Should We Pay More Attention to North Korea?
To many aspiring American leaders, World War II was the great war that shaped an entire generation, and Vietnam was the great war that tore an entire generation into two. Sandwiched in the middle of the two is the "forgotten war" that many who shape our national culture don't seem to remember save as a historical accident and the "setting of the precedent" of the modus operandi of the Cold War. It is now fashionable for historians to decry the stupidity of massive military involvement in Vietnam and its lasting repercussions. Those who made the decision to commit America to the war in Vietnam did so in order to avoid the awkward scenario of "a house divided against itself" in Korea. Before we condemn them, it is important to remember that while the Soviet Union no longer exists, Japan and Germany are now our allies, and Vietnam seems most preoccupied with trade and investment from the U.S., the Korean War is still going on today: and all the principal players--China, Russia, North and South Korea--play much the same roles today they did sixty years ago. Maybe the architects of Vietnam policy were initially wiser than we give them credit for: they tried to avoid stalemates that would cause problems for decades to come.
North Korea seems to me to be the most dangerous nation on the planet. We've had the 2009 uprisings in Iran and the volatile and perhaps ultimately destructive Arab Spring. But I have not heard of anything in Pyongyang close to the unrest expected in any nation when a deceased ruler bequeaths the country to his son like a fiefdom and expects the people to submit accordingly. This means at least one of three things:
1. North Korea is the most effective brainwashing totalitarian state in the world; it alone has managed to completely squash dissent within the country.
2. North Korea's people are immersed enough in the cult of Kim Jong-il and the future of the nation's military ambitions that they don't mind whatever he and his son do to them.
3. North Korea is protected well enough by powerful actors on the world stage that its rulers can get away with anything.
This is the most militarized nation in the world, and it is a nation with nukes. And the son of the dictator is going to take over power, and protest has effectively either been squelched, hidden, or nonexistent in the era of social media and unrest when no takeable dictatorship can survive. This "success" is remarkable, even among totalitarian states. How is this not the most effective, dangerous hostile regime in the world?
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Nov '11
Re: Should We Pay More Attention to North Korea?
They say that where there's a will, there's a way. The problem in North Korea is that there isn't a will. People don't seek freedom unless they have been exposed to the idea of freedom. The North Koreans have never been free, they don't have a history that includes Athenian democracy, or Roman republicanism, or Protestant individualism. So long as North Koreans don't learn about freedom from the outside world, I see no reason why they wouldn't go generations under autocratic rule without figuring it out. It took us centuries.
Oct '10
Re: Should We Pay More Attention to North Korea?
The fissure will come amongst the leadership group, not bottom-up from the malnourished masses. Abstractions like "freedom" will have no part; power and privileges within the ruling clique are at issue. The internecine struggle for preeminence will become bloody, which China will see as a threat to its interests and maneuver to suppress by essentially picking the winners. But in the meantime the gossamer net that keeps the system functioning will disintegrate and hungry mobs will start streaming north and south. They literally will have nothing to lose—starve in place or rebel with your feet. Mass atrocities will ensue as the ruling clique starts to figure out they are at the end of the rope. At that point, PRC will cut a reunification deal with South Korea, one that stops the human flow into China in return for PRC financial and logistics support in supplying what will essentially become the world’s largest refugee camp.
Oct '10
Re: Should We Pay More Attention to North Korea?
Vasant Ramachandran:
This is the most militarized nation in the world, and it is a nation with nukes. And the son of the dictator is going to take over power, and protest has effectively either been squelched, hidden, or nonexistent in the era of social media and unrest when no takeable dictatorship can survive. This "success" is remarkable, even among totalitarian states. How is this not the most effective, dangerous hostile regime in the world?
Its military equipment is largely ancient and unreliable. The North can cause great damage, but it can't prevail. OK, it's "effective" in suppressing every semblance of human growth and economic development. But this is not a sustainable model into the third generation of leadership. There is not one example in human history of totalitarian rule surviving after the third generation assumes power. The North Korean clock is running out and the savvy amongst the dynastic leadership clique are already aware of it and maneuvering to forestall it, even as we blog. They only know one solution, however: even tighter, more centralized, more personalized control, which is why they are or soon will be at each other’s throats.
Feb '11
Re: Should We Pay More Attention to North Korea?
Vasant Ramachandran:
This is the most militarized nation in the world, and it is a nation with nukes. And the son of the dictator is going to take over power, and protest has effectively either been squelched, hidden, or nonexistent in the era of social media and unrest when no takeable dictatorship can survive. This "success" is remarkable, even among totalitarian states. How is this not the most effective, dangerous hostile regime in the world? ·
And the new guy is young enough that he could be on the stage for fifty-sixty years.
Oct '10
Re: Should We Pay More Attention to North Korea?
Israel P.
And the new guy is young enough that he could be on the stage for fifty-sixty years.
I doubt he'll last 50 months. He may be around, but he won't be "on the stage" in the sense of 'large and in charge'. He won't be able to command the allegiance of the 50 to 70 year old power barons, who instead will start fighting over who controls the DPRK carcass. Perhaps they'll miscalculate and force the rest of the world to knock them down. More likely, they'll be pressured to come to heel by the PRC after the situation gets bloody and the rest of the world refuses to stand-by as their citizen-prisoners starve, revolt, get slaughtered. BTW - Obama's reelection team is hoping the DPRK caca hits the fan around about October 2012.
Dec '11
Re: Should We Pay More Attention to North Korea?
HVTs
I doubt he'll last 50 months. He may be around, but he won't be "on the stage" in the sense of 'large and in charge'. He won't be able to command the allegiance of the 50 to 70 year old power barons, who instead will start fighting over who controls the DPRK carcass. Perhaps they'll miscalculate and force the rest of the world to knock them down. More likely, they'll be pressured to come to heel by the PRC after the situation gets bloody and the rest of the world refuses to stand-by as their citizen-prisoners starve, revolt, get slaughtered. BTW - Obama's reelection team is hoping the DPRK caca hits the fan around about October 2012. · Dec 20 at 4:48am
I imagine that what happens is similar Imperial Japan around the 1940's. He will be a figure head and the top generals will have all of the actual power(I think this because from everything I've heard it would probably be easier for those at the top with ability to control him than deal with any fallout of eliminating him).
Oct '10
Re: Should We Pay More Attention to North Korea?
Translucent
I imagine that what happens is similar Imperial Japan around the 1940's. He will be a figure head and the top generals will have all of the actual power(I think this because from everything I've heard it would probably be easier for those at the top with ability to control him than deal with any fallout of eliminating him). · Dec 20 at 11:01am
Hours before the Emperor publicly announced Japan was going to accept defeat there was an attempted coup by his palace guard---diehards convinced the Emperor was being led to do so by those Generals. The coup failed, obviously. But your analogy is apt for this transition period. Beyond that, I don't see the newest Kim transitioning to secular head of state.