Comments on: N.K. supports U.S. ‘balancer role?’ / More Jeong Se-hyun nonsense

By: kimchipig

kimchipig — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:50:29 +0000

A little inside info on Kyungmam University. Park Jae-kyu had to resume running his university (yes, he OWNS it) to save it from financial ruin. It is one of the WORST universities in Honam so the Commie Loving is a way to fame for it. At a dinner with Park once, we were all told that “working at Kyungnam is an expression of support for the Sunshine Policy.” Further, we were expressly forbidden to say anything negative in regards to North Korea in our classes.

By: Mi-Hwa

Mi-Hwa — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:56:13 +0000

NK and the US are both caught up in a vicious cycle of using each other to justify heavy military spending. This is not good for either country, but especially bad for NK. A peace treaty would help to end the craziness on both sides.(Along with Kim Jong Il’s death.)

By: Richardson

Richardson — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:46:17 +0000

It’s most often too late to pay for military defense after the war starts.

And as scapegoats go, North Korea is very well armed; missiles, nukes?, WMD, million man army, etc.

If you’re the Pentagon, what do you do? Pretend North Korea doesn’t have all of that, doesn’t have a history of agression?

By: Mi-Hwa

Mi-Hwa — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:32:13 +0000

“Washington seems to want to keep North Korea as its ‘necessary enemy’ … ” Jeong said.

It is true that the Pentagon is trying to milk the North Korean threat for all it’s worth. Ever since the Cold War ended with Russia, and China opened up to America, the Pentagon has been scrambling to find justification for $ billions spent on Star Wars research on missile defense. NK has become the convenient scapegoat. Not only is the Pentagon getting money from Congress, it was able to use the NK threat to convince Japan to pay billions for a joint missile defense.

Considering how much money the Pentagon gets because of NK, it’s no wonder that some of them are not eager for a diplomatic solution.

By: Richardson

Richardson — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:27:04 +0000

I think their (Kyungnam U�s) argument is a bit specious. While the U.S. doesn�t have territorial ambitions, and the DPRK�s *external* rhetorical might cease if diplomatic ties were established, the DPRK population is thoroughly indoctrinated (i.e., brainwashed) when is comes to Imperialist Americans, and internal rhetoric would likely continue as a unifying tool. Would probably have to, in fact.

And while the North would welcome assistance and trade (in that order) from the U.S., the idea that Kim Jong-il would *really* want reunification under realistic circumstances (i.e., the South�s system) is absurd; U.S. troops in South Korea, and political friction with the U.S. gives him the excuse to not be serous about reunification, just as brinksmanship and tinkering in WMD practically guarantees a �threatening� U.S. military presence in the South and the region.

North Korea has to do little to maintain this almost-self-perpetuation cycle. Delay talks, cancel them, go back to them, rinse, repeat. A few patrol boats into ROK waters. A few very carefully worded statements on nuclear programs ? and of course the reality of those programs. Lob a missile once in awhile, or act like you will. Maintain the world�s 5th largest military. U.S. troops stay in the South, tensions stay high, the aid keeps coming in, the �military first� policy is still intact, WFP can be kicked out with zero consequences (thank, ROK), and the Kim regime is still there.

Unless the balance of power somehow changes so that North Korea would have an actual chance of retaining its system in the event of reunification, this overall situation will not change, with the exception of Kim Jong-il�s death or some other catastrophic change in the North.

By: Sperwer

Sperwer — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 03:32:11 +0000

I wasn’t being critical, just making an observation that there are more fundamental reasons for the daftness of the idea that the US would ever be drawn into anything like a non-confrontational relationship with the NORK regime.

By: The Marmot

The Marmot — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:25:52 +0000

Now, there’s a counterfactual assumption of epic proportions; the regime orchestrated anti-americanism is on a scale that far exceeds the “Hate” that Orwell imagined in 1984.
Hence, the reason I qualified that with “for argument’s sake.” Actually, I should have said, “Even if I grant, just for argument’s sake…”

By: Sperwer

Sperwer — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:13:33 +0000

“if we grant, just for argument’s sake, that North Korean hostility toward the United States is not a function of North Korea’s internal politics”

Now, there’s a counterfactual assumption of epic proportions; the regime orchestrated anti-americanism is on a scale that far exceeds the “Hate” that Orwell imagined in 1984.

And there are other more fundamental factors besides the NORK’s transparent duplicity in such international diplomatic ploy to make itself the balancer for NE Asia for its own narrowly conceived benefit - the rank criminality of the regime. Do they really believe they are going to be taken seriously while they are counterfeiting greenbacks, proliferating meth and missiles, etc.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:10:29 +0000

The situation with N.K. and the U.S. has its own inexorable logic, as they say: even with a peace treaty, mutual troop pullbacks, denuclearization, etc., you still have a totalitarian, military dictatorship that denies its people basic freedoms and can’t allow the transparency needed for cross-border trade to sustain its economy. For that alone, N.K. is odious enough to merit sanctions and global ostracism. I just can’t see how there could be a “peaceful” N.K. with its present leadership. Even China and S.K., by propping up the regime, just prolong the inevitable–Kim Jongil and his regime are an anachronism, it’s amazing they’ve made it this far, but there is no future scenario in a N.E. Asia more economically intertwined than ever that would include them.

By: The Marmot

The Marmot — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:10:49 +0000

Kushibo–I don’t find it outrageous that North Korea would seek better relations with the United States; if we grant, just for argument’s sake, that North Korean hostility toward the United States is not a function of North Korea’s internal politics, then it’s highly conceivable that North Korea would want to improve relations with the United States, if for no other reason than there’d be no logical reason to maintain the hostility. But even if this were true, it would seem to me that North Korea is simply trying to do the same thing it did with China and the Soviets during the Cold War, i.e., play the two off while giving up nothing in return for its “friendship.” Sure, I could see how North Korea might wish to extract aid from both China and the United States. Who wouldn’t? But the question is, what would the U.S. get out of it? Increased leverage? Didn’t seem to help the Chinese or Soviets any. In fact–and bear with me for a moment–it would seem letting North Korea off the Chinese hook would, in fact, decrease the leverage any foreign power had over Pyongyang, while at the same time greatly strengthening Pyongyang’s position. The only reason China has any leverage at all over North Korea is because Pyongyang no longer has the ability to threaten to run to Moscow if China did something the North Koreans didn’t like. This changes if Washington enlists North Korea as a “friend.” All you do is develop a situation where Pyongyang can manipulate both Washington and Beijing into playing its game by “leaning toward Beijing” or “leaning toward Washington” to get what it wants. Meanwhile, both Washington and Beijing are going to be more afraid of “loosing influence” in Pyongyang to the other side than they’ll be asking themselves whether they really have any influence at all. Pyongyang, after all, is the master of the tail wagging the dog.

Of course, the United States should take the lead with this and make a list of demands for North Korea to join the US camp: an end to the gulag, dropping the nuke program, opening markets, free movement of its people, resolution of the kidnapee issue with South Korea and Japan, personal freedoms equaling at least those in next-door China.
Yeah, I wish. Of course, this would be no different from asking the North Korean regime to commit suicide, and hence a non-starter to negotiations.