State Implosion -- A New Twist In North Korea - Page 2

DinoDoc · January 29, 2003, 10:56

Quote:

Originally posted by mindseye

Quote:

The last Bond film was about North Korea.

Really? That's hilarious!

If you want to talk about hilarious, you should look at the protests the movie spawned in South Korea.

Oerdin · January 29, 2003, 10:57

It's to bad the red Chinese won't use their economic aid to force the North Koreans into behaving like normal intelligent people.

Urban Ranger · January 29, 2003, 11:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
It's to bad the red Chinese won't use their economic aid to force the North Koreans into behaving like normal intelligent people.

They seem to be intelligent, just they have a different agenda than the USA.

Oerdin · January 29, 2003, 11:06

Running your country into the ground and starving your own people to death doesn't count as intelligent in my book.

Urban Ranger · January 29, 2003, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
The time for special economic regions is loooooong past. He could have tried it 10 years ago.

10 years ago? I am not sure if he has been in power for that long.

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Re the repurcussions to China of mass migration, this is all true to a point. But it would give a certain amount of control to the situation. The repurcussions could be foreseen and planned for, just as they were in Afghanistan for a similar number of refugees. Does this part of China have less infrastructure than Afghanistan?

No, yet DPRK has a lot more people. Yes, something could be done about it, but the drain is significant. I should know, Hong Kong was the First Port of Asylum for Vietnamese boat people. [Dreadful Brits] Another thing is, unless ROK will take all of them unconditionally, otherwise, a million or two refugees waiting for aid is a heavy burden.

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Right now, nobody has control over the situation. We don't even know if Kim Jong Il has a realistic end-game. He might be signing checks that nobody's ass can ever cash. This is a much more dangerous situation than a couple of million refugees well provisioned for.

I think the Sunshine Policy is right. You need to contact the North Koreans, not put them in isolation like the US has been doing. Actually they just need food and fuel and trading partners.

Urban Ranger · January 29, 2003, 11:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Running your country into the ground and starving your own people to death doesn't count as intelligent in my book.

Hm, Containment Policy surely didn't help much.

DanS · January 29, 2003, 11:14

No, yet DPRK has a lot more people.

No it doesn't. Afghanistan has about 6 million people more than DPRK.

More, later today.

DinoDoc · January 29, 2003, 11:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
They seem to be intelligent,

No one doubts the intelligence of the North Koreans. It's the person at the top they have doubts about though.

Quote:

Hm, Containment Policy surely didn't help much.

What does that have to do with them wasting money on a nuke program that only serves to damage relations with the people giving them aid and does nothing to signifigantly increase thier security?

Alinestra Covelia · January 29, 2003, 11:26

From the indications, it looked like Kim and the Chinese leadership both wanted special economic zones set up so that NK could imitate China's own (socialist) entry into capitalism.

The erratic nature of NK diplomacy may be the result of political infighting. It seems that Kim Jong Il himself is certainly open to economic reforms, but that the cadre of generals that benefit from military extremism are opposed.

On a lighter note, has anybody seen the list of similarities between George Bush Jnr. and Comrade Kim Jnr.? Makes for entertaining reading...

ranskaldan · January 29, 2003, 12:38

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

No one doubts the intelligence of the North Koreans. It's the person at the top they have doubts about though.

Quote:

Hm, Containment Policy surely didn't help much.

What does that have to do with them wasting money on a nuke program that only serves to damage relations with the people giving them aid and does nothing to signifigantly increase thier security?

No, the people at the top aren't unintelligent, just self-serving. They don't really feel the urgency of anything because they're the ones living in cushy palaces and watching Bond movies.

As for the nuke program - I personally think that revealing it at the height of the Iraq crisis was a brilliant touch.

ranskaldan · January 29, 2003, 12:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
The erratic nature of NK diplomacy may be the result of political infighting. It seems that Kim Jong Il himself is certainly open to economic reforms, but that the cadre of generals that benefit from military extremism are opposed.

ReallY? It'd be great if you could give some details.

DanS · January 29, 2003, 15:35

"Actually they just need food and fuel and trading partners."

And why should we care? What do we get in return for this?

The NK government is a bunch of nutfvcks and has no legitimacy as far as I'm concerned. They couldn't spend our money effectively, and I'm loathe to put good money after bad.

It's time for freedom for the people of NK. We should demand it!

I think the Sunshine Policy is right.

It appears to be morphing into an abomination, where SK is supporting a hideous regime in return for NK not committing suicide.

All true negotiations have a walk away point for each side. What the Sunshine Policy is turning into--no walk away point for SK--takes away support for negotiations, by giving NK a distorted dataset for what the SK and the world community are willing to accept. This causes highly dangerous situations, in that NK thinks it can shoot for the moon and get it.

(As an aside, that's precisely why the Palestinian Authority did the correct thing in walking away from Camp David. In the long-term, the PA effectively communicated the parameters of an acceptable deal.)

I was all for the Sunshine Policy a couple of years ago, given that I thought it was a very temporary thing designed to get the ball rolling.

The erratic nature of NK diplomacy may be the result of political infighting.

Ali: It could be. I don't think we have a good handle on the internal politics of NK, at least publically here in the West.

DinoDoc · January 29, 2003, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan
No, the people at the top aren't unintelligent, just self-serving.

Would you prefer the term short sighted and dangerously ignorant when it comes to insuring the survival of thier regime, if calling them stupid strikes you as wrong. They don't have the masses of people to safely piss away in famines that China does. Given that they are likely already invulnerable to a conventional attack by the US, the security and survival of thier regime would be better served if the resources of thier state were directed toward combating the threat posed by the famine instead of nukes.

Quote:

I personally think that revealing it at the height of the Iraq crisis was a brilliant touch.

I would never dream of calling Kim completely irrational given how long he has managed to stay in power.

DanS · January 30, 2003, 11:48

To close the loop, Kim Jong Il came into power in 1994, 9 years ago, as UR points out.

GePap · January 30, 2003, 13:43

DanS: Afghanistan does not have 10 million more people than North Korea: givent he horrid conditions in both, population growth in both has been small, and even if you add population loss due to famine, in 1993 Afghnaistan had 16 million and NK 22. That NK lost so many to famine without collapsing then is difficult ot believe.

As for acting unprinciplaly: if the US starts letting in economic refugees form elsewhere, like Haiti, then perhaps you can call attempts by the Chinese to stop such a similar situation for themselves unprincipaled. Its easy to call for 'princiled" action when you would reap only benefits form it, and pay 0 for the costs.

DanS · January 30, 2003, 13:57

I never said 10 million, I said 6 million. The CIA puts NK @ 22m, Afghanistan @ 28m as of July '02. This includes the return of refugees, which pushed Afghanistan's population growth to 3.4% in '02, one of the highest growth rates in the world.

DanS · January 30, 2003, 13:59

then perhaps you can call attempts by the Chinese to stop such a similar situation for themselves unprincipaled

I never said that the Chinese position was unprincipled. Rather, the South Korean position is unprincipled. In effect, their policy is to prop up the NK government because it would be expensive for them to deal with the consequences otherwise.

Could I ask you to read my posts more carefully next time?

ranskaldan · January 30, 2003, 14:26

The problem on the other hand is: what would these "consequences otherwise" be? Is an imploded North Korea really better, for both North Koreans and South Koreans alike?

South Korea's sunshine policy is right in one very important respect -> what North Korea needs is indeed "food, fuel, and trading partners", because that is the only way North Korea can jump out of despotism into affluence. South Korea has done it; Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan all did it in the same way; China is doing it right now. On the other hand, states in the same region that have imploded (China up to the 70's, Indonesia now) have demonstrated their ability to spray their bloody guts onto all their neighbours.

DanS · January 30, 2003, 14:58

The problem with stressing this approach is that several decades of despotism lie between here and there. So many lives and billions of dollars have been spent so that SK can live in freedom. Economics was always a secondary concern, at least by the US. In light of this, it is unprincipled for SK to make a strict dollar burden calculation, especially with their brothers in NK. To me, it looks like they're getting cold feet wrt making unification happen.

The NK needs a new government. The "food, fuel and trading partners" can be dealt with much more easily then.

ranskaldan · January 30, 2003, 15:12

The idealistic approach, of course, would be to bring down the current NK government, and install a democratic government that allows free trade. Yes, but how realistic is that? How many lives will be lost in the ensuing power vacuum? How badly will the state be torn apart -- and where would those missiles fly once the NK military is rended into factions? More importantly, with the country in shambles and whipped into a frenzy, what democratic leader will emerge?

This "several decades of despotism", unfortunately, may be the only way NK can elevate itself out of the current mess. Not the current starve-the-people-and-build-nukes despotism, of course; NK is surrounded by countries whose dictators, while in power, did a lot better.

Arrian · January 30, 2003, 15:26

I just read an article that, though it doesn't necessarily speak to the main topic at hand, does offer some perspective on NK thinking/attitudes.

link: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16054

Very, very odd. And very, very sad.

-Arrian

Felch · January 30, 2003, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan
How many lives will be lost in the ensuing power vacuum? How badly will the state be torn apart -- and where would those missiles fly once the NK military is rended into factions? More importantly, with the country in shambles and whipped into a frenzy, what democratic leader will emerge?

Who gives a ****? We gave them fuel, in exchange for not making nukes. They made nukes. They owe us for all the oil we gave them, when they were acting in bad faith. Until they pay us back, they shouldn't get anything from us other than a pounding.

Seriously, you all are basing your views on the assumption that America is always wrong. Sometimes we are wrong. We were wrong to trust North Korea. We're wrong to be focusing on Iraq. We're wrong to negotiate with the gangsters in Pyongyang. If we dealt with them as they deserve to be treated, razing cities, plowing salt into their fields, et al., we would be in the right.

Arrian · January 30, 2003, 15:44

Quote:

If we dealt with them as they deserve to be treated, razing cities, plowing salt into their fields, et al., we would be in the right.

Too much CivIII. I've been there. Easy, there, killer.

-Arrian

Felch · January 30, 2003, 16:01

It's in Civ III because it's from Roman history. Rome lasted one or two millenia (Depending on what you count), so I figure it's a good policy to follow their methods. Besides, I hate people who rip folks off, and especially people who go out of their way to rip you off.

Arrian · January 30, 2003, 16:03

Actually, given what ended up happening to the Romans, I don't think it would be bright to emulate them.

-Arrian

Felch · January 30, 2003, 16:14

Eh, they lasted a damn sight longer than us. You can't seriously believe that we'll last more than a thousand years.

Although I agree, razing cities isn't a good thing, it's certainly more fearsome than hand-wringing about potential civilian casualties. And if we hope to rule the world, it's better to frighten our enemies than make them feel secure.

Arrian · January 30, 2003, 16:30

Sigh. What ever happened to the "walk softly" part of "Walk softly and carry a big stick"?

-Arrian

DinoDoc · January 30, 2003, 16:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Sigh. What ever happened to the "walk softly" part of "Walk softly and carry a big stick"?

I'm sure that he favors walking softly. That way our enemies won't hear us coming when we beat them senseless with the "big stick."

PS It's "talk softly" IIRC.

Arrian · January 30, 2003, 16:55

Bah! I always liked "walk" better. It makes me think of a nondescript older gentleman walking along and then suddenly BEATING THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF SOMEONE WITH A BIG FAT CANE!

-Arrian

ranskaldan · January 30, 2003, 17:31

I shall keep that image in my head.