State Implosion -- A New Twist In North Korea

[DanS]

Why wouldn't they agree, though?

Because I assume that they're democrats.

I don't get what you mean by "acting contrary to their principles".

Proper democrats shouldn't buy this long-term necessary dictatorship argument that seems so in vogue in some parts of Asia (mainly the parts under dictatorship). They should wish democracy for their brothers, and take risks to achieve it.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
Why wouldn't they agree, though?

Because I assume that they're democrats.

They are an affluent and developed society, where most elements of social instability have been eliminated. Of course they would be democrats. So would I in that situation.

I don't get what you mean by "acting contrary to their principles".

Proper democrats shouldn't buy this long-term necessary dictatorship argument that seems so in vogue in some parts of Asia (mainly the parts under dictatorship). They should wish democracy for their brothers, and take risks to achieve it.

If that's the case, then their efforts are idealistic and misguided, much like the people who think that Iraq should not be attacked because it would "kill people", unaware of the long-term strategic implications that might jeopardize the lives of even more.

I don't believe in idealism myself; I think that idealism, whether in religion, democracy, or communism, is precisely what runs one country after another into the ground. Every country has a different situation and must hence be governed with a different approach.

China, for example. Hundreds of millions of peasants and laid-off workers roaming the city streets looking for odd jobs. Enormous disparity between rich and poor. Overcrowding cities. This is the perfect recipe for national collapse and demagogic rule. Yet this is also the only way a country can make its way up the economic ladder. A democracy in this case would be disastrous.

North Korea would be an even better example of this. If reunification were to take place tomorrow, Korea must rule its north as a military dictatorship for at least another two decades. Anything else would result in all of Korea together collapsing upon itself.

[Willem]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


North Korea would be an even better example of this. If reunification were to take place tomorrow, Korea must rule its north as a military dictatorship for at least another two decades. Anything else would result in all of Korea together collapsing upon itself.

I don't buy that argument after seeing what happened with Germany. It wasn't an easy transition by any means, but they didn't have to resort to iron rule in the East either.

[DanS]

2 decades? This is some sort of sick joke. Abhorrent.

[ranskaldan]

East Germany was so much further ahead than North Korea is today. It was, quite simply, the former communist bloc country most ready for transition to democracy - it already had a working economy and educated populace.

As for the "abhorrent sick joke", the other abhorrent sick joke available - the result of a fully democratic Korea from the moment of reunification - would be national collapse.

This is ultimately a matter of idealism versus pragmatism. Are you willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of an entire nation for an ideal that cannot reap any benefits under the current situation? If so, you have just joined the ranks of Stalin and Hitler.

[ranskaldan]

If you thought THAT was abhorrent, I'll quote something that I posted some time ago, in some Iraq thread or the other (not on Apolyton though):

(mainly about China, but some points, not all, will apply to NK as well, and there's a little snippet about Iraq)

On June 4, 1989, armed government soldiers fired upon unarmed student demonstrators in Tian'anmen Square, Beijing. They fired indiscriminately into the crowd, into buildings, and their tanks crushed citizens in their wake. Hundreds - perhaps thousands - died in that night. The movement for democracy in China was dispersed and destroyed. Some leaders fled to the West; others spent years in jail. Today China remains ruled by the Chinese Communist Party.

In the meantime, China's growth rate - even if you take into account exaggerations and mis-reports - remains phenomenal. In ten years, a quarter of the Chinese population will reach a standard of living equivalent to middle class. One by one, the cities are turning from Stalinist dumps into ultramodern metropolises - the change is spreading in the countryside as well, starting from the affluent East Coast and working its way up the rivers, up the hills.

But unstable factors remain. Government-owned businesses were sold off to individuals, and millions - perhaps tens of millions, were laid off. Perhaps 150 million peasants are roaming into the cities looking for work. Not to mention the Falun Gong, which has challenged the government's doctrine with its own fanaticism and coherence. China fears it as Rome feared Christianity.

Let's go back to June 4, 1989. Let's say the army mutinied. Let's say China's leaders were marched out like Ceausescu and shot. Let's say China turned into a democracy overnight.

The government-owned businesses would have collapsed in the next week. 200 million workers would find themselves without any form of living. The currency would have collapsed. The peasantry would be in uproar as the economy unraveled and deprived them of their only source of income. A whopping 1 billion people would be in uproar in China.

As regionalistic and religious movements seize the frenzies of people in a power vacuum, China breaks down into a confused mass of civil war. Keep in mind that China has nuclear missiles locked away in army bases - armies that are now engaged in confused fighting with each other.

This is not an impossible scenario. It would have been inevitable. China is too big, and the disparity between rich and poor is too great. There are too many underground movements, too many systemic problems. National collapses has brought China to its knees before, and has ended the golden ages of the Han, Tang, Song, and Ming. Such a collapse pushed Mao into power in the first place. Even today, Indonesia has yet to recover from its own disintegration. China has survived by perfecting the art of bureaucracy, meritocracy and technocracy -- and continues to do so. As I stood beneath the Oriental Pearl Tower and Jinmao building in Shanghai, and looked upon the geometric, futuristic skyscrapers, the lapping waters of the Huangpu River and the glittering metropolis built metaphorically overnight, I can only painfully remember that all this was paid with blood.

And it's the ultimate experience of being Chinese, the experience of being all too painfully aware of the contradictions and dilemmas of politics that caused me to form my points about America. America will go into Iraq and kill civilians. They will bomb bridges clogged by refugees. They will misread maps and blow up hospitals, or schools, instead of a missile silo. They will destroy any semblance of the Iraqi economy and put the lives of millions of Iraqis on arrest for a decade. There will be no democracy in Iraq for a long time. And the world will benefit from it, since the world can continue in its painful grindings that allow some people to eat and prevent nukes from flying. This is how civilization is sustained.

This is the Pax Americana.

[DanS]

the result of a fully democratic Korea from the moment of reunification

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. A short special administration of 3-5 years or so to make sure that the trains run on time, everybody's fed and in education. Then a transitional federation.

American occupation of Japan was ~7 years. And that included writing a new constitution and other items. NK can adopt SK's political structure over time with the transitional federation.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
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.

Don't forget how ROK's democracy came about. In fact, Kim was the first democratically elected president, yet you are happy with it. So why can't you give DPRK 50 years to get its economy going? Why the difference in measurement?

[DanS]

Why the difference in measurement?

There's no difference in my measurement. If I had my druthers, SK would have become a democracy long before.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
the result of a fully democratic Korea from the moment of reunification

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. A short special administration of 3-5 years or so to make sure that the trains run on time, everybody's fed and in education. Then a transitional federation.

American occupation of Japan was ~7 years. And that included writing a new constitution and other items. NK can adopt SK's political structure over time with the transitional federation.

There is no comparison between Japan then and NK now. Japan might have been a bombed-out shell, but it had everything necessary to rebuild a democratic, affluent nation: an educated, politically-minded population; entrepreneurship; talent; experience. Indeed they rebuilt Japan, and the Germans rebuilt Germany; and the Russians will soon rebuild Russia.

But NK has none of these things. The people are closed to the outside world; they are poor; they are angry; they are confused. This is a population ripe for a demagogue to take over and manipulate; ripe for civil unrest, riots, civil war.

Of course, all this can change. Countries have been transformed before. SK went through the same process in less than 20 years. But SK did it under authoritarianism, an authoritarianism that provided the environment necessary for growth and then gave way as the nation became increasingly enlightened and ready for self-determination. This is how the real world works.

There's no difference in my measurement. If I had my druthers, SK would have become a democracy long before.

Depends on how long before. Long enough, and SK would have become a bit more like Myanmar or East Timor.

[DanS]

an authoritarianism that provided the environment necessary for growth

Again, "necessary" doesn't compute in my model of the world. We know what it will entail for NK and I don't want any part of it.

This is a population ripe for a demagogue to take over and manipulate; ripe for civil unrest, riots, civil war.

It's also ripe for reunification, which we should do everything in our power to encourage on a swift basis, under the able administration of SK.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
an authoritarianism that provided the environment necessary for growth

Again, "necessary" doesn't compute in my model of the world. We know what it will entail for NK and I don't want any part of it.

Well then, your model of the world fails to match the real world.

The current dictatorship is indeed messing up NK badly, but the "solution" you propose won't make the situation remotely better.

This is a population ripe for a demagogue to take over and manipulate; ripe for civil unrest, riots, civil war.

It's also ripe for reunification, which we should do everything in our power to encourage on a swift basis, under the able administration of SK.

"Reunification" is meaningless without actual, tangible, real things like "happiness", "higher living standards", "social stability", and "economic independence" etc.

[DanS]

Well then, your model of the world fails to match the real world.

[ranskaldan]

?????

[DanS]

Another story from the American camp about China's reluctance to pressure NK. An implied threat to China that SK, Japan, and even Taiwan could go nuclear...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Feb3.html

[Velociryx]

....and by "go nuclear" I'm guessin' the article didn't mean that they'd be the ones decorated with pretty mushroom clouds above their cities, eh?

-=Vel=-

[DanS]

Not sure if I understand the question. By "go nuclear" I mean that they would openly acquire nuclear weapons.

[Arrian]

That would consitute openly forsaking non-proliferation. That's fighting fire with fire. Or Mushrooms with Mushrooms, as it were.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

I knew what you meant...

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Arrian!

-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
It's also ripe for reunification, which we should do everything in our power to encourage on a swift basis, under the able administration of SK.

Consider the German reunification and what it did to Germany. More than a decade later the country is just recovering from the huge burden of pulling up the East. Now, East Germany was a lot more affluent than DPRK now, and West Germany was on par with the ROK now if not better economically.

That's why the RoK rightfully wants the DPRK to develop further economically before entertaining reunification.

[DanS]

Here's another article about China's apparent inaction on this issue...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Feb7.html

The US is becoming very direct in its criticism of China's "schizophrenia" on this issue. Bush, Powell, and Armitage have talked about it publically. China needs to decide whether or not it wants a nuclearized (and missile shielded) SK and Japan and then act accordingly wrt NK.

Powell noted that Jiang has said Chinese policy is not to accept the nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. "If that is the Chinese position -- and it is -- then they have something of a responsibility and obligation to play a role in finding a way forward and not simply saying the United States has to solve this by talking directly," Powell said.

One official said China appears incapable of thinking or acting strategically, since it has no equivalent of the National Security Council and an extremely cumbersome bureaucracy. Second, he said, the Chinese want to keep North Korea propped up to prevent a refugee crisis or reunification, but at the same time do not want to harm its relationship with the United States. The result, he said, is inaction.

And here's another article suggesting that total cash payments for the Kim - Kim meeting inaugurating the sunshine policy was $1 billion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Feb7.html

[Urban Ranger]

Just read something in the local newspapers but couldn't find any cite on the Web so far. The gist of it is the younger generation in RoK thinks it is more dangerous to let DPRK to implode than to let it having nuclear weapons.