The latest edition of Time Asia ran two piece on North Korea — actually, one on North Korea and one on South Korean views of the nuclear issue — that you may find of interest.
The first is a review of Jasper Becker’s Rogue Regime: Kim Jong Il and the Looming Threat of North Korea. Read it on your own, but here’s a snippet:
Kim Jong Il’s idiosyncrasies can overshadow his atrociousness. With his bouffant hair, platform shoes, “pleasure groups” of attractive young women, and lusty appetite for fine wine and sushi, the North Korean dictator sometimes comes across more like a movie villain than a true menace. In Rogue Regime: Kim Jong Il and the Looming Threat of North Korea, veteran journalist Jasper Becker dutifully recounts the strange tales of Kim’s extravagance. But the author is less concerned with the Dear Leader’s personality quirks than with the murder and misery under Kim’s brutal rule. To Becker, Kim Jong Il is not a cartoonish Dr. Evil–he’s just evil.
That’s an assessment he shares with the U.S. President. “After a succession of statesmen–Jiang Zemin, Vladimir Putin, Kim Dae Jung, Sweden’s Goran Persson, Madeleine Albright–have returned home to tell us how rational, well informed, witty, charming, and deeply popular Kim Jong Il is, President Bush’s judgment that Kim is loathsome seems the only honest and truthful one,” Becker writes. He measures Kim’s odiousness not just in nuclear weapons but in corpses. Kim and his father, Kim Il Sung, are responsible for the deaths of millions of North Koreans, he estimates, including as many as 1 million political prisoners and 3 million in a 1990s famine driven by Kim’s failed policies, which Becker calls “an unparalleled and monstrous crime.”
According to the Time review, Becker goes on to pretty much skewer everyone involved with North Korea — China, South Korea, the UN — although apparently he himself admits that the only way to change things in the North is to remove Kim from power, and that’s much more easily said than done.
The other piece deals with the South Korean public’s seeming unconcern for the North Korean nuclear issue. As always, read it on your own, but here’s a sample of what you’re in for:
Kim’s faith in the good intentions of his heavily armed neighbor is prevalent throughout most of South Korea. It’s a belief that seemingly cannot be shaken even as the North Korea nuclear crisis worsens. Pyongyang is refusing to return to six-party negotiations with the U.S., South Korea, China, Japan and Russia on dismantling its nuclear program, and is sticking instead to its familiar diplomatic tactics of ambiguity and provocation. Last week, North Korea jangled nerves around the region again by announcing it had unloaded 8,000 fuel rods at its Yongbyon reactor–a step that would allow it to harvest more weapons-grade plutonium for a stockpile already estimated at up to eight weapons. The North lobbed a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan (or East Sea) earlier this month. And U.S. officials have been warning that spy satellites have detected increased activity around a suspicious test facility in the northeast of the country that may presage an underground A-bomb test. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki Moon last week told a local TV news service: “I’m extremely concerned that the situation is getting worse.”
That gloom hasn’t yet filtered down to ordinary South Koreans. And the startling disconnect between official views of the danger that Kim Jong Il’s despotic government poses to the world and the sanguine attitudes of South Korean citizens is making it desperately hard for diplomats from Washington and Seoul to forge a common strategy for defusing the crisis. After years of regarding North Koreans as bitter enemies, the prosperous, democratic South now holds a benign view of the hunger-wracked police state. To southerners, North Koreans may be brothers from another planet (as the International Crisis Group put it), but they are brothers just the same, impoverished relations deserving help, not international censure and isolation. Many South Koreans–including some government officials–are more worried that Washington could respond to a Pyongyang provocation with military action, plunging the peninsula into war. From South Korea’s perspective, “they have two black boxes to deal with–the North Koreans and the U.S. government,” said a Seoul-based Western diplomat. Which box is blacker? According to a poll published last week by the Munhwa Ilbo daily and the Korea Society Opinion Institute, nearly one in two South Koreans say they would support North Korea if the U.S. launches a military strike without the South’s consent. In a poll conducted last year by Seoul-based Research and Research, 39% of respondents said the biggest threat to South Korean national security was the U.S., while 33% said they feared North Korea the most.
To add something to the piece, there might be another issue involved other than an ethnic nationalism-powered sense of delusion. The fact is that Seoul has been under the threat of imminent destruction by North Korean artillery for quite some time. And while nukes are scary, so are the other weapons of mass destruction — chemical and biological — that North Korea has reportedly been stockpiling for a while. What this means, of course, is that many South Koreans — particularly those in the Seoul area — have been living with the prospect of a very bad death for more than any people should, and given the numerous incidents and crises that have plagued the peninsula since the end of the Korean War, many may simply be desensitized to the threat. That is to say, North Korea has become a part of everyday life, and while nukes may represent a new twist in the equation for the U.S., for Koreans, many of whom are going to die regardless of the nature of the ordinance, North Korean nukes don’t really change things other than possibly make a U.S. attack on North Korea more likely. Of course, the U.S. has its own interests to protect, and I don’t mean to make any prescriptions for U.S. policy here. I simply suggest that living under the very real North Korean gun may lead to very different understanding of where ones interests lay.
(Hat tip to Cathartidae)
48 Comments
Seoul’s nonchalance toward the North Korean nukes no doubt partly derives from the fact that the North’s concentrated conventional capability around the DMZ makes the added nuclear threat redundant to a degree. That is, South Koreans (at least those around Seoul) would die en masse, with or without nuclear weapons, in the event of a second Korean war.
But I wonder if there is not a more sinister rationale for the South Korean nonchalance at work here–a rationale that is seldom explored in the media. Many young Koreans I’ve talked to are not merely unperturbed by the Northern nukes; instead, they positively want the North to make them and keep them. The logic of this position seems that they see both the waning of the U.S. influence in East Asia and the re-unification of the peninsula as inevitable, and the possession of nuclear weapons as both a badge of national prestige as well as a weighty geopolitical chip against China/Japan when those scenarios materialize. Obviously, from this perspective the Northern nukes are considered to be somehow “ours” for South Koreans, and the possibility of its use v. the South most improbable–a fine by-product of DJ/Roh governments’ indoctrination.
Threat fatigue.
I think Marmot and Choe are right. Massive threat and hope for future strength.
I’d also add that I was surprised at how just about every Korean adult takes it for granted war will never happen because the US would surely destroy North Korea.
It was a very different “given” accepted by Koreans than we accepted in the US in the Cold War, at least since the 1970s. We took it for granted nuclear holocaust was going to come after somebody fucked up.
I have heard that same argument, but I don’t think it’s an exclusively leftist position here. I first heard it from an ardent Lee Hoichang supporter.
I also wouldn’t call it a “sinister” idea, but (from such thinkers’ point of view) one of fierce defensiveness (but to the point of being counter-productive, of course).
Sinister would be if there were thoughts of using it on someone else, but in Korea it would be a thought of “ain’t no way they’re going to come in OUR house!”
Yes, I’ve heard the same sentiments a number of times from my students. Many think that it’s ‘no problem’ that the Norks have nukes. Well, if things keep on this way, I expect Japan, Taiwan and others(?) will be nuke not long down the road.
It seems that the world is at a crossroads in terms of nuke proliferation. Either serious steps are taken to try to stop it, or it will soon reach the point where nukes will start popping up in many places because nobody stood up to stop their spread. It seems as though only the US is really putting in any kind of effort to halt nukes (and even that effort seems half-hearted at times)-the Europeans don’t have the military or political will to do anything about it, and many countries like SK don’t seem to care.
Kushibo,
I was deliberately being a bit mischievous when I used the term “sinister,” but perhaps you protest too much. Come on, don’t you think there are South Koreans who are not thrilled at the prospect of aiming nukes toward Japan and flexing some rhetorical muscle (and even more)? A novel that sketched such a scenario was a runaway best-seller in South Korea not long ago (forgot the name but had the Korean national flower in the title; I read both the book and saw the movie–which starred ?™??????œ (which seems to be the only thing I remember).
P.S. Publish your damn “Corea” piece!
snow wrote:
Well, if things keep on this way, I expect Japan, Taiwan and others(?) will be nuke not long down the road.
That’s what I mean by this being counter-productive. Like the far right and how its executing the War on Terror by invading Iraq, there is a lack of considering how the OTHERS will react to what WE do.
It seems that the world is at a crossroads in terms of nuke proliferation. Either serious steps are taken to try to stop it, or it will soon reach the point where nukes will start popping up in many places because nobody stood up to stop their spread. It seems as though only the US is really putting in any kind of effort to halt nukes (and even that effort seems half-hearted at times)-the Europeans don?€™t have the military or political will to do anything about it, and many countries like SK don?€™t seem to care.
I think that part of the problem is that the Bush administration is pushing/encouraging Japan to play a greater military role when the rest of Asia has long felt threatened by a resurgent Japan. If the US wants to prevent a conventional or nuclear arms race in this part of the world, it will have to re-think that position.
Kushibo wrote:
“I think that part of the problem is that the Bush administration is pushing/encouraging Japan to play a greater military role when the rest of Asia has long felt threatened by a resurgent Japan. If the US wants to prevent a conventional or nuclear arms race in this part of the world, it will have to re-think that position.”
On the contrary my friend, I believe playing the “Japan Card” is the only way that the U.S. can alarm China and South Korea into doing anything about the North Korean issue. In fact, the view is quickly gaining in many respectable Republican circles in the U.S: Among those who have voiced this view on record include Charles Krauthammer (perhaps the most influential neoconservative columnist) and R.V. Allen (former Reagan National Security Advisor).
Won Joon Choe wrote:
I was deliberately being a bit mischievous when I used the term ?€œsinister,?€? but perhaps you protest too much. Come on, don?€™t you think there are South Koreans who are not thrilled at the prospect of aiming nukes toward Japan and flexing some rhetorical muscle (and even more)?
I absolutely believe there are some people are thrilled at that.
A novel that sketched such a scenario was a runaway best-seller in South Korea not long ago (forgot the name but had the Korean national flower in the title; I read both the book and saw the movie?€“which starred ?™??????œ (which seems to be the only thing I remember).
Maybe someone needs to write some good fiction about a future world where an ultra-leftist South Korea broke off its alliance with Washington and Tokyo and found itself eventually surrounded by an armed China and a nuclear-tipped Japan because of the chain of events they triggered.
P.S. Publish your damn ?€œCorea?€? piece!
In good time, grasshopper. I just got done with my chem final a few hours ago.
Kushibo, I’d hardly say that it was only the far right who supported Bush’s push into Iraq. Did Bush et al consider how others would react? I expect (hope) they did, but put less weight on the reaction of others and more on how Americans would react. Is this what Roh is doing? In a way, yes, but I just can’t really see the benefits in his government’s approach. At least in Bush’s case, many would argue otherwise.
And I really don’t think that Bush’s pushing of the Japaneses towards re-arming is the main driver at all. I think that if Bush stopped supporting Japan in this, nothing would change in attitudes in SK. Why do you keep trying to pin so much blame on Bush. There are plenty of other players involved, here in East Asia, as well as in the Middle East.
Won Joon Choe wrote:
On the contrary my friend, I believe playing the ?€œJapan Card?€? is the only way that the U.S. can alarm China and South Korea into doing anything about the North Korean issue. In fact, the view is quickly gaining in many respectable Republican circles in the U.S: Among those who have voiced this view on record include Charles Krauthammer (perhaps the most influential neoconservative columnist) and R.V. Allen (former Reagan National Security Advisor).
Playing the Japan card? So waving a lit match over a tinderbox is all a ruse to get China (and South Korea?) to fall in line on North Korea? That’s a very dangerous tactic to be playing.
Couldn’t threats of UN sanctions or even threats of sanctions on China be enough to get China in line?
I don’t think the people who support such a political game really have much of a clue about what fear, animosity, and other emotions are behind views toward Japan, not if they think it can be used as a mere bargaining chip without any repercussions.
Kushibo,
Sanctions on China? Who would support such a measure? Threats are meaningless if the threatened outcome has no possibility of materializing.
Sure, it’s a risky card but I don’t see the U.S. having any other effective card here.
snow: the Europeans don?€™t have the military or political will to do anything about it, and many countries like SK don?€™t seem to care.
I think some Euros see nuclear proliferation as a counterbalance to American power. And both Euros and SK are nonchalant because they see anti-proliferation efforts as something that the US will take care of, risking its blood and treasure to resolve. Why worry when Uncle Sam’s going to pay the price? The main thing is to for them to stay out of it by positioning themselves as neutrals, and to extract as much benefit for themselves as possible.
Think of it as the equivalent of the US pre-emptively attacking Japan and Germany before the Marco Polo Bridge incident and Munich. All of the other powers would have gotten buckets of popcorn and sat down to watch, while denouncing American belligerence. Until the first atomic weapon explodes in Europe or South Korea, American assertiveness in anti-proliferation efforts will be rebuffed, in an attempt to frame the issue as being a dispute between the US and the would-be nuclear power.
This is why, in the long run, proliferation is inevitable. The US will not exclusively bear the burden of these efforts, because the American public will not agree to such a lop-sided bargain, where most of the costs accrue to the US and most of the benefits accrue to foreigners, even as the US is denounced as evil and capricious. Given a lack of nearby traditional enemies, the US is the country least in danger from proliferation, as long as it renounces its “mutual” defense obligations. As long as the US drops the military welfare it is providing to huge regions of the world, few countries will see the US as a potential hostile.* In time, American foreign policy goals will shrink to resemble Canada’s - there’s really no good reason for the US to venture abroad in search of monsters to slay. Let the countries most in danger deal with the thorny issues.
* State Department functionaries will try to stay relevant by insisting that the US continue providing military welfare, much as social workers champion the retention of welfare benefits for able-bodied loafers. But it is time that the US looked after its own interests, rather than the interests of hostile foreign countries.
WJC: Sanctions on China? Who would support such a measure? Threats are meaningless if the threatened outcome has no possibility of materializing.
The US may well impose sanctions on China, but the Chinese will take the hit and continue supplying North Korea. The continued existence of the current North Korean regime is extremely valuable to China as a means of tying down US forces.
Zhang_fei (not a pseudonym I’d use in public debate :)),
I don’t understand how the existence of USFK “ties down” US forces for the benefit of China. It invites the U.S. into their neighborhood!
I hear some folks say that the Chinese want the American presence intact in the Far East to check Japan, but I am not even persuaded by that argument. Wouldn’t you want to be jousting with Japan, rather than the U.S., for suzerainty in East Asia?
snow wrote:
And I really don?€™t think that Bush?€™s pushing of the Japaneses towards re-arming is the main driver at all. I think that if Bush stopped supporting Japan in this, nothing would change in attitudes in SK.
I don’t think it is merely fear of Japan that pushes some Koreans to secretly want North Korea’s nukes (and I have no idea how widespread that idea is), but simply fear of invasion. Right now the former colonizer appears to be going against its pacifist constitution and is flexing its military strength, something which worries countries besides South Korea, so Japan is one big worry. If China started making noise about Kogury?? at a time when North Korea looks like it is teetering, then China would be a big worry again.
In other words, it’s not just about Japan, and the Japan issue is not just Bush’s fault. It’s just as much the LDP’s fault, but Bush is wrong for encouraging that without considering the emotion-driven reactions that will occur. Peace in this part of the world remained for the most part largely because Japan was kept at bay militarily, with the much more benevolent US playing the peacekeeper role. Changing that balance could knock over the whole scale.
Why do you keep trying to pin so much blame on Bush. There are plenty of other players involved, here in East Asia, as well as in the Middle East.
But there aren’t plenty of other players so rashly adding things to the stew. No other players have invaded two countries over the course of two years, no other player has been talking about “regime change” in one of the other players, etc.
Prior to Bush43, most people thought of the US’s role in this region was to be the well-armed peacekeeper. An attack on North Korea was the furthest thing from anyone’s mind (at least, this was true of public perceptions, and they are the ones who vote for the politicians who make the pro-US or pro-China policy).
But then Bush came along and referred to three disparate countries in an axis of evil: Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. As soon as he invaded one, he scared everybody into thinking that an invasion of North Korea was now a realistic possibility. And we all know what would happen to Seoul/Inch’??n/Ky??nggi-do if that were to happen.
It is Bush, not Clinton, not Bush41, not Reagan, who has got a lot of people thinking an attack on the North is possible when they didn’t think so before. That’s the mindset of much of those 39%.
Look at Baduk, who thinks that everything will be okay if we just drop a nuke on Yongbyon. Problem solved, no repercussions, we can all be happy again.
Well, sure, that’s just our nutty old Baduk. But Bush’s people thought that we could march right into Bagdad and everyone would be sticking roses in our rifle barrels. The man who reportedly told fellow conservative Pat Robertson that there wouldn’t be casualties in Gulf War II just might, just might think that things will be easier and a lot less messy if he just sends one missile down that hole… a lot less messy than they actually will be.
And that scares people.
Sanctions on China? Who would support such a measure? Threats are meaningless if the threatened outcome has no possibility of materializing.
Senator Brownback has has threatened to propose sanctions against China.
Sure, it?€™s a risky card but I don?€™t see the U.S. having any other effective card here.
I think the problem here is that the people playing this card don’t fully realize the risks. I don’t think, for starters, that it can alienate allies as well.
Threatening sanctions on China for its role (read the link) would be less risky in terms of creating an arms race. We have to stop giving China the free ride that we have.
Kushibo,
“Everything will be okay if we just drop a nuke on Yongbyon. Problem solved, no repercussions, we can all be happy again.”
You are misquoting me. I think I said it was an option, not the only choice.
However, I do think it is a viable option. It is possible that NK would just sit and take it. What else would they do?
They will get extremely angry for sure. Piping mad. But what are they going to do? Attack South Korea? It was the U.S., not SK, who dropped bombs at Yongbuyen (other places using JDAM, no need to use Nuke).
And, China may tell KJI to cool it. If NK and the U.S. should get into a war, China would be in a difficult spot. Who know what Hu would do?
WJC: zhang_fei (not a pseudonym I?€™d use in public debate
Doesn’t mean anything - just denotes the fact that I’m a China watcher, while being distinct from anything anyone might consider a real chinese name.
WJC: I don?€™t understand how the existence of USFK ?€œties down?€? US forces for the benefit of China. It invites the U.S. into their neighborhood!
I don’t see see how a belligerent North Korea invites the US into China’s neighborhood. The *mere existence* of China invites the US into the region, just as the mere existence of Russia invites the US into Eastern Europe. (I guess a Korean used to the idea of a benign China wouldn’t understand the ancient Chinese principle of allying with distant powers, but the Chinese presumably do). One way or another, they expect the US to be in the area, at the invitation of China’s weaker neighbors, and it’s better that Uncle Sam is tied down than be free to move around. Korea is strategically insignificant by itself - Japan is closer to both Taiwan and Southeast Asia. Having US forces tied down in Korea by restrictive rules of engagement set by South Korea is a serious advantage - they will not be available during a war over Taiwan.
Baduk,
It was the U.S. that invaded Iraq in the first Gulf War, but that didn’t stop Hussein from launching a bunch of SCUD missles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. It wasn’t like they could reach out and attack the continental U.S., so who was closest? And who are closer to NK? South Korea and Japan.
Reference the comment on the Nork’s biological weapons. There is zero evidence that North Korea has weaponized Biological Weapons. Zero. That said, some types of bioligical agents can be developed fairly quickly. North Korea’s problem is that if it were to use a biological weapon, they would have to choose the agent very carefully. Otherwise, with their severly challenged medical capabilities, more NorKs would be likely to die from BW than anyone else.
Regarding the Nork nukes… the Time Asia article is a bit quaint as we’ve had this discussion before several times. South Korean remarkably nonchalant about their kooky neighbors to the north waving nukes around? Now tell me something I don’t now. When it comes to rationally gauging the dangers of living next door to North Korea, the South Korean public jumped the shark (so to speak) a few years ago.
Jokes aside, I find the “a north Korean nuke is a Korean nuke” attitude to be particularly appaling. You don’t need to be an expert on International relations to see the Asian arms race that such a development will trigger.
Zhang_Fei,
1. As I am sure you already know, Zhang Fei was a legendary warrior from Sanguozi who was known neither for his intellectual acuity nor temperance. So it was a good-nature ribbing at the pseudonym–nothing more.
2. “I guess a Korean used to the idea of a benign China wouldn?€™t understand the ancient Chinese principle of allying with distant powers, but the Chinese presumably do.”
I am not sure where this ad hominem remarks comes from but: I’ve studied the Chinese classics and history quite assiduously, thank you. In fact, most educated Koreans have done so. Further, allying with distant powers is hardly a “Chinese principle,” as it appears in many Western texts, including representative texts such as those of Machiavelli.
I guess the locus of our disagreement is this: You seem to believe that American troops will be in East Asia indefinitely and the question is simply where they will be located. I am not so sure. If American troops leave South Korea, then I can see a scenario where pressure will mount for them to leave Japan as well. Then where would American troops go?
You mention that China’s weaker neighbors may invite the Americans to balance against China. But this scenario presents two problems.
First, if the Americans leave both Korea and Japan (or even if they just leave Asia), China will be the indisputed hegemon in mainland East Asia. And regional hegemons don’t react well to outside powers entering the picture militarily (see how the U.S. reacted to the Soviet gambit in Cuba), and I am sure the U.S. would think twice before such a risky re-commitment.
Second, perhaps more important, you assume–in a classic European realist fashion–nations of East Asia would try to balance against China. That is not the only scenario. East Asian nations may simply bandwaggon with China, which is precisely what happened throughout much of East Asian history and which is what is happening again according to David Kang in a very interesting International Security essay that was recently published.
Kang’s two International Security essays on the applicability of European realist analysis in East Asia can be found here:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dkan.....s/pub.html
They are very thought-provoking pieces and free of the usual social science jargon often found in these academic papers. I’d recommend folks who are interested in East Asian foreign relations to read them.
Kushibo, I agree with you that Bush has pushed the envelope and scared alot of people. Heck, I’m nervous and I really don’t believe he would start anything militarily with the Norks. It’s the perception of what’s possible. But I wonder if that’s part of Bush’s strategy. That perception of unpredictability puts everyone on edge. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but the hawks probably think it’s a way of giving themselves more room to move.
As far as Bush’s moves towards strengthening a military alliance with Japan. To me it makes more sense than with SK, as the SK government, and it seems, a large percent of the population don’t really want the US here. If they’re not welcome, maybe it truly is time to move on (same in Germany and elsewhere-and eventually in Iraq, too).
Won Joon Choe,
China and Japan will never get along. They are similar to Iran and Iraq. Too much past history between them to forgive and forget.
Japan with its superiority complex and China with the “center of the world” ego are bound to clash. You cannot have two bosses in a small town.
Baduk hyung nim,
Japan is a setting sun; I don’t see Japan being able to match the individual might of China in the long-run. Further, Japan has virtually no hope of mustering an East Asia coalition v. China, as the neighboring nations (except perhaps Vietnam) fear and dislike Japan more than China. So in the long-run I predict that Japan will likely have even less influence in East Asia than does Great Britan in Europe now.
WJC: If American troops leave South Korea, then I can see a scenario where pressure will mount for them to leave Japan as well. Then where would American troops go?
I guess that’s part of the bandwagon effect that you’ve been talking about. That would be China’s Pollyanna scenario. But the question is whether the Chinese can rely on this. Why would the Chinese assume that Japan will rely on China’s good intentions, considering all the bad blood between them that way predates the Sino-Japanese War? And why would Japan follow the example of South Korea, which the Japanese don’t consider a peer country? The departure of US forces from South Korea implies a pro-China South Korea.
This is South Korean thinking at its best. Why would Japan weaken its strategic position against a new anti-Japanese Korean-Chinese axis by getting rid of its alliance with the US? If anything, the Japanese would probably invite more US troops in-country.
WJC: Japan is a setting sun; I don?€™t see Japan being able to match the individual might of China in the long-run. Further, Japan has virtually no hope of mustering an East Asia coalition v. China, as the neighboring nations (except perhaps Vietnam) fear and dislike Japan more than China. So in the long-run I predict that Japan will likely have even less influence in East Asia than does Great Britan in Europe now.
The Korean hatred for Japan has made Koreans delusional. The textbook issue aroused Korean and Chinese rage. Nothing of same magnitude occurred in Southeast Asia. Remember - Japan was the catalyst for the decolonization of Southeast Asia. This is why Southeast Asians have never harbored the same rancor that the Chinese and Koreans* have had for Japan. What has made Southeast Asians wary of China is its relatively aggressive moves with regard to territorial claims. Its claim that the South China Sea is a Chinese lake and therefore sovereign Chinese territory, is not viewed favorably in the region.
* The other issue is that both Chinese and Koreans consider themselves superior races. I don’t think Southeast Asians have this complex.
The same could be said of the US and the USSR. During the cold war we had thousands of nukes pointed at each other (still do)and we just went on with our daily lives. Although the dictators of the USSR were more sane than KJI. South Korea has lived with the threat of destruction from North Korea for 50 years and still have to live with it, with or without nukes (as the Marmot pointed out). This is what the US doesn’t get.
The potential of a Nork Nuke being launched at the US or the Norks selling nuclear material to terrorists who dream of setting it off in the US is a new and credible security threat for the US. It is in the interest of the US to stop this threat by any means including a military strike if prudent. This is what South Korea doesn’t get.
won joon choe san
japan has never been a rising sun after all in terms of politics in the erea, except for the period of 40 some years in the early 20th century. and it will be that way.
and i am not so sure of your as the neighboring nations (except perhaps Vietnam) fear and dislike Japan more than China. because china in recent history has had several territory issue with military flavor against their neighbors that may create fear among remote neighbors too, whereas japan has not made any military/political threat after the WWII. and while japan has not much political influence, it sure does economically. even if “money cant buy everything”, at least japan has contributed the development of many s.e.asian countries for better living conditions than china.
on the other hand, in the long run, depending on how “long” you look at, i doubt if china really can retain its solidarity as a country as it does now. i saw some omen in the demonstration against japan a few weeks ago.
(the domonstrators yelled “dont buy japanese products” but many japanese products sold in china are made in chinese factories by chinese workers, again, some tiny fraction of chinese people get benefit from japan too)
Ahh leave it to Zhang Fei to continue beating the quack Han Chauvinism driving international relations meme. However in response to the first issue in your response, a simple answer is readily at hand. The Spratley island issue is not neccessarily the primary focus of relations between China and SE Asia. The problem can accordingly be sidelined indefinetly and need not be a major factor affecting relations as Diaoyutai was for decades. One only needs to look at the example of Sino-Vietnamese relations in the early 90’s to realize that the Vietnamese essentially acquised to outright occupation of not only uninhabited outlying islands, but also chunks of the border. Also it should be noted that the SE Asian states are individually or even collectively able to challenge China on the issue as they in turn have their own regional rivalries that preclude cooperation. You are operating under the erroneous assumption that all state actors are equal and will seek to maximize its interests via offensive diplomacy, this is not the case because they are far and away in a weaker position vis-a-vis China and may simply have little options but to accept Chinese hegemony.
Kushibo,
I detect that you lack the fine sense of proportion.
(I?€™m also for criticizing France for its willingness to sell arms to China).
As opposed to the US selling arms to Pakistan?? Sure.
And let’s not get Ollie North involved, eh?
Wow! 31 new comments in 18 hours, which I haven’t even begun to read yet.
I’ll start with a distastefully offhand comment. In reply to the Time book review which stated:
Kim Jong Il?€™s idiosyncrasies can overshadow his atrociousness. With his bouffant hair, platform shoes, ?€œpleasure groups?€? of attractive young women, and lusty appetite for fine wine and sushi, the North Korean dictator sometimes comes across more like a movie villain than a true menace,
this is why I said on another thread that an option may be to negotiate his retirement. Offer him a nice chalet in Switzerland, a promise of protection and no prosecution (otherwise, how could he be enticed), a gaggle of babes to wait on him hand and foot, and a lifetime video rental pass to Blockbuster. Then everyone’s problems will be solved (not least those of the millions of suffering North Koreans), without a single bullet being fired.
Usinkorea wrote:
It was a very different ?€œgiven?€? accepted by Koreans than we accepted in the US in the Cold War, at least since the 1970s. We took it for granted nuclear holocaust was going to come after somebody fucked up.
I have to admit that, as someone growing up in Canada in the 70s and 80s in the midst of anti-nuclear protests, etc., I was (perhaps naively) confident that such a holocaust would not come, because of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. It’s not pretty to think of it in those terms, but I have to admit that I had just enough faith in the two superpowers that it would not come to that.
What happened to the blockquote? What I wrote was:
Usinkorea wrote:
It was a very different ?€œgiven?€? accepted by Koreans than we accepted in the US in the Cold War, at least since the 1970s. We took it for granted nuclear holocaust was going to come after somebody fucked up.
I have to admit that, as someone growing up in Canada in the 70s and 80s in the midst of anti-nuclear protests, etc., I was (perhaps naively) confident that such a holocaust would not come, because of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. It?€™s not pretty to think of it in those terms, but I have to admit that I had just enough faith in the two superpowers that it would not come to that.
Zhang Fei wrote:
And why would Japan follow the example of South Korea, which the Japanese don?€™t consider a peer country?
Because South Korea hasn’t been stuck in a stagnant economic situation for the last 15 years? Well, if that’s the criterion, then sure, it’s not a peer country.
Damn blockquotes!
…
nukes this, nuke that, China this, America that, Conservatives this, Liberals that…
Too bad people don’t talk about refugees…
Very true. Refugees are pretty darn near the heart of the issue; indeed, part of the reason SK and China are playing their cards the way they are is out of fear of having to deal with refugees. But sooner or later, something is going to happenit could be pretty, it could be uglythat is going to force these two countries to deal with the situation head on.
China is a communist country that violates freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
North Korean refugees in China (virtually their only way out) live in fear of being caught by the CHINESE authorities and sent to North Korea.
The United States does BILLIONS of dollars in trade with this country and is trying to set up more and more.
South Korea is criticized by right-wing groups for turning a blind eye to the refugees in pursuit of economic opportunities with the North.
There’s a disconnect there.
I’m all for criticizing the Roh government for putting faith in killing the North regime through kindness over the concerns of refugees who need rescuing NOW, but why should the US get a free pass on its investments with CHINA when it is CHINA that is half of the problem up there?
And what moral standing does the US have to criticize the Roh government’s dealings with North Korea when it is so heavily involved with CHINA?
(I’m also for criticizing France for its willingness to sell arms to China).
Won Joon Choe wrote:
I detect you lack the fine sense of proportion.
Proportion about what? (Or was that a glib comment?)
Proportion about China’s own human violations? Other than that they are equally culpable with North Korea in the scheme for Chinese authorities to actively search out North Korean refugees and repatriate them to North Korea, here’s what Human Rights Watch has to say about China:
Torture is common in China’s criminal justice system. Recent HRW research suggests that abuses are particularly likely in Tibet and Xinjiang. In Tibet, authorities have subjected religious figures and activists to mistreatment in detention. ??
??
In Xinjiang, populated mostly by Muslim Uighurs, China has cracked down on religious practitioners and activists and subjected them to abuse in prisons and re-education through labor campssome have also been executed. Detainees have reported beatings with shackles, electric shocks, and being kicked to the point of unconsciousness.
Here’s what they have to say about North Korea:
In North Korea, which suffers one of the worlds most repressive governments, prisoners are routinely subjected to forced labor, torture and other mistreatment. Despite repeated resolutions by the U.N. Human Rights Commission condemning its human rights record, North Korea has largely shunned dialogue with U.N. experts on human rights, including the special rapporteur on human rights in North Korea, Vitit Muntarbhorn.
North Korea is worse, of course. But because China is such an important trading partner, the right and middle in the US give China a free pass. To bash South Korea’s “leadership” for “ignoring” the North Korean refugee problem while ignoring China’s own ACTIVE culpability in the problem is utter hypocrisy.
??
I wrote:
But sooner or later, something is going to happen?€”it could be pretty, it could be ugly?€”that is going to force these two countries to deal with the situation head on.
I meant in the case of China, “deal with the situation head on in a way other than by sending refugees back to NK.”
When debating about China, many assume China will definitely one day challenge the United States. In turn, there is little or no debate as to whether China could eclipse Japan as the regional steward. The supposed hatred of Japan affecting East Asian relations, aside from those involving South Korea, are exaggerated. After all, South East Asia wouldn’t fare so well without Japan’s Official Development Assistance, which stands as the largest foreign aid budget worldwide. And in recent years, South East Asian countries, instead of turning to China, have been looking towards Japan for military assistance.
For instance, as the US Navy has been refused by Indonesian and Malaysian governments, the Japan Maritime Self Defense Forces have been welcomed by the two governments and are scheduled to conduct maritime exercises in the Malacca Strait which is home to over 50% of the world’s piracy. Japan is also setting up a counter-terrorism center in Singapore targeting problems in the strait. While over 80% of oil shipments headed to China and Japan pass through the strait, China has done little to assist. And past hostages have testified that some of the pirates have been using Chinese naval vessels and wearing Chinese naval uniforms.
As for those countries that have territorial disputes with China, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, they are increasing exchanges between their navies and the JMSDF, and future Vietnamese naval officers are attending Japanese military academies. While territorial disputes involving China were toned down in the past, East Asia’s competition for energy resources increase the likelihood of heated disputes. Senkaku and the Spratlys are known to have gas reserves. It is also no coincidence that the rapidly modernizing PLA Navy has been entering disputed territories and alarming SE Asian governments which have in turn urged Tokyo to confront Beijing, which is how the ASEAN Regional Forum became a place for security dialogue amongst ASEAN+3 countries.
Japan is by no means a setting sun. It continues to be the second-largest economic power in the world, on which much of China’s prosperity depends. Despite its pacifist constitution, Japan possesses the world’s top 5 naval AND air forces in terms of size and technology. The Japanese military is also by far the most technologically advanced Asian military force with the greatest reach outside its borders, thanks to constitutional revisions that have allowed purchase of air-refueling capabilities. While this is being challenged by planned Chinese naval bases in Pakistan, Cambodia, and the Maldives, a major revision to the Japanese pacifist constitution is expected, allowing Japan to obtain larger ground forces and “normal” military power possibly commensurate with its economic status.
Simply because Japan hasn’t waved its stick since World War II and it isn’t receiving the glamorous spotlight like China, that does not mean Japan is on its way out. Domestically, Japan is also far more stable than China, and it doesn’t require arm-twisting tactics to maintain stability. And also, Japan has no ethnic minority groups who received training under Osama bin Laden asking for an independent republic.
Educating Korea
If I want to get depressed and pessimistic about the next few decades, all I have to do is think about demographics on a global scale. Specifically I worry about too many young people living in a world where the…
pkr brthdy prty nvttn
In your free time, take a look at some relevant pages about Prty Pkr Cds
purchase diet pills
You are invited to take a look at the sites on diet pills pittsburgh internist