More from Korea

[Zep]

So let me see if I understand you correctly:

You don't expect sensible negotiating attitudes from North Korea (first paragraph), but we should use our diplomacy and patience on them (second paragraph).

Me confused. Please explain.

I would have thought the answer was fairly obvious right there in your appraisal: They are Korean, with a mindset quite different from yours, so you can't expect them to respond as you would to the same negotiating overtures and threats. "Saving face", both individually and nationally, means something to them; it's not a meaningless caricature.

I love your proposed solution about how we should give them "room to move"..."in the direction you want them to go."

What on Earth makes you believe they have the slightest desire to move "in the direction you want them to go"? Has Pyongynag ever "moved in the direction you want them to go"?

Thanks for the vote of recognition - I'll treasure that.

The answer lies, I expect, in what result you would see as desirable and realistically achievable. That the ruling family should pack up and leave for Antarctica, and that Nth Korea magically become a democratic republic in the image of the USA, is not likely to be realistic by any measure.

Are you suggesting we just let them do whatever they want and make nice soothing noises to them and they'll eventually realize, like that little 5-year-old girl who was smacking her teachers around while they tried to make sure she didn't hurt anyone, that it would be best if they stop being such a bad little country?

Oh, wait, they finally had to call the cops on the little girl and put her in handcuffs. What makes you think NK is any different?

Pointless (and completely erroneous) diversion of argument noted. Also, you are heading down a slippery slope logical fallacy again by voicing a solution that I did not advocate.

Are you seriously suggesting that if we make nice soothing noises to them, they'll stop calling the U.S. all kinds of strange ugly names and will stop developing their missiles and stop developing nuclear weapons and stop shipping weapons parts to terrorist countries?

If so, can I get a prescription for whatever hallucinogens you're taking? They sound wonderful.

I'm seriously suggesting that you look beyond and behind the strange ugly name-calling and try to figure out why it is happening. Unless, of course, strange ugly name-calling is all you really think is important in life...as per your last paragraph...

 

[headscratcher4]

Reading a recently released book about North Korea and the Kim’s, a high-level defector (in the 90’s) made an interesting observation about the way that the West and S. Korea don’t get the situation in the North…and, consequently, will always fail at negotiations. His point was that they’ve nothing to loose, whereas the U.S., Japan and South Korea in particular, have everything to loose. For the average northerner, even those able to harbor resentment against the regime (if they can’t get out through China), they believe that war will only help their situation….not only do they think they will win (because they’ve been brain-washed to that effect), but they also believe that it is a patriotic duty to die for the unification of the country. Also, clearly, they believe that they certainly won’t be worse off if they go to war…For Kim, it is, so the defector suggests, a matter of personal salvation. Kim wants the regime (and his one-man state) to be legitimized and to believe that regime-change will not be forced from the outside (believing as he must, that there is no real dissent allowed inside – ‘cause he’s had them all shot, starved, tortured, etc.).

My point here, when thinking about what you do with N. Korea, is that it is critical that you know what the stakes are for the other side. Yes, they care about getting rice and oil…but they don’t have it now and the regime has lasted 50 years…it would be a bonus, but the defector believes that the regime is betting that it can survive without…its doing so. It isn’t a fun place to live, but with the famine and fall of all of its international support networks in the former soviet bloc countries, the regime remains.

I don’t know what the solution is. The defector suggested that the North really wants to be recognized and the regime legitimized by that recognition. Nuclear weapons is a way to force that recognitions…as I noted earlier, they’ve got every one in a tizzy about how to deal with them, how to get the to the table, how to trust them, etc. But, I guess the thing I do buy of this analysis, is that the regime is not afraid of internal collapse, per se. And, so long as we see the solution in terms of sanctions for action believing that they need something from us to save the regime, we are perhaps blinding ourselves. I note, they’ve built a nuclear weapon (a sophisticated device by any measure, assuming it works) while millions have starved and the economy has collapsed…the defector may be on to something.

 

[Zep]

Thank you, headscratcher4. I have learned something.

There you go, BPSCG. A little understanding of the situation from the other guy's perspective helps put things in a somewhat different light. Doesn't make him any more palatable, but at least more understood, possibly.

 

[headscratcher4]

The book, btw, which is very interesting and very depressing is:

Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader : North Korea and the Kim Dynasty by Bradley K. Martin

Martin is a reporter who travelled to the North on a number of occasions over the years and who has extensively interviewed defectors and analysists. I'm about half-way through, but the combination of Korean history, culture, patriotism, etc. seems to suggest that there is little to undermine the regime from the inside (though Jong-il is not his father). Indeed, for all of the lies Kim il-Sung told about himself, he is seen (and was) a legitimate patriot who struggled against the Japanese and foriegn domination (even if he wasn't the center of the struggle). I note also, as horrible as Stalin and Mao were, there are people who still miss them, and the Kims seem to be something like that. It is a religion and attacking religion on the baiss of thinking that people will be rational doesn't always fare too well.

Anyway, I highly recommend this book if you are interested in North Korea...but I don't think you'll have any better idea about what the right course of action is regarding the North.

 

[headscratcher4]

P.S. About the biggest lie perpetrated by the Kims is, of course, that the US and South Korea started the Korean war. Everyone in North Korea knows that is the truth. SO, maybe rather than struggle over the threat of nuclear weapons, the negotiation point should be this: we will recognize North Korea and its regime if North Korea admits publically IN NORTH KOREA that it started the war....won't happen, but it is the kind of thing that the North Demands all the time...note the Pueblo incident where they captured a US boat on the high seas and demanded (and got, because we knew it and the world knew it to be a lie) that the US apologize in writing and admit that it was spying in North Korean waters...

 

[Rob Lister]

Reading a recently released book about North Korea...

That was a really great post. It might take me days to digest it. I'd probably read the book if it were free (I'm not interested enough in the NK problem to put down money to better understand...but judging from your post, perhaps I should be)

Hoping to read more of your insight and opinion on this matter...for example, do you think the Bush Admin. is approching this the right way...etc.

 

[BPSCG]

I would have thought the answer was fairly obvious right there in your appraisal: They are Korean, with a mindset quite different from yours, so you can't expect them to respond as you would to the same negotiating overtures and threats. "Saving face", both individually and nationally, means something to them; it's not a meaningless caricature.

If "saving face" is so important to them, why do I find the following quotes from their official news site, all from April 29, the date it was last updated?

They expressed anger at the Japanese government impudently insisting on its claim to territory of other countries while keeping visits to the "Yasukuni Shrine", an insult to victims.

Japanese militarists have openly revealed the militarist nature and entered the stage of carrying into practice the reinforcement of its aggression armed forces and preemptive attack, getting quite outspoken in advocating them

The main point of the increase of the aggression forces by the Japanese militarists is to modernize them...

Japanese reactionaries have flung open the door of their overseas military operations.

militarist forces of Japan do not hesitate to commit provocations aimed at territorial expansion.

Japan today has thrown away the veil of "pacifist state" and appeared on the scene as a dangerous aggressive state...

The Japanese reactionaries, too, are stepping up their moves for revival of militarism and reinvasion.

Lurking behind it is a sinister plot of the Japanese reactionaries to accelerate its militarization in a bid to realize its wild ambition for staging a comeback to Korea and the rest of Asia at any cost, backed by the U.S.

And that's just what they have to say about Japan.

So one shouldn't demand that NK behave themselves, because that is a grave provocation that makes them lose face. But none of the above makes Japan lose face. Is that correct?

The answer lies, I expect, in what result you would see as desirable and realistically achievable. That the ruling family should pack up and leave for Antarctica, and that Nth Korea magically become a democratic republic in the image of the USA, is not likely to be realistic by any measure.

It certainly won't happen as long as we keep "negotiating" with them. Or do you think that NK has become less oppressive to its people, more open, and more free in the half-century since the armistice?

Pointless (and completely erroneous) diversion of argument noted. Also, you are heading down a slippery slope logical fallacy again by voicing a solution that I did not advocate.

Then by all means, let us hear your solution. I've not yet seen anything concrete beyond, "We should not make them lose face."

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Ed:

The essential difference is that the persons that you are dealing with have had force applied, ie. they are under your control. How do you think your observations would apply if said people had an army behind them that would do their bidding? Suppose they had the option of disobeying and beating you up to boot? Would reason work then?

First, it is not always true that they are under my control. Or at least it is not always true that the individual beleives he is under my control.

Second, many have felt that they have the option of disobeying and beating me up. (It is sometimes the case where I make it clear that this most certainly is an option, but I usually outline the consequences, too.)

Third, while I have no experience negotiating at a level equivalent to what is being discussed here, I do have fairly extensive international experience, including what amounted to "negotiations" with Kurdish and Iraqi ministers. I found that my experience at the individual level served me well.

Fourth, while I certainly have opinions on North Korea, they are no better informed (and probably less informed) than some of the other posters here, so I'm not really commenting on that. My comments were directly aimed at BPSCG's question which was about dealing with individual "lunatics" etc.

I'll finish with an anecdote from years ago when I was the Security Manager at a hospital in Kentucky. We were the delivery point for most of central Kentucky's law enforcement agencies when they picked up MIW's (Mental Inquest Warrants -- someone whose behavior indicated possible mental illness such that the person was a danger to themselves or someone else and required professional evaluation). Lots of fun stories from there.

One day they brought in a fairly large man acting irrationally. I was first there and so was doing the in-processing. My shift leader was nearby.

The in-processing went very poorly. No matter the tack I tried, the man resisted me, refused to cooperate, threatened me, and continued to escalate. Eventually he said something along the lines of "You know why I don't like you? Because you're wearing a f***ing tie! That's why. People who wear f***ing ties are g**d*** lying b*******. You think your friends can stop before I beat the crap out of you? No way."

Before I could say anything, my shift leader (who was not wearing a tie but was instead wearing the security uniform) stepped over, pulled me out of my chair and sat down in my place.. He said "Finally! Somebody else who sees it. He's a f***ing jerk, man! A f***ing jerk!"

I'm not stupid, so I played along and walked around the corner (I stayed there in case it got physical, but I was sure to remain out of sight).

My shift leader and the MIW spent about five minutes bad-mouthing me (which I'm sure was great fun for my shift leader). Ultimately, the in-processing was done without incident.

What my shift leader did was perfectly appropriate and we laughed quite a bit afterwards. Some of the newer security officers who had witnessed this were surprised at first that I wasn't mad and didn't fire the shift leader. They eventually learned why I didn't.

Anyway, it was negotiation of a sort. Negotiation in which force, though obviously a possibility, was of no concern to the MIW. Success rested on recognizing what mattered to him and using that. My shift leader did exactly that.

I'll shut up now.

 

[headscratcher4]

Personally, I'm conflicted about the Bush Administration on this topic. Certainly, I am no fan of Bush (as anyone who reads my posts knows). But, I don't have a clue didn’t work about what to do with North Korea. The Clinton policy of some engagement seemed to work…yet, they went ahead and continued their nuclear development, so it didn’t work. The Bush hard-line is morally satisfying, but they’ve now got the bomb (so they claim). I don’t think the hard line will bring them down (in this, I agree with the defector, they’ve been too isolated from the truth for too long).

I actually think that the demand for multi-party talks is critical and right. China, Japan, Russia and South Korea all have a stake in this. In that I think Bush is right. I think that China is the ultimate key. China doesn’t want a war in the peninsula (it will destroy too many markets it wants and too much trade with the prosperous south). China will not support the North if it invaded the South again. Nor, I think, do they really want a troubled nuclear power in the peninsula. At the same time, they want to tweak the US and keep us off-our game in Asia, and this is a sure way to do it. Yet, they also have to worry about a growing refugee problem. At some point, I think, China will have to come to grips with the disaster that may be brewing in North Korea for its own economic and defense purposes. But this may take a lot longer than the US has the patience for.

I guess, I would seriously consider recognizing the regime (we’ve recognized other brutal, murderous regimes before…including Stalin’s Soviet Union). Having an actual diplomatic presence in Pyongyang and in the country could begin to make a difference….the regime would have to begin changing some of its rhetoric against the US and that could start chinks in the armor. But, if the argument is that the regime only seeks salvation and legitimacy, why not give it to them? The problem, it seems to me, for the regime is that the more it opens to the world, the less internal legitimacy it will have. If it sends more diplomats, traders, students etc. outside of the country because it is less diplomatically isolated (and it likely will because it is so far behind in everything but nuclear weapons development), those people will begin, I think, to question one-man rule, etc. It is a long shot, but I think (and this is no real reflection on the Bush stance) that engagement, full and total, might be a surprising alternative that could have serious consequences for the regime (sort of the Chinese saying: be careful what you wish for, you might get it). I think that engagement could put the regime under far more pressure than isolation (which, I noted above, it is used to and so far weathered).

For example, it is arguable that one of the reasons Kim has not returned the visit of the South Korean President with a visit to Seoul is that N.Korean TV would have to show Kim and people might catch a glimpses of how prosperous the South has become (thus putting to lies the North’s propaganda). I don’t think Kim will ever go to Seoul, he can’t risk it and maintain the fiction of the North’s political, economic or even military superiority. So, invite him again and again…that kind of thing…Just thinking here with no real idea what to do…

 

[Rob Lister]

First, it is not always true...

Wow. Yet another great post on a thread for which I thought had few prospects. I gotta start clicking more.

 

[Zep]

If "saving face" is so important to them, why do I find the following quotes from their official news site, all from April 29, the date it was last updated?

[snip]

And that's just what they have to say about Japan.

So one shouldn't demand that NK behave themselves, because that is a grave provocation that makes them lose face. But none of the above makes Japan lose face. Is that correct?

Such jabs as you list do not make Japan lose face at all. They are seen and understood by Japan as the blatant provocations they are. In fact, Japan would lose face if they responded to them.

I've seen some amazing things come out of NK's news agencies over the years that would put Jerry Springer's and Ricky Lake's guests to shame in the blatant utter bullsh1tting department. Have done since the mid-70's when ol' Kim Il Sung was the top dog. So taking NK at face value is always likely to be an exercise in futility, not to mention stupidity.

It certainly won't happen as long as we keep "negotiating" with them. Or do you think that NK has become less oppressive to its people, more open, and more free in the half-century since the armistice?

Would you rather people went back to shooting and killing and invading each other like before the armistice? And do I detect that you somehow equate "negotiation" with "surrender"?

Then by all means, let us hear your solution. I've not yet seen anything concrete beyond, "We should not make them lose face."

I did already say I had no specific solutions, so asking me to invent one or two now is verging on ridiculous. What I am merely suggesting is to ignore the surface appearances and go to the core problems and issues when negotiating diplomatically. As demonstrated above, these two rarely match...

[edit: spel]

 

[Hutch]

You forget (4) allow human rights and get all the food and oil they want.

I think that was adequately covered under option number 1 of my post. Has any tyrant survived in power once he has granted freedoms, even limited, to his people? You might point at Gorbachev, but as a tyrant he's not in the same league with Kim. I give Kim (or his handlers) enough credit to know that freedoms and open elections mean his rapid fall from power--if he escapes with his life.

BTW, what is it with some of you people that makes you apologize that a tyrant is okay, as long as his country is "stable"? Tyrannies are by their nature stable because they've eliminated the opposition; in fact, the better a tyranny is at slaughtering the opposition, the more stable it is. Cuba and NK are both "stable"; at the opposite extreme is Italy, which seems to have a new government every six months or so. Is "stable" Cuba or "stable" NK preferable to "unstable" Italy? Democratic governments are inherently unstable because they have to take into account the will of their people or risk being thrown out of power. Tyranical governments are stable because they don't give a pinch of owl droppings what their people think - they just murder the ones who think wrong.

I believe the question of 'stable' or 'unstable' has mostly been directed at the person of Kim, but I see from my prior comments where you are coming from. I would modify that to note that tyrannies are, in the long run, inherently unstable since there is no clear leadership changes, or in the case of heriditary monarchies, a run of poor kings can lead to strong nobles usurping the throne. Democracies, for the reasons you cite, are often more stable because they have mechanisms to accomodate the twists and turns (not always easily--France is on the Fifth Republic now, IIRC).

I think I might have done better in saying "cutting off food/oil/etc. might (in Kim's eyes) make him unable to support the military/bureaucratic complex his power relies on, which could lead to his removal from power by said complex.

Sure he would. if the option is stated to him explicitly

I must need fear that I do not share your optomism

]He sees that tyrannies often need democracies more than democracies need tyrannies, and that making them pay an exorbitant price for what they need from democracies is the way to turn them into democracies themselves. That exorbitant price is human freedom. Human freedom is like a highly-addictive drug; people love it, and once they've had a taste, won't ever be truly happy unless they can get a lot of it. It's a poison pill for a tyranny, but if NK wants food and oil, we should make them swallow it.

And if they spit it up in our face and pick up a knife and start slashing the crowd? Sure, we'll shoot them, but how many get stabbed?

It seems the disease and the cure are both fraught with risks of massive loss of life. IMHO, of course.

 

[Garrette]

I second headscratcher's proposal.

I have long been of the opinion that engagement is far more effective than non-engagement. I think the Cuban embargo is ludicrous and counter-productive. Lifting it thirty years ago may well have resulted in Castro's downfall. It also might not have but would at least have brought us closer together both economically and culturally. Always a good thing when one is otherwise concerned about hostilities.

 

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Hutch "cutting off food/oil/etc. might (in Kim's eyes) make him unable to support the military/bureaucratic complex his power relies on, which could lead to his removal from power by said complex.

[/B]

I would only restate a point I made above...nothing in the 50 years of terror, depravation, starvation and repression has undermined the ability of Kim to build and maintain his military...indeed, with all of the issolation and sanctions, he's even built (so he claims) a bomb. Why, and I ask in real interest, not rhetorically or sarcastically, would anything we are doing now change that and undermine the military? For 50 years the regime has survived things that have caused others to fall...there is nothing to indicate that the regime is unstable or teetering on the edge. In short, how much worse can we make it? We don't trade, we don't engage, we dissuade others from trading and engaging, we issolate, and they still march on (like a hearty virus). In short, hoping for the regime's collapse because of depravation and issolation seems niave given the history...

 

[headscratcher4]

I second headscratcher's proposal.

I have long been of the opinion that engagement is far more effective than non-engagement. I think the Cuban embargo is ludicrous and counter-productive. Lifting it thirty years ago may well have resulted in Castro's downfall. It also might not have but would at least have brought us closer together both economically and culturally. Always a good thing when one is otherwise concerned about hostilities.

I agree completely, I am convinced that in the case of Cuba, at least, Castro's regime would crumble within three years of opening up relations and flooding the island with American tourists and dollars....

 

[Cleon]

I think that was adequately covered under option number 1 of my post. Has any tyrant survived in power once he has granted freedoms, even limited, to his people? You might point at Gorbachev, but as a tyrant he's not in the same league with Kim.

Uh, and unless I missed a big memo somewhere, Gorbachev didn't stay in power, kinda proving your point.

 

[BPSCG]

I second headscratcher's proposal.

I have long been of the opinion that engagement is far more effective than non-engagement. I think the Cuban embargo is ludicrous and counter-productive. Lifting it thirty years ago may well have resulted in Castro's downfall. It also might not have but would at least have brought us closer together both economically and culturally. Always a good thing when one is otherwise concerned about hostilities.

Hey, I'm fine with that.

Offer Castro the same deal. The more human rights he recognizes and allows, the more food and oil he gets. Who could have a problem with that?

 

[gnome]

So the solution is to give him the choice of human rights for his people or cut him off completely, if I read you right.

Well, I don't read his suggestion as an all or nothing bit... remember he said, (paraphrased) "the more freedoms you allow your people, the more aid you'll receive".

This doesn't mean he has to resign immediately and throw an election. But he at least needs to begin the work of changing his tyranny to a republic. If I was the President, I'd probably waive the right to try him for war crimes, if he was cooperative enough in a transition such as this. Not perfectly just, but worth it.

 

[gnome]

Uh, and unless I missed a big memo somewhere, Gorbachev didn't stay in power, kinda proving your point.

But he did SURVIVE the transition, and as far as I know lives comfortably today, immortalized in history as a liberator rather than a tyrant, though I see him as having been both during his career.