Way to spoil a good morning

by Robert Koehler on December 20, 2011

Was having a great morning—traffic was light coming to work, Ron Paul is leading in Iowa, and Kim Jong-il is still dead.

The the Kyunghyang’s editorial board needs to spoil it all by calling on the government to offer condolences to North Korea…

Tagged as: Kim Jong-il is dead

{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }

1 iMe December 20, 2011 at 9:22 am: The Marmot finally comes out in support of Ron Paul!
Good man! Good man!

RON PAUL 2012!!!
2 WangKon936 December 20, 2011 at 9:23 am: Nowadays in America Presidential elections are graded on a curve and no matter your thoughts on Obama’s handling of his responsibilities the curve is pretty freaking low…
3 hamel December 20, 2011 at 10:34 am: Robert:
Do you think there would be any costs associated with not offering condolences to North Korea? If yes, do you think these costs would be worth it?
4 Yu Bum Suk December 20, 2011 at 10:39 am: hamel, the costs of offering condolences would be a new regime that thinks it can get greater cooperation out of a weaker South.
5 nayaCasey December 20, 2011 at 10:59 am: Condolences? What an idiotic issue, definitely something for the smart people in society to chatter about while wringing their hands. South Korea did not offer condolences when Kim Il-Sung finally croaked, but Clinton did. The North Koreans were still accepting food and other aid from South Korea and the United States after that and I seem to recall the Clinton administration feeling like the North Koreans lied to them about various things.

After Clinton offered condolences on behalf of the American people, one writer criticized him, saying he should have offered his personal feelings, not a national apology, with a note: “Just heard about your dad. I hope you won’t be as big a loony tune as he was.” LMB should write a similar note, mentioning both Kim Jong-il and Kim Il-Sung.
6 깊은 구멍 속에 December 20, 2011 at 11:14 am: It’s a meaningless gesture that North Korea has done in the past when it expressed condolences over the passing of South Korean leaders and even 9/11.

Frankly, until you know for a fact that the new regime will behave exactly like the last one, getting things off on the wrong foot would be a huge diplomatic mistake. I have little hope that the new regime will much better, but this is one of the rare opportunities we’ve had to start fresh and I for one think it might be worth trying because the consequences of failure means maintaining the status quo whereas success could lead to a better life for 20 million people.
7 Granfalloon December 20, 2011 at 11:42 am: I think South Korea can actually help foster a little dissent in North Korea by offering condolences. Sure, express sorrow, maybe even play up the idea that KJI’s leadership will be difficult, if not impossible, to replace. Then go about the business of making sure KJU fails. The North Korean public has not put their trust and faith in KJU yet. I think that could be useful.
8 wiessej December 20, 2011 at 11:51 am: To Granfallon:

You wrote: “The North Korean public has not put their trust and faith in KJU yet. I think that could be useful.”

In 1994, people were saying: “The North Korean public has not put their trust and faith in KJI yet. I think that could be useful.”

It is the uncertainty of KJU and what following he may or may not have that is causing the tension right now on the peninsula. ROK and US forces are on high alert – they are manning command posts 24/7 because it is uncertain what North Korea may do, and the possibilities are numerous.

A provocation to let the world know they are still viable and mean business? Maybe. But to say KJU doesn’t have a loyal power base is a guess at best.
9 wiessej December 20, 2011 at 12:16 pm: To iMe –

I wouldn’t oppose a guy like Ron Paul, but honestly, he will be long dead before people would be willing to vote en masse for a guy like him. He’s about as electable as Jesse Jackson or Pat Robertson were in the ’80′s. He makes me think of people like Eugene Debs, John Glenn, George Wallace, H. Ross Perot, etc. all of them had decent ideas (except maybe Debs), but none of them ever really had a chance to get elected to the office of the Presidency, let alone get a major party nomination.

Anyone buying a Ron paul 2012 bumper sticker or campaign sign for their front yard is throwing money into a wishing well, with less chance of it coming true even.
10 Granfalloon December 20, 2011 at 12:43 pm: wiessej,
And what did South Korea do to capitalize on that “useful” instability in 1994? I think there are very good reasons why North Korean dissent didn’t have any lasting impact in the late 90s. I think a big one rhymes with “punshine solicy.” Here’s to hoping South Korea has learned from their mistakes.
11 Robert Koehler December 20, 2011 at 12:59 pm: Do you think there would be any costs associated with not offering condolences to North Korea? If yes, do you think these costs would be worth it?

No, I don’t think there will be any costs associated with not offering condolences. Or at least costs that you’re going to pay regardless.

Mind you, I don’t think there would be any real costs to offering a condolence, either (other than providing North Korea yet another propaganda tool and insulting the families of those killed by the North). Just as I don’t think there would have been any real cost to offering a condolence to, say, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Osama Bin Laden, or any other mass murdering thug.

I just don’t see why you’d want to.
12 깊은 구멍 속에 December 20, 2011 at 2:21 pm: @ Robert – I feel like you issue a statement, in the artful form of Chinese diplomacy, that recognizes what a difficult time this transitional period must be for the North Korean people while offering sympathies to a son, who for all we know hasn’t killed anyone, without actually saying we feel bad that the man died.

I still see this as an opportunity to try and change course a little bit that shouldn’t be wasted, because like you said it costs us nothing.
13 Hume's Bastard December 20, 2011 at 3:03 pm: Marmot, Ron Paul is nuts!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvgBB8nkfIQ

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
14 Hume's Bastard December 20, 2011 at 3:08 pm: Sorry, second link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/45715262#45715262 (between 7:50 and 24:05)
15 slim December 20, 2011 at 9:36 pm: I think Hillary Clinton found a way to send a message to the people of North Korea without dignifying their criminal gang of rulers:

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY CLINTON

The Passing of National Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong Il

With the passing of National Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong Il, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is now in a period of national mourning. We are deeply concerned with the well being of the North Korean people and our thoughts and prayers are with them during these difficult times. It is our hope that the new leadership of the DPRK will choose to guide their nation onto the path of peace by honoring North Korea’s commitments, improving relations with its neighbors, and respecting the rights of its people. The United States stands ready to help the North Korean people and urges the new leadership to work with the international community to usher in a new era of peace, prosperity and lasting security on the Korean Peninsula.
16 hamel December 21, 2011 at 6:34 am: Condolences? What an idiotic issue, definitely something for the smart people in society to chatter about while wringing their hands.

Wow that’s very good. And we certainly wouldn’t want to be one of those “smart people,” now would we? End of discussion.
17 깊은 구멍 속에 December 21, 2011 at 8:38 am: That statement by Clinton is just the type of statement I was referring to. It also appears as though the South Koreans have already issued a statement of sympathy to the North Korean people while refusing to send an official delegation.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/20/world/asia/north-korea-leader/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
18 Apodyopsis Gymnophoria December 21, 2011 at 5:44 pm: It’s a meaningless gesture that North Korea has done in the past when it expressed condolences over the passing of South Korean leaders and even 9/11.

condolences seem fake. How could NK have expressed condolences over the passing of South Korean leaders, then go back to continue threatening to turn Seoul into a “sea of fire”.

how could NK have expressed condolences over the 9/11, then continue stating that the USA are the main enemy who must be trampled?

seems a waste of time to me.
19 Apodyopsis Gymnophoria December 21, 2011 at 6:12 pm: here is my condolences – http://dok.do/scDvNr
20 깊은 구멍 속에 December 22, 2011 at 9:04 am: condolences seem fake

All open diplomacy is fake, it’s an amplified version of the social niceties we show each other on a regular basis.

If you think NK expressing condolences and then turning around and declaring someone their main enemy (actually a South Korean term for the North. Terms from the North are much more colorful) is hypocritical then you’d be right, but it wouldn’t mean that it isn’t in line with human behavior. Just like girls in high school will be nice to a girl’s face and then turn around and talk bad about her to elevate their own statuses, North Korea’s propaganda serves a purpose all its own and that purpose is to maintain control of the population. The “common foe” method of controlling the population is one of the most time-honored and effective ways to keep the population in line. Think I’m wrong? Just look at South Korea during the dictatorial period or the United States during the Cold War or post-9/11. North Korean leadership recognizes the value of the United States and South Korea and their role in keeping China at bay but also as their primary financier. So they will issue official statements directly to the US and South Korea that seem level headed while simultaneously filling their domestic news with statements intended to keep people in fear/hatred of those outside threats that have the potential to unravel the fabric of their society.

Unless you’re Ron Paul and you have the luxury of treating every foreign nation with the same level of disdain/apathy then if we want to seek change in North Korea we have but two options: invasion or change brought through high-level diplomatic exchange. The former is not feasible and the latter is far from effective–but those are the options we have.
21 Robert Koehler December 22, 2011 at 9:18 am: Well, I guess I’m in the “disdain/apathy” camp, but I would say that if change in North Korea is what you want, there are more than just the two options you cite. There are an array of ways to squeeze/destabilize the North short of invasion—like high-level diplomatic exchanges, they might be far from effective (as far as we know), and I’m not necessarily advocating them, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t options.
22 깊은 구멍 속에 December 22, 2011 at 9:25 am: I would agree that assassination or infiltration might exist as options as well as a full naval blockade, but for some reason actions like these have become highly taboo in our modern society (it’s definitely the antithesis of everything Mr. Paul advocates).

I’ve always found it strange that taking out a nation’s leader is off-limits, but invading the country and causing the deaths of hundreds of innocent people as collateral damage has not. It’s good to know the 1% have always got each others’ backs.
23 Robert Koehler December 22, 2011 at 9:32 am: I wasn’t necessarily thinking about assassination or infiltration, but more things like promoting defections; boosting 선전 efforts; enforcing targeted sanctions; striking deals with the Chinese; floating the idea that if any ambitious generals out there wanted to take a shot at a coup, we wouldn’t necessarily be adverse to establishing a working relationship with him afterwards, etc. Again, I’m not advocating any of this—I’m just saying they’re options.