State Implosion -- A New Twist In North Korea

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
I think what UR means is that "political freedom" without the necessary economic prosperity is no better than tyranny.

And I disagree. Tyrrany is much worse.

That is where I would disagree.

"Political freedom" without economic prosperity is simply a chaotic system of demagogues, extremist parties, riots, anarchy, and general mayhem. Such a system is ripe for Hitlers to take over.

Economic prosperity without "political freedom" is a mature, healthy democracy waiting to emerge.

[Velociryx]

Once more, I find that we are largely in agreement, Rans. I definitely don't believe that we need to USE our military force in Asia....but in order to keep the Chinese in check (this speaking not from personal preference, but from the perspective of American aims in the larger sense), then yep. We absolutely need a base on the mainland of Asia. Further, I believe we absolutely would spend the necessary bucks to ensure our position there, first by installing a pro-US government in NK, or by paving the way for reunification with SK, and then, by dropping whatever money was required to rebuild infrastructure in that nation.

-=Vel=-

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Once more, I find that we are largely in agreement, Rans.

With so much agreement, I wonder what this argument is about.

I definitely don't believe that we need to USE our military force in Asia....but in order to keep the Chinese in check (this speaking not from personal preference, but from the perspective of American aims in the larger sense), then yep. We absolutely need a base on the mainland of Asia.

Of course. A superpower would be insane not to maintain a base in a strategically important area.

Further, I believe we absolutely would spend the necessary bucks to ensure our position there, first by installing a pro-US government in NK, or by paving the way for reunification with SK, and then, by dropping whatever money was required to rebuild infrastructure in that nation.

Not necessarily in that order. I think the "rebuilding of infrastructure" comes first and foremost; reunification is only a dream until NK is sufficiently rebuilt.

[DanS]

reunification is only a dream until NK is sufficiently rebuilt.

Nope. We or our allies occupy and govern before the money is spent. That's the way it works.

[Velociryx]

That last bit....I'm not sure if it's gonna be up to us.

At this stage in the game, I think it'll get worse before it gets better.

If the country implodes, there may be no choice but to do it the other way (unify first, fix later), cos at that point, we're talking about millions starving as the mechanism of government freezes up and grinds to a halt.

Again, in a perfect world, it'd most surely be better for all involved to build infrastructure first, so there's not such a shock to SK's infrastructure, nor a "culture shock" of suddenly introducing millions of "have nots" into a first world nation.

But I do not believe we have sufficient control of events or the situation to guarantee we can make it work out that way.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Just saw Dan's post, and I have to agree.

We're not gonna just hand Kim a wad of cash and tell him to go build infrastructure so we can merge his country down the line. Can't happen.

I fear for the poor folks living in NK, too, cos they're at ground zero for a whole lot of misery....

-=Vel=-

[Alinestra Covelia]

There's a fine line between saying "we're going to do this genuinely to make your lives better" and "oh heck, let's just fire a few tactical missiles in there - problem solved".

There's been a lot of the latter type of views that American military might alone will solve a problem. These do probably the most damage to American credibility.

As always, you need to be able to follow the job through, whether it means negotiating with allies (and enemies) to get the best deal for the afflicted peoples, or shouldering the responsibility yourself.

America's previous examples of supporting or installing pro-US figurehead leaders without thought to their suitability for the country (South Vietnam, South Korea's Singman Rhee, and Chiang KaiShek spring to mind) has caused much residual unease when America talks of regime change.

Fortunately, Afghanistan is standing up to be a pretty good example. Hamid Karzai's job is very difficult but it genuinely seems to be improving standards since the Taliban's fall.

If America can prove to support more such leaders to the good of the governed, and less of those who are just politically pro-American, then they'll have less resistance and more cooperation in making the world a safer place.

[DanS]

America's previous examples of supporting or installing pro-US figurehead leaders without thought to their suitability for the country (South Vietnam, South Korea's Singman Rhee, and Chiang KaiShek spring to mind) has caused much residual unease when America talks of regime change.

It seems to me that the democratically elected and sustained SK gov't is able to govern NK for a short time before democratic institutions can be installed in the North.

This could be a hands-off operation, at least internally to NK, as far as the US is concerned.

[ranskaldan]

The "perfect world" happens a lot more often that you would expect. China, SK, Japan, Russia all went through various degrees of this "perfect world".

Of course, if Kim dropped dead tomorrow and the entire machinery of NK came magically under SK control, everyone would be happy. But that is very unlikely to happen; the most likely scenario is change from within. That's why there is a Sunshine Policy and continuing efforts to open NK to the global market.

[DanS]

We're not gonna just hand Kim a wad of cash and tell him to go build infrastructure so we can merge his country down the line. Can't happen.

That's exactly what Ranskaldan is telling us we have no choice but to do. I don't buy it. If he wants his nukes, then I doubt we can do much about it. The administration appears resigned to this, although I hope they have an ace up their sleeves (probably not, though, we'll see).

But not a red cent of American money to him under those circumstances. No food. No energy. No trading. No normalization. No World Bank and IMF loans. Nothing. He's got his row to hoe, so he might as well get to it.

If the SK wants to shovel money into the pit, that's their business. But I doubt they'll have much company, considering the mood in Japan and Europe. The food program is already extremely underpledged for '03. The US is probably the only country that has the necessary amount of ready rice available to give.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
We're not gonna just hand Kim a wad of cash and tell him to go build infrastructure so we can merge his country down the line. Can't happen.

That's exactly what Ranskaldan is telling us we have no choice but to do. I don't buy it. If he wants his nukes, then I doubt we can do much about it. The administration appears resigned to this, although I hope they have an ace up their sleeves (probably not, though, we'll see).

No one is "handing Kim a wad of cash". If you want to do that as some sort of short-term buy-our-way-out-of-this-mess tactic, you can go ahead, but this is not what I'm advocating.

SK has been making progress in convincing NK to open itself up; and that's the approach that I'm talking about.

But not a red cent of American money to him under those circumstances. No food. No energy. No trading. No normalization. No World Bank and IMF loans. Nothing. He's got his row to hoe, so he might as well get to it.

Kim doesn't care, and in the meantime, this approach would only further isolate his country and starve his people. It maintains the current status quo but that's about all it does.

If the SK wants to shovel money into the pit, that's their business. But I doubt they'll have much company, considering the mood in Japan and Europe. The food program is already extremely underpledged for '03. The US is probably the only country that has the necessary amount of ready rice available to give.

China is a major participant in the dumping of rice into NK.

[DanS]

Perhaps so, but not under the auspices of the UN. I don't know the numbers precisely, but I think about 1/3 the populace is served [edit: was served] under the UN.

Kim doesn't care

I think he does care, even if strictly in a self-serving way. And he'll also come to learn that maintaining even a small number of nukes is an extremely expensive endeavor. It's a big economy weapon. Missile defense would make it even more expensive for him, because it would require of him a larger arsenal.

SK has been making progress in convincing NK to open itself up

Oh, that's what the $300 million cash payment to NK to inaugurate the Sunshine Policy was for? If only I needed such convincing...

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
I think he does care, even if strictly in a self-serving way. And he'll also come to learn that maintaining even a small number of nukes is an extremely expensive endeavor. It's a big economy weapon. Missile defense would make it even more expensive for him, because it would require of him a larger arsenal.

He does care, but the condition of the North Korean state and its people do not factor into his equations.

Oh, that's what the $300 million cash payment to NK to inaugurate the Sunshine Policy was for? If only I needed such convincing...

Yes, of course.
And the rail and road links. And the industrial zone at Kaesong. And the opening up of certain NK sights to SK tourists, And the economic zone at Sinuiju (well the last one is Chinese but it's in the same general trend).

Hell, this is how China started its reforms.

[DanS]

The big and quick money is Uncle Sugar. He knows it. That's why he wants direct talks with the US. But now he's ~ $700 million or so per annum in the hole, relative to his previous position.

[Alinestra Covelia]

And economic reforms would take far shorter time in NK than they would in China, simply through smaller populace and lesser land area.

I reckon that SEZs on the line of Shenzhen and Macau could potentially save NK. Once Kim relinquishes power (possibly through natural old age) then a new elite would rise, which would be half military and half economic.

Given another generation, the economic elite would hold most of the rulership.

This is pretty much how China tried to modernize whilst keeping political reform to a manageable (some might say minimal) pace. NK could potentially do it much faster and absolutely than China too.

[DanS]

That future makes me want to purge my dinner, Ali.

Committed Democrats like Roh should not accept this future.

[DanS]

Here's an NYT article about China's reactions (or inaction) wrt NK.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/we...partner=GOOGLE

China could end up with a nuclearized SK and Japan, even as SK reunites with NK. You gotta wonder how China would view that possibility. And yes, I agree with the Chinese analyst that we alone could not stop this from occurring.

China needs to look toward its interests. Exports to the US represent over 1/10th of China's economy--and we can take at least 1/10th more. Exports to NK, less than 1/100th.

And it looks like China might make the Hungary bargain after all, at least with Japan.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20030202wo42.htm

And here's how much the tourism concession is worth...

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SEO57259

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
And economic reforms would take far shorter time in NK than they would in China, simply through smaller populace and lesser land area.

I reckon that SEZs on the line of Shenzhen and Macau could potentially save NK. Once Kim relinquishes power (possibly through natural old age) then a new elite would rise, which would be half military and half economic.

Given another generation, the economic elite would hold most of the rulership.

This is pretty much how China tried to modernize whilst keeping political reform to a manageable (some might say minimal) pace. NK could potentially do it much faster and absolutely than China too.

Either that, or Kim will be pressured into ushering in reforms and/or subdued by the Russo-Sino alliance. I doubt he'd be subdued by American rhetoric(he's already shown his belligerence), but perhaps by Russia and China. Both Russia and China still to some extent maintain their paranoid character, especially when it comes to the West, and while the US might continue it's hostile policy towards NK and vice versa, Russia and China might be willing to cede some concessions to NK, in the name of stability. Obviously, neither Russia or China want US forces too close to their borders for too long, because while all of them are in good business relations, they don't exactly see eye-to-eye on other issues, and all of the above still have hostile elements in their respective administrations/governments, who have been scarred, so to speak, by the Cold War.

I, myself, would advise the US to scrap its hostile policy towards NK. All of this(Iraq, Afghanistan, Balkan conflicts, etc) is just a little too much, and a little too close for comfort, for both Russia and China. America must understand that eventhough both Russia and China have went through some cosmopolitan changes, their objectives have largely remained static, and their attitude, while given some readjustments still remains hostile.

Thank you and goodnight.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
What about India?

It shows that political freedom can exist without prosperity. So your comment that "[o]nly economic prosperity will bring political freedom" is false. There are plenty of other dirt poor countries out there that are reasonably democratic.

Check out India's "untouchables." Maybe India is a democracy on the surface, but this BS has been going on for centuries. Supposedly they have the right to vote, but could they vote in actuality? I don't know.

As for other dirt poor "democratic" countries - how many of those have fair elections, mostly free from the influence of money and violence? If they don't, they aren't really democratic, no?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
UR: One word for why the US would care.

China.

Like it or not, *ready* or not....they're coming.

Their troubles at home won't be an infinite pool, and don't kid yourself....China has a long memory and plenty of territorial axes to grind.

Watch and see.

Chief among them, is that China WANTS the US out of the region. We're their own personal boogy man, and from the Chinese perspective, it is the US who is responsible for keeping China from flexing her muscles fully in the region.

-=Vel=-

That means you agreed with my previous post. The US won't care one whit unless it could get a friendly government to bring about a better geopolitical situation.

With that out of the way, then, I see that letting DPRK implode is the way not to do it. It will get everybody in Northeast Asia to have this deep-seated hatred of the US. They aren't stupid, they could see this "help" in rebuilding no more than a bid to install a friendly government, so the North Koreans will say "bugger off," and you can kiss the base in RoK goodbye. The PRC will not be at all pleased, and you can be sure that they will play hardball in international politics against the US whenever it is possible.

Not wise.

[DanS]

Oh, come on. You're going to insist India isn't a democracy? Cheap retort!

And the Carter Center certifies elections in dirt poor countries all the time. Your position doesn't stand up to even a couple minutes of scrutiny.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

That might set up some interesting scenarios with China, Russia, and Japan as each compete for influence in the power vaccum left behind.

What power vacuum? Korea would be stronger after reunification and would be still be an ally with the US. And Japan wouldn't stand a chance if there was a power struggle, the Koreans haven't quite forgiven them for WWII.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Check out India's "untouchables." Maybe India is a democracy on the surface, but this BS has been going on for centuries. Supposedly they have the right to vote, but could they vote in actuality? I don't know.

At the state level, the untouchables have had equality since Mahatma Ghandi's time. It only continues at the social level because of tradition. It's not really any different than the status of blacks in the US, they're equal but discriminated against.

[DanS]

Korea would be stronger after reunification and would be still be an ally with the US.



They can either choose a nuclearized ally of the US or a non-nuclearized ally of the US. We're not funding the status quo. If they want the status quo supporting their interests, let them fund it themselves. NK isn't our love child. It's China's and Russia's.

They aren't stupid, they could see this "help" in rebuilding no more than a bid to install a friendly government

Well then quit b!tching and "help" them rebuild yourself. NK is China's underfunded liability.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by DanS
Oh, come on. You're going to insist India isn't a democracy? Cheap retort!

And the Carter Center certifies elections in dirt poor countries all the time. Your position doesn't stand up to even a couple minutes of scrutiny.

Well, back when I was at Durham university, quite a few of my fellow students were overseas Indians - they all spoke very disparagingly about their nation's elections. They talked of "vote barons" who would be able to deal in the mass votes of largely illiterate voters by simply ordering them to vote for a given candidate.

Of course, it's important to remember that these were overseas Indians so their socioeconomic background may be fundamentally different from their homebound peers, especially their political views.

But it's very dangerous to be too absolute about things.

As far as North Korea goes, I'm sorry if economic change in the line of China makes you sick. Personally, the idea of military action in Iraq creates a similar reaction in me. But we both have to look at things objectively and say "what alternative is there?" and "how effective would it be?"

If you want to go in bombing and blasting, then you have overlooked the repercussions on the people who have to live next door to your target.

[DanS]

Well, back when I was at Durham university, quite a few of my fellow students were overseas Indians - they all spoke very disparagingly about their nation's elections. They talked of "vote barons" who would be able to deal in the mass votes of largely illiterate voters by simply ordering them to vote for a given candidate.

Yes, I understand. But by that token, Americans could all kvetch about the city of Chicago. Yet we still know that America is reasonably democratic.

As far as North Korea goes, I'm sorry if economic change in the line of China makes you sick.

Economic change without political change does nothing for me. It's still man in bondage to the State. That's why I'm not too hip on China's progress, some minor experimentation notwithstanding.

I'm happiest to see how SK turned out. At least two credible parties that can govern. Democracy should have been introduced there much earlier. Sometimes the US doesn't fully appreciate how potent a weapon democracy is.

If you want to go in bombing and blasting, then you have overlooked the repercussions on the people who have to live next door to your target.

I don't want to do either. What made you think that I did? We should have a credible detterent.

I think China has to either reel in and support its client, do Washington's bidding on the matter, or do nothing and roll the dice on the consequences.

I think that the US should not deal with Kim Jong Il unless he gives up his nukes. If he doesn't, then I don't want to pay to prop up his regime. Further, we should refer this to the Security Council for discussion and/or action. But overall, we should just sit there and wait for him to fall, encouraging the eventuality through small measures.

I think that SK should be circumspect about what it gives NK, because it sends bad information to NK. Further, they should act principled in the matter and prepare for governing NK under a somewhat messy unification. If they want to continue the Sunshine Policy, they should do so on a limited basis, if only to help prepare for a fairly immediate reunification.

I think Japan should send the message to NK and China that if NK goes nuclear, so does Japan.

Lastly, NK should be our b!tch and heel.

That sums up my position.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS

Economic change without political change does nothing for me. It's still man in bondage to the State. That's why I'm not too hip on China's progress, some minor experimentation notwithstanding.

That is where our greatest disagreement lies. As long as we're talking about how well people are living, then economic condition is the single best way to measure the wellbeing of any nation.

What use is a "democracy" if it is simply a demagogic sideshow, a fiesta of extremist parties in rapid succession while the country goes down the drain? Okay, so "man is not in bondage to the State", but so? Try telling a starving man in India that he's "not in bondage to the State". I'm sure he'll be thankful.

Or how about Singapore? It's not a democracy, there's only one party that effectively governs. But the living standards of Singapore are among the highest in the world. In fact, the very reason those living standards exist is because the State kept the nation under control during the first turbulent 20 years. Singapore in 1970 was a wreck - a riot every day and a non-existent economy. We (Singapore) could have continued with that, with four hundred tiny parties attempting to fan the fury of their own supporters. I'm sure Singapore would still be some hellhole, like East Timor. Would you call that "freedom from bondage"?

Ultimately, democracy is an afterthought, it is the insurance that once a nation reaches economic affluence, it can stay there. In other words, democracy is the means to an end, not the end itself. It is always economic affluence that is the highest goal, because that is where the wellbeing of each citizen lies.

[DanS]

That is where our greatest disagreement lies.

Yep. We just don't see eye-to-eye on this one.

And consider that most in SK will not see eye-to-eye with you either. It is on the basis of this fact that I think they are acting contrary to their principles. It may mean nothing to you, but I expect it to mean a lot to an SKer.

[DanS]

NK has the audacity to threaten the Sunshine Policy due to an inquiry into the cash payment to NK for the Sunshine Policy.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asi...169716,00.html

These guys are funny.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
And consider that most in SK will not see eye-to-eye with you either. It is on the basis of this fact that I think they are acting contrary to their principles. It may mean nothing to you, but I expect it to mean a lot to an SKer.

Why wouldn't they agree, though? I don't get what you mean by "acting contrary to their principles".

NK has the audacity to threaten the Sunshine Policy due to an inquiry into the cash payment to NK for the Sunshine Policy.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/as...,169716,00.html

These guys are funny.

Yes, very funny.
Though I'd say that they're attempting to piece together what little face they have in front of their affluent, successful southern neighbour.