means the moderates would gain control over time as they did in the PRC, and that would lead to economic reforms.

You don't have to look further than Vietnam. Without an external threat, they have been modernising.

[Panag]

hi ,

great , stupid lunatics , .......


where are the carriers , they should bomb that stupid palace and that stupid commie party with a pinpoint strike , .......

it has been very silent from the chinese side on this issue , what are they going to do , .....

have a nice day ( legal notice ; not to members of the north korean commie party

[Sikander]

Ali, a very good post overall.


[QUOTE] Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Let's look beyond the unhelpful (but nonetheless rather popular) anti-US rhetoric for a start. The formation of North Korea has been unilaterally blamed on the activities of the US. This is inaccurate and unobjective. The US worked to support the South Koreans in direct and parallel opposition to the Soviet buildup of the North Korean regime. The Soviet Union shoulders at least half of the blame, and depending on how far back you look into history, Japanese colonialism also contributed much to the underlying sense of rebellion and nationalism in North Korea. If you really want to go delving into ancient history, you might consider the not inconsiderable time that Korea spent as a Chinese vassal as an indicator of the current sense of its defensive national image.

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Secondly, the question of "Who Fired First?" vis a vis the Korean War is still far from clear and to be honest, largely irrelevant. What we do know is that when the fighting was finished, China and North Korea had lost upwards of 1 million soldiers, and the combined force of American and UN military were unable to ultimately push back further than the 38th Parallel.

Your only obvious slip up. There is no doubt whatsoever that the North launched a full scale surprise invasion of South Korea, which didn't even have heavy weapons for its weak forces due to the U.S. attempts to keep a lid on any potential conflict between the Cold War blocs in the region. No serious historian makes any other case.

Since that time we have learned that the assumption made by the U.S. at the time, that this was the opening salvo of the Communist bloc against the Free World was not true. Kim did not clear his attack with Moscow or Beijing ahead of time, though both did support him after the fact.

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
America's entry into the war should be viewed largely in terms of realpolitik - containment of a satellite of a powerful and ideologically opposed state (the USSR and China). Likewise, China's motivations can very readily be ascribed to protection of a buffer state against the satellite of a powerful rival state (America, at the time perceived as a serious and implacable ideological rival).

True enough, but the U.S. policy of containment in this instance was not in place before the invasion of the South by the North, which is why the North came so very close to succeeding. In fact the North's attack and America's reaction (based on the somewhat faulty assumption noted by me above) set the stage for the intensity with which the Cold War was fought in Asia, especially in regards to Vietnam where a very similar conflict (strategically) took place a decade later.

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
As far as the present day situation is concerned, do not forget that Kim Jong Il as recently as October last year attempted to institute sweeping economic reforms. So although we are talking about a regime that is currently trying to convince the world of its capacity for widespread destruction, we are also talking about a regime that made very real and solid steps towards a more constructive approach. Those who dismiss Kim as a mere "lunatic" would do well to remember the hopes of economists all over the world late last year, when a hybrid capitalist market in N Korea was being touted as a possibility.

This is the stuff of pipe dreams really. Ask the Russians how easy it is to change gears from one sort of economy to another, and then compare Russia's great wealth in natural and human resources with North Korea's lack thereof. North Korea of course looks to China for guidance, but the Chinese have had many advantages over what the NKs have in this matter, two of which spring to mind immediately. Firstly, the Chinese are a much more commerce focused people culturally. Secondly, they have had over 20 years to move to where they are now. The North Koreans on the other hand have grown up in a culture much more debilitating to individual initiative than any other Communist state that I can think of. It is going to take a long time for the people to redevelop the human resources necessary to make a go of even baby stepping capitalism. One bright spot is that their own institutions are so failed, their will be little popular opposition to any changes that are made. They have no where to go but up.

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Currently, North Korea insists on speaking with America alone. This is not going to be enough to solve its problems. China is at present the only country that supplies official aid to the North, and that with considerable hesitation and reservations.

In order to solve the situation, all nations that would be affected directly need to be brought into consideration. This means Russia (survivor of the Soviet leadership that established Kim's regime in the first place), China, South Korea, and Japan as well as America.

What avenues lie open? War is as always a last resort. Any unilateral action on the part of America will not only push the North into potentially catastrophic reactions, but will also alienate America from East Asia, perhaps permanently (especially if the North chooses to bomb one or more Asian cities in the process). Unilateral aid is also a dicey business - the North has proven unreliable in its reactions and observers are right to fear giving signs of "rewarding bad behavior".

Ideally, America would communicate with the aforementioned nations and help to assemble a negotiating package that will show the North that nuclear threats will alienate the North from all its neighbors. This will require the cooperation of China, which has so far been largely silent, and South Korea, which is currently in mixed minds about rapprochement with the North.

Ideally, diplomatic dialogue from Russia, China, and South Korea should emphasize to the North that economic reforms will be supported and encouraged by the surrounding countries. Military posturing, on the other hand, will not. The real problem here is that none of these countries is confident enough to take the first step towards reconciliation, and America's anti-nuclear stance will only sound like a thinly veiled threat if it does not garner support from the region.

Bush's less-than-stellar foreign policy has been responsible for much of the anti-American sentiment in South Korea and China, but the administration is taking steps in the right direction by sending Powell to discuss the US' stance. Hopefully, by toning down the military rhetoric and stressing the very real economic support that will attend improved relations, the coalition of surrounding nations can help put North Korea back on the track that it was seeking on its own prior to last winter.

The North Koreans want to speak only with Washington for one reason only. They want to split the alliance between South Korea, Japan and the U.S. This will enhance their only lever in negotiations, which is their military capability. IMO they haven't given up the idea that if they play their cards right they might end up owning all of Korea, as ridiculous as that notion may sound to us.

You are correct that this issue will only be solved by a multilateral approach, but the North will resist this vigorously, especially since their strategy seems to be paying some dividends vis a vis splitting the U.S. and South Korea. What they don't seem to realize is that going one on one with everyone in the region is the most dangerous policy for them, because as powerful as they are every bordering state as well as the U.S. and Japan can defeat them individually, albeit in what would probably be a very bloody war. A multilateral approach will actually limit the extent that anyone would consider military force as an option, as everyone has a stake in who controlls the North and under what circumstances.

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
This will require some considerable sacrifices amongst the said nations.

America will have to look beyond the popular stereotypes and soundbites and be prepared to get its hands dirty with diplomatic and economic commitments. Also, the performance of America as regards Iraq will have dramatic repercussions on how the North views it. If America continues to prove itself unable to work with other nations (regardless of which side is actually to blame for this friction) the North will be less likely to side with a nation so distrusted by others. If America can win the support of China (or better still, support China as it brings a deal to the bargaining table) then that will conversely have a profound effect on the authenticity of whatever is offered.

China for its part will have to wrestle with the ideological imperatives of putting pressure on a regime that is its official ally, even though this alliance exists solely by way a defunct social philosophy (and one that China's own leaders have largely abandoned). China will also have to examine carefully the reasons behind its pointed derailing of North Korea's planned special economic zone (by arresting the Chinese national who was hand picked to manage it by Kim's leadership back in late 2002). Economic reform is an experiment that Kim Jong-Il seemed all too willing to try before it blew up in his face. Now, it will be harder to persuade him to attempt a reprieve - but such a prospect must be preferable to seeing him threaten to use nuclear weapons and destabilize the region. Such a prospect must also be more appetizing to Kim's own leadership than the continued embarrassment of losing their people across the poorly guarded Sino-Korean border.

Japan and South Korea, once symbolically united by the paired hosting of the World Cup, now have vastly different views of North Korea. That Japan's historical treatment of the North and other nations was less than honorable is not in doubt. That Japan's current relationship with Asian nations is very strong is also obvious. However, the Prime Minister's continued reluctance to foreswear Japan's historical ties to past atrocities (eg apologist schoolbooks, shrine visits) continues to be a sore point not only for the North, but also Korea and China. Economic forces dictate that Japan cannot disregard the sensibilities of its neighbors, but conservatism and patriotism have caused unnecessary international friction with the reward of ephemeral approval ratings at home.

South Korea has understandably the most complex relationship. Many voters saw entire families killed in battles against the North. Equally and opposingly, many voters still have entire families who live in the North. The present gestures of President Roh towards reconciliation are preferable to continued isolation, but they run the risk of over-effusiveness - caused in part by America's unpopular hostility to the North, and in part by an overestimation of Kim Jong Il's solidarity with the average South Korean. South Korea has the most to lose in any regional conflagration, but also has arguably the greatest claim to the North's diplomatic ear. A combined effort with the North's two closest neighbors may be able to effect a reversal yet.

Ultimately, the solution lies along a thin line between hardline obstructionism and solicitous ingratiation. In order to make the peninsula a safer place, the North must be presented with dialogue from all relevant states (no other arrangement can satisfy China/Russia/South Korea/Japan, let alone North Korea). Then it must be presented with a clear set of economic, political, and military reforms. Finally, it must be shown real and compelling economic rewards of cooperation - rewards that would be (as trade ultimately becomes) bilateral.

Japan, China, and South Korea themselves are examples of nations once locked in bitter conflict. Fifty years on, their relationship is such that although nationalist feelings may emerge every so often, military conflict is no longer a viable option.

Economic interdependence has a very profound and lasting sobering effect on even the most unpopular and isolated regimes. North Korea should prove no different, provided of course that it survives this current crisis.

In the event that it does not, prepare for some serious problems on a scale that would best be avoided at all costs.

Am I the only one here who has never seen the Bush administration as bent on military conflict with North Korea? They objected strenuously to Clinton's appeasement in the face of the North's abuse of the '94 agreemtents during the campaign in 2000, but with nothing more than rhetoric that suggested a continuation of the containment that has been the U.S. policy for decades. Even the inclusion of NK in the "Axis of Evil" had to do with the reinforcing of Washington's long followed policy of refusing to allow NK to become an agent of nuclear proliferation. The administration has never suggested regime change as an option for either Iran or NK, and has only done so in Iraq after one war failed to achieve the sort of cooperation that one would assume such an overwhelming victory would suggest as reasonable.

Much more interesting to me is Japan's announcement that they left open the option to strike the North first if they had reason to believe that an attack on them was imminent.

While I agree with much of what you say, I find that it is all rather vague in terms of what one can really do here. When I am feeling pessimistic it seems that the best option is a first strike to take out the regime and unify the peninsula. There will be plenty of casualties to be sure, but far fewer than if we allow this regime to build up a large number of nuclear weapons and end up fighting anyway.

The vast majority of the time though, I feel that containing them and letting them rot is still the best policy. I really don't want to see anyone compromise with this regime for two reasons. Fisrtly, it is a horrible regime with nothing positive to offer the world other than its extinction. (Mind you I speak of the regime and not the NK people). Secondly, It sets a terrible precedent for any other tyrant who can get his hands on nuclear weapons to see the most powerful states on the planet falling all over themselves to offer bribes in the face of repeated slaps in the face.

I am mystified with China's position in all of this, as it has much more at stake than the U.S. does in the situation. Perhaps they are playing coy, and trying to maximize U.S. discomfort by withholding any apparent active participation in the matter. Or more likely they are paralyzed to some extent by the coming regime change in their own country, and are leaving the problem for the incoming leadership to deal with. Either way, it will be interesting to see what they do when they decide to quit sitting on their hands.

[Panag]

hi ,

a couple months ago Japan mentioned the fact the are looking into wheter or not they should build some nukes and some long range missiles , .....

Japan the only country in the world so far that knows first hand what it is to be nuked , ......

those nk leaders should be hang out to dry , .....

okat , so what if its going to be an economical strain on the RSK when they go together , it shall still beat war , and in a couple of years the country has its money back , ....

but this is not like with germany , there the people started to revolt , .....

have a nice day

[Q Classic]

North Korea of course looks to China for guidance, but the Chinese have had many advantages over what the NKs have in this matter, two of which spring to mind immediately. Firstly, the Chinese are a much more commerce focused people culturally.

that last statement there is total bollocks. if you want "commerce-focused", research how the ancient koreans actually helped provide the very lucractive link between japan and china.
the one driving force for the chinese economy is the sheer number of people they have. the 1.2billion people strong market is what attracts foreign investment, and the fact that the chinese government allows as much foreign direct investment and joint ventures is the only reason why they look like they're having success in the first place.
keep in mind, though, this success is really built on a house of cards. most of these joint ventures end up with the foreign company holding a greater share of the enterprise, with the government-run part selling out. the entrepreneur who brought them together, more often than not, is bought out and left out in the cold.

While I agree with much of what you say, I find that it is all rather vague in terms of what one can really do here. When I am feeling pessimistic it seems that the best option is a first strike to take out the regime and unify the peninsula. There will be plenty of casualties to be sure, but far fewer than if we allow this regime to build up a large number of nuclear weapons and end up fighting anyway.

I for one would like Kim to invade the South so he can get thrown back in a month. Then we can end that insane regime that starves millions while Kim builds massive monuments to the state.

it's easy for all of you to say that, particularly since you don't have relatives there. i'm not willing to let my family get blown up by some artillery shell or by some nuke.

[Q Classic]

as for economic impact on skorea:

a very interesting paper.

it pretty much states that skorea's reluctance to take a harder stance on nkorea might well be the nimby thing, which i can wholly understand, and also states that skorea might not suffer the same difficulties that germany did.

[Ned]

What South Korea needs to do is bribe enough Northern generals to pull off a coup and re-unite with the South voluntarily.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

that last statement there is total bollocks. if you want "commerce-focused", research how the ancient koreans actually helped provide the very lucractive link between japan and china.

Actually, I'll instead look at the Chinese expatriate community around the world which largely has been free of the Marxist tendency to ****** commercial IQ through "education", and has had almost universal commercial success wherever they have been. Much of the foreign entrepreneurial force that you go on about is Taiwanese, from Hong Kong, or expatriot Chinese of one flavor or another. These folks have kept the flame alive while China experimented with Marxism, and now they are passing that knowledge back to the mother country.

Korea has an immensely smaller group of successful expats to draw from (especially for the North), which is probably why the Dear Leader selected a Chinese guy to manage his enterprise zone. Even if I concede this small point, my larger point stands. China has a massive advantage over NK in terms of developing their economy, in both human resources and natural resources. It will be more difficult for NK to build a successful economy than it was for China, but as I said above, they have no where to go but up.

Originally posted by Q Cubed

it's easy for all of you to say that, particularly since you don't have relatives there. i'm not willing to let my family get blown up by some artillery shell or by some nuke.

It's not all that easy to say actually, but I stand by what I said. I'd rather do a first strike than fight a war anyway and not have a chance to destroy those nukes and as many arty tubes as possible before the North can cut loose.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

I am not that sure.

Suppose the DPRK encompasses the entire Korean Peninsula. Right off the bat they have no need for such a huge standing army. Secondly, the lack of an ever present external threat means the moderates would gain control over time as they did in the PRC, and that would lead to economic reforms.

You don't have to look further than Vietnam. Without an external threat, they have been modernising.

Interesting that you choose Vietnam as your example, as IMO their economic performance has been rather a dissappointment. Shipping out the ethnic Chinese was not a great move, and probably has something to do with their sluggish performance, but not everything. A lot of it has to do with a lack of good leadership since the end of the conflict 20+ years ago. They are revamping the party with younger blood (finally), and perhaps this will help.

As for the DPRK, I notice that you seem to completely neglect to mention the hereditary personality cult there. Look how much damage Mao did to China, and how long it took for China to reach a decent percentage of their potential afterward. I don't see either Kim having much use for moderates in their country, and they have managed to pass the torch generationally, which Mao was unable to do.

You make a good point about the lower military requirements that a unified Korea would have. Of course the same could be said for South Korea, making a relative measure of economic success on either side of the DMZ a difficult calculation. On the other hand Korea borders countries that are large and have more than one border to worry about. A larger and more prosperous Korea might well draw more negative attention from China and the USSR / Russia (again, especially with the Grandiose Kims in charge), which might obviate a fair percentage of the expected peace dividend.

Anyway, yours is an interesting perspective, and the issue a huge enough "what if" that though I disagree, I readily admit that no one can prove their point of view one way or another.

[Dinner]

The communists love personality cults because objective analysis proves they are they are totally wrong. Thus they seek to implement mindless personality cults.

[Ned]

Oerdin, I find it somewhat amusing that those who continue to call themselves communists distinquish themselves from all past examples of communist governments. I find it unamusing that so many Europeans are communists.