 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - North Korea's got Nukes.....and I care, why? |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Koryo Keese                  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| Conservative and Liberal are such generalized, vague, misused, and inaccurate terms, I’m not sure we should use them.
Also, there is no need to get to get too upset. We have the freedom to calmly debate this subject, unlike the North Korean civilians in question. I understand what you’re saying, and it would be correct if ( if ) I said “America can do no wrong. North Korea must die. The only thing to do is drop nuclear bombs on North Korea!!!” But that’s not what I’m saying, which is why I keep suggesting that you aren’t paying too close attention to what I’m saying. You read the words, but when it comes to the meaning, you interpret what you think I’m saying.
It doesn’t, but that’s not all you’re doing. Calling US intervention in South Korea imperialism isn’t pointing out realities.
Exactly, which is why I don’t think you’re really paying attention to what I’ve been saying. You have it in your head that I’m a jingoist Nazi. Why? Just because I dared suggest that the US can accomplish some good in the world. If you recall, I wanted to put South Korean stickers on the food packages, not US. I also said that the military that protects South Korea from North Korea doesn’t have to be the American army. However, come up with another country both willing and able. China and Russia are able, but most definitely not willing. Australia may be willing, but is not able. So the burden falls to the US. I’m happy to take the burden to prove that the US cares about others. I also object to this claim that regional stability is paramount to freedom. “Regional stability” is a cop out term. You (and the many, many others who use the term) don’t want to get involved in a region or a problem so they claim that the current situation is stable, and if we do anything, it might make the region *gasp* less stable. I object to the idea that dictatorships are more stable than democracies. That is not always the case and, in some cases, the exact opposite is true. I hope you don’t consider KJI’s North Korea to be a stabilizing force in the region. I also hope you don’t consider the democratic South Korea to be a destabilizing force in the region. If the Korean peninsula was unified under a democratic government, there would be only one threat to the region (China).
And if I had said that the only way to solve the problem was with overwhelming force, then you would be right. In fact, I said America should avoid the war, because of the civilian casualties that would follow. If North Korea does attack, however, we should end the issue once and for all by taking the opportunity to remove KJI. There are two things that will cause/ would cause/ are causing civilian casualties on a grand scale: a second Korean War, and the continuation of KJI’s rule. A war would result in many North Korean civilian casualties, many, many South Korean civilian casualties, and possibly some Japanese civilian casualties. The continuation of KJI’s rule would cause more North Korean casualties. Neither of these independently is a happy prospect. The worst case scenario, though, would be for us to have both. If there is a second war, after which KJI remains in power. That’s the only reason I’m advocating the removal of KJI by force if he starts a second war.
Exactly, which is why I said we should only go to war again if KJI invades or starts shelling the South. KJI in power is bad. A war with KJI is worse. The two together is the worst of all options. So, if KJI invades South Korea, I’m saying we should remove him then. But, if he doesn’t invade South Korea, then we just contain him and begin the long and slow process of slowly chipping away at his regime.
Yet again, show me where I’m “gun ho” about an offensive first strike against North Korea. There is such a thing as a one sided war, though, which is what it will be if KJI invades and America doesn’t defend South Korea. For the last time, I’m only advocating war if KJI strikes first.
And here we come to another of the common claims that goes along with “regional stability” (see above). “We can’t provoke terrorists/brutal dictators, it might make them angry.” If I remember correctly (and apparently you’re the only student of history and politics in the room, so I could be wrong), but the first Korean War was completely unprovoked. Hitler invaded Poland because the Poles were undergoing a massive military buildup that threatened Germany’s right to exist, right? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because his own small country of Iraq was threatened by their massive neighbor Kuwait, right? No, it is weakness that encourages an enemy to attack. Hostile nations attack when they think they have an advantage. Hitler wouldn’t have started WW2 if he didn’t think he could win it. Saddam wouldn’t have invaded Kuwait if he was sure America was going to fight back (event lead him to believe that we would tolerate his aggression). Kim Il Sung attacked South Korea because he thought they were weak (which they were). He thought it would be a quick and easy war to unify the Korean Peninsula under his dictatorial government. KJI is only going to start a second Korean war if he thinks he will survive it. If he thinks China will protect him from America, then he will invade South Korea. If he thinks America is no longer willing to shed blood for South Korea, then he will invade. Only if he knows we will fight back, and only if he views our military as strong enough to defeat his, will he be too afraid to attack. That’s not jingoism, that’s not a cold war view of politics, that’s not naiveté, that’s the truth.
And just what “wider conflagration” are you talking about? As I said, China will not start a world war over North Korea yet. In the future, probably, but not yet.
Are you sure? I guess this changes my whole outlook on the subject, now that I know it’s not just a game. Listen, I’m being various serious and cautious about this. The quick approach would be to invade right now and remove KJI, but I’m advocating the slow method of containment and slowly weakening his government, because I don’t want to cause needless South Korean casualties. But remember that every year KJI remains in power, more innocent North Koreans die. Whose life is worth more in your estimation: the life of an innocent North Korean, or an innocent South Korean?
That and a dollar will get you a sarsaparilla, as they say.
They didn’t attack unprovoked in the 50s, right? And they haven’t tried to reignite the war since then, right? Wrong. Besides, rational actors do use military force sometimes. They use it when they think it is beneficial to them. If he thinks he can benefit from a war or from using a nuclear bomb, he will do it. If he thinks he will get steam rolled, then he won’t. That’s what rational actors do. The word rational doesn’t necessarily imply peaceful. As I said, it doesn’t mater how many nuclear bombs the US has if we don’t use them, and I don’t think the current administration would start a nuclear war in response to KJI’s nuking of South Korea. On a side note, the profanity is getting a bit annoying here. There’s really no need.
No, it’s a leave me alone, as in KJI wants to be left alone so he can go on ruling with an iron fist. It’s not as if he just wants to live out his life peacefully in his little corner of the world.
I disagree. I suppose there’s really no point in arguing this one particular part any further, as there is no way to prove it, but I believe Bush would not nuke North Korea for nuking South Korea or Japan. If they hit the US, probably, but not South Korea or Japan. I also think there would be a serious cry of outrage from the world. China would pretend to be outraged, just so that they could swoop in and take control of the Korean peninsula forever. Half (or more) of Europe would suggest sanctioning the US, even though that isn’t really possible, they would none the less call for it. Bush is too afraid to do anything drastic to Iran. I doubt he’d want to go down in history as the only president in 50 years to use nuclear weapons. Ever since Iraq, he’s been whipped.
Not true.
North Korea’s tension has been ramped up ever since the Korean War. North Korea has never been a peaceful country. And China is not a wild card. China has visions of a world wide Chinese hegemony in the future, and anything that weakens the US (like North Korea) moves them that much closer.
And, yet again, you failed to read that I am not pushing for invasion, either. I don’t know how many times I can say that. If you refuse to read what I’ve written, we’ll keep going in circles.
You misunderstand China entirely. Peace is not what China wants. Peace under global Chinese hegemony, perhaps. China is the largest country in the world. One day, it will surpass the US. When that happens, if the current Chinese government is still in power, people will know what imperialism is. China may not be happy with North Korea, but they none the less support it, as they have proven by exporting the necessary goods to North Korea. North Korea is a bigger problem for the US than for China. North Korea would never attack China, and China would by happy if North Korea attacked South Korea or Japan.
Oh, well, if China has some harsh words, then I stand corrected. Words speak louder than actions, after all.
China does not want peace with Japan. The Chinese hate the Japanese.
If China wanted to control North Korea, they would have. If they could really have made KJI stop his nuclear test just by asking him, they would have. And you’re wrong, I do want a collapsed North Korea. I simply cannot understand why you care so little about the North Korean people. I’m sure you’ll get really indignant about that and say that I’m insulting you. But really, you say the only thing we can do is wait, and you say the stability of the region is more important. More important than what? The North Korean people, obviously.
I guess that’s the difference between us. You view the so called stability of a region as more important than individual freedom. Have you ever lived under a communist government? If you would be happy living in North Korea, the Soviet Union, or Cuba, then I will concede the point, and admit that there is no benefit to bringing the North Koreans into a democratic government.
So we should abandon the East Germans? The West Germans should say “tough luck, you bunch of krauts. It’s your fault for being invaded by the USSR, so we’re not going to let you back into our country anymore.” Also, South Korea has about twice the population of North Korea.
Then the problem lies in the apathy of world leaders today. As I said, people don’t care about Korea. That’s unfortunate. And we Americans are called the immoral ones, while Europeans sit on their high horse claiming to be morally superior because they don’t have the death penalty, and don’t spend as much on military funding. I hope they really feel good about themselves here.
Yet again, that is something the rest of the world should be ashamed of. If the US would be criticized by the world for toppling the KJI regime (and I agree that it would), then I’m not sure I care what the world thinks anymore. If the world says that the North Koreans are so worthless that so called regional stability is the most important thing, then I’m glad American is a unilateralist country. Just because the rest of the people in the room are immoral and disagree with you cause, their majority opinion doesn’t make your cause any less moral. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES   Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| There won't be a second Korean War. The war has been ongoing and will be a continuation.
I can easily tell you that your idea of "peace" is based on hegemonic American control of the region. The installation of friendlies in place of free nations that may be anti-American. It is a reality that most friendly nations are that way because it is easier to be friends with America and reap some of the rewards of trade (see Yemen) than to directly oppose its efforts in any way, shape, or form (see Venezuala - or for an example that doesn't involve Satan and Chomsky - Canada (yes, the lumber dispute and various other issues had MINOR political motivations behind them in order to pressure or punish the Canadian government). However, this is also my idea of peace. It is best to have a Pax Chazarica where economic power is protected and people (as a whole) are left to their own devices by the nomads that benefit from the monetary gains. “Regional stability” is a cop out term? I would argue that regional stability is not a cop out term and is a necessary component of international relations, safe economics, and the general interest of anyone living in any region. Within a given geographic area it can wreack havoc when there is a destabilizing force that threatens to create a domino effect. One such issue arises with regards to North Korea. Regional stability is necessary through the pacification and liberalization of the regime through any given time. We can be assisted by the rest of the world in our dealings with NK: China, SK, Russia, Japan are the primary movers of the world in NE Asia. By expanding the dialogue in the region and giving the 6 party talks a higher priority it would probably work to our advantage for that stability needed in order to keep the market in the area running. Arwon makes no allusions to either side acting as this, that, or the other thing. The truth of the matter is that NK is a destabilizing force - but not simply because of its military and relatively infantile nuclear program. Within the region in question there are also multiple other possible destabilizing factors. The new Prime Minister in Japan, Shinzo Abe, is notoriously more hawkish than his predecessor (as well as less direct, experienced, and reform minded). In the past he has made many nuanced statements to slaughtering the old sacred cow of the one true party in Japan, that being the pacifist clause in the constitution. The Japanese people are mixed on the issue. I'm not sure how NK's actions are going to translate with regards to popular opinion about the state of Japanese defence. The major fear is that within the region the two most able powers will quickly develop small deterrent arsenals triggering a new arms race (as well as unnecessary spending that should be going into more positive programs). Japan is renowned for its high state of nuclear technology. Within a year it could probably have a small nuclear stockpile as well as delivery systems prepped. It already has plutonium that has been created over the years at its breeder-technology-based reactors. It could probably even scale the weapons down to a tactical level for more wide-spread integration into its forces. Assuming that this perfect storm scenario is met (that being tactical nuclear weapons, the dismembering of the pacifist constitution, and a change a in military strike doctrine) then the region could very well face a massive problem. SK could easily have a nuclear weapon within a short time (although quite a bit longer than Japan). Of course, these are both unlikely avenues that either nation would take. As mentioned it would be politically risky, destabilizing, and obsenely expensive. The real fear however would eminate from Taiwan getting antsy. But again, that is more fear mongering over the Yellow Peril posed by the Chinese in the region. In the unlikely event of a full on conflict it would be most probable that the Kim regime would fall due to internal pressures that the war would place on the economy, the unrest it would cause, and a very plausible coup d'etat by dissenting generals. War would not help a nation on the brink if it is struck first. Kim knows this. Even if Kim does continue his designs for the NK state any sort of major intevention on an overt level will only hamper the region and could possibly hurt the West more than is necessary. The best system for the removal of the Kim dynasty is through positive, constructive sanctioning. He will only be removed if the world engages in harsh love diplomacy to take the economy out of isolation. The best scenario would be another Tank Man that wouldn't just be pulled aside with his image forgotten. The best scenario would be a new Glasnost. Well, there are multiple instance showing that pre-emptive strike patterns are based on the fear of strength with regards to international dealings. The use of Hitler v. Poland in this debate is moot. The annexation of Poland was a necessary part of the policy of Lebensraum. A completely different sort of syncretic philosophical and political motives than what we see in the current diplomatic landscape. One such issue was the idea behind Reagen and "The Bear in the Woods". Any idiot could see that the Russians were in a state of collapse. That they were in a state of liberalization of the media (note: the rise of publications in Russia that undermined the constant strangle hold that Pravda had, including the return of various gazettes that had existed in the pre-revolutionary days). Gorbachev would've gradually lent to this process and have his hands tied. The Balts and other Slav groups would've been emancipated from the absolute control of the Soviets. The Central Asian states wouldn't have crazed men making giant golden books in Ashgabat, and we wouldn't be having such a headache is S. Ossetia and Abkhaz. Most likely autonomy would've been extended to a greater degree to Chechnya because Gorbachev was a lot less for shock treatments than his populist successor Yeltsin. That is one simple example of why pressuring those nasty dictators can turn into a bad thing. Perhaps the best example of states attacking when another is strong is called European history during the 17th,18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. 100 Hundred Years war. Pre-emptive super-power war. The Sun King's reign on France. A giant mega-power on the continent. Opposed by all the other nations. Prone to sticking it out with the other powers in the region. Not because they were weak, but to get them into that state. The French revolution fought on against the combined armies of Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, the various Italian states, the Prussians and other Germans, the Russians too. Far and away attacking what were stronger states in a feverent dream. Your example is one sided and fails to hold up. States will attack for a lot of reasons. And guess what? Attacking dictators because they're getting a little antsy only leads to problems. Particularly when you do it too indirectly. However, I agree, that isn't naivete and it is a perfectly sensible analysis of the issue. Attack them when they are in a state of weakness. Makes sense. But it is a policy of engagement still steeped completely in the Cold War mind. The entire damned Cold War was based on indirect engagament to keep it from getting hot. And the entire damned Cold War engagement was constantly done in a fear of the Soviets attacking a weaker nation (which it did indeed do, but for the same reasons that any state would if it were a gigantic, open, continental state). The US had a similar strategy which the Soviets tried in vain to oppose. But to carry it on, you're right. We're not in the Cold War anymore. We're in a multi-front battle that we've never had any real experience in fightings. "They didn’t attack unprovoked in the 50s, right? And they haven’t tried to reignite the war since then, right?" And to drive that fact in I take this quote and offer you an anecdote that I've often been told with regards to politics; that was then and this is now. Time changes quite quickly in this whacky world of ours. Policy is just as fluid as anything else. "No, it’s a leave me alone, as in KJI wants to be left alone so he can go on ruling with an iron fist. It’s not as if he just wants to live out his life peacefully in his little corner of the world. " Ultimately that is what he does want. He wants to sit in his miserly little corner of the world looking down on Whoville. Unfortunately he knows that the Whos have been onto him far too long and little Betsy Who and her friends are quite well armed and he can't leave his mountain. He does not want to engage in a war, even a proxy war. It doesn't make any sense, even in a nonsensical and crazy mind. His nuclear weapon is a deterrent, his provactive use of his missile program further exists to drive home this point. And you completely misunderstand China. PEACE IS WHAT THEY WANT. Peace means more money. More money is more prestige. They're on their way to being a super-power and want to safeguard this ascension and safeguard their position in the world from their neighbour-rivals. Russia and India are neighbouring nations with their own ambitions. China does not want to go to war with them. Everybody sabre rattles from time to time. It is the role of the sabre in diplomacy. To scare people into backing down. Actually charging with the sabre makes no sense. You'll normally get sliced and diced because of all the noise you've made already. Now to categorically move on other arguments you make: "but I believe Bush would not nuke North Korea for nuking South Korea or Japan." -read any recent policy changes to the US nuclear policy. The Pentagon has constantly been updating its definition of tactical use of nuclear weapons as well as reactivating additional hedge weapons from the legacy stockpiles. "Japan has categorically ruled out nukes. Not true." -effectively, as of today, they have. My above Perfect Storm scenario is assuming that Condolezza Rice had not gotten an assurance from a Pacific Triangle state in this matter. 'Oh, well, if China has some harsh words, then I stand corrected. Words speak louder than actions, after all. ' -In terms of making sense...words mean a lot more than action. Because those words are put onto the floor of international bodies called the UNSC and becomes direct action. "China does not want peace with Japan. The Chinese hate the Japanese. " -Hating someone doesn't mean that you go to war with them whenever you see fit. Peace and hate can go hand in hand quite comfortably. "If China wanted to control North Korea, they would have. If they could really have made KJI stop his nuclear test just by asking him, they would have. And you’re wrong, I do want a collapsed North Korea. I simply cannot understand why you care so little about the North Korean people. I’m sure you’ll get really indignant about that and say that I’m insulting you. But really, you say the only thing we can do is wait, and you say the stability of the region is more important. More important than what? The North Korean people, obviously. " -No, they wouldn't have. It would not be logical to assume the debt, the delapidated infrastructure, and inherent problems with North Korea. It would not make sense to effectively allow millions of refugees to flood your nation as if it were 1845 all over again. "I guess that’s the difference between us. You view the so called stability of a region as more important than individual freedom. Have you ever lived under a communist government? If you would be happy living in North Korea, the Soviet Union, or Cuba, then I will concede the point, and admit that there is no benefit to bringing the North Koreans into a democratic government. " -it is called the greater good. You save more lives, ensure the greatest amount of freedom, and cause the least amount of lasting global economic damage. However, I feel that this lady doth protest too much. Have you ever lived in a totalitarian regime? Individual freedom is not something to be completely enshrined and something to constantly shed blood for. That removes freedoms. You state this hyperbolically and in poor tastes. Concede that much. Arwon hasn't said anywhere "GOOOOOOOOOOOO STARVATIONAL COMMUNIST WAR ECONOMY". Arwon hasn't stated that bringing a liberal democratic government to NK is a bad thing. He has stated however that your persistent belief that destabilizing the regime in order to bring it about is not the proper way of doing so. "So we should abandon the East Germans? The West Germans should say “tough luck, you bunch of krauts. It’s your fault for being invaded by the USSR, so we’re not going to let you back into our country anymore.” Also, South Korea has about twice the population of North Korea. " -Beyond ignoring some thrusts of Arwon's arguments and ignoring the information about German reunification that he presented in previous posts I want to make one thing clearly. Triple the population allows for a greater amount of weathering attrition that only double the population. That is a big difference in numbers. "Then the problem lies in the apathy of world leaders today. As I said, people don’t care about Korea. That’s unfortunate. And we Americans are called the immoral ones, while Europeans sit on their high horse claiming to be morally superior because they don’t have the death penalty, and don’t spend as much on military funding. I hope they really feel good about themselves here. " -proactive solutions instead of destructive solutions is not apathy. In fact there is a great amount of interest in engaging this issue and ending it in the least painful way possible. Besides, everyone cares about the Korean issue. From those that see it popping up on the news and in the media. To those engaged in the intelligence community. From any echelon of the diplomatic sphere. Also, I suppose that you truly know what it feels like being thrown to the lions by the Romans? Come on now. The EU is the second largest military spender on the planet. The nations pride themselves on their militaries. They aren't on a moral highhorse. You're sitting in the toddler car seat of self-pity and global ignorance. "Yet again, that is something the rest of the world should be ashamed of. If the US would be criticized by the world for toppling the KJI regime (and I agree that it would), then I’m not sure I care what the world thinks anymore. If the world says that the North Koreans are so worthless that so called regional stability is the most important thing, then I’m glad American is a unilateralist country. Just because the rest of the people in the room are immoral and disagree with you cause, their majority opinion doesn’t make your cause any less moral." -They would. Because they are over-extended right now and can't lend the proper resources to the proper clean up operations and the rebuilding. You can't expect a set of non-superpower nations to assume that sort of responsibility! And if you think that the Japanese, South Koreans, Russians, and Chinese are so insignifant and worthless and that you're willing to risk them to fulfill your own moral ambitions. If you're willing to threaten regional stability and safety. If you're willing to ignore the opinions of the other entities of the world. If you're willing to turn this into a battle of moral relativism...Well, then you've lost a battle. Unilateralism is a universally bad idea. And to end this...I hate having to actually be the voice of realist ideas and reason when it comes to foreign policy. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
No, they're generalized, vague, misused, and inaccurate terms in the hands of myopic American pundits. FWIW I am not a liberal inthat sense. I'm a social democrat, which is a creature as rare as a unicorn in American politics. At any rate I'm not using "conservative" in a generalised sense here, I'm ascribing a fairly specific attitude towards international relations to you. Your views on international relations are text-book neoconservatism, in the academic sense. This is international relations 101 stuff. Neo-conservatism is characterised by things like aggressive support for democracies and nation-building, great faith in the ability of America to export democracy and build democracies after conflicts, a strong belief in the democratic peace theory, disagreement with nativism and isolationism, rejection of things like détente and realpolitik, and, historically, support for rollback over containment, accommodation, arms control, and so forth. In some ways it's sort of a fun-house mirror version of the Trotskyist theories of spreading revolution... they share the idea that democracy and liberal capitalism are euphimisms for each other, they both have faith that one can create a new governmental and social system in ostensibly "backward" societies that haven't naturally developed towards them. It's an interesting flip of the old revolutionary left's ideas. They usually believe Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union and that the best comparison for any given humanitarian intervention and "nation building" project is Germany and Japan post-WW2. They're likely to view China as a scary looming threat and want harsh policies towards it to contain it. You are, in international relations terms, a neo-conservative. I don't know where I fit... probably some variety of constructivism, but that's a subject for another day. My objections to ideology-driven (and the project of exporting the capitalist liberal-democratic system is certainly an ideology-driven foreign policy) nation-building projects are rooted in the fact that they are very hard, and usually don't work for a number of reasons. Firstly, I don't believe it's possible to really steer, with any degree of certainty, the directions of other countries and the international system, even for a country as powerful and hegemonic as the United States. Remember the Shah and all that. And the ability to predict and accurately steer one of the essential requirements for such a normative and ambitious foreign policy agenda to succeeed. Such things are, at best, an inexact science, something that has been illustrated repeatedly from Haiti to East Timor and was illustrated with particularly great force in Iraq. I'm, personally, convinced that the prime motivation for intervention in Iraq was neoconservative idealism and faith in the democratisation project (not OIL OMG or whatever). The problem was, this faith in democratisation blinded people to certain realities--witness the belief that people would continue to be grateful for a long time and the belief that democracy would be a rapid and easy process. The disbanding of the Ba'ath Party and the civil service and the army, for example, was textbook neo-conservative policy based on the denazification analogy. And it's probably been the single biggest disaster in terms of crippling reconstruction efforts and creating a powerful insurgency. This is just one example... some of the follies and incompetence in attempting to create liberal capitalism out of nothing also attest to the way the difficulties of nation-building have been, and continue to be, massively underestimated. These people have noble desires but then, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Second, there's massive questions over the ability of countries, ie the United States, to commit sufficient attention, time, and resources to achieve a successful nation-building even if it's possible. Given the fickle nature of electorates in general, its inward-looking electorate in particular, its recent history of absolutely mediocre leaders, the strong isolationist bent of a lot of Americans, doubts over the strength of America's economy or its ability to control its budget, and so forth... it's doubtful that in a reconstruction situation as dire and desperate as a North Korean project would be, that the US would have the will to see things through effectively. And that's even assuming it was done with competence and understanding and pragmatism in a way Iraq has not been. And for this reason alone, I don't think a reconstruction opportunity is necessarily something to look forward to just because it means no more Kim Jong Il. Certainly the South Koreans and others aren't looking forward to it... This, again, smacks of the unwillingness to see complexity and difficulty in such things, recognising that the wholesale transformation of entire societies, from without, is bloody difficult even at the best of times. If you're not even going to even recognise that millions of Eastern Europeans have legitimate grievances and feel ambivalence with their new systems, (instead falling back on simplistic rhetoric like "Have you ever lived under a communist government?"), if you cant see such ambiguities and problems with the idea of spreading democracy and freedom and markets and all that, how can you be expected to fix North Korea, a country far more scarred and broken than the old Eastern Bloc, effectively? I'll grant that you probably don't really understand much about what many East European countries are like, it's not something that gets taught in American schools (are you aware that the Communist Parties of most countries have since held power again, for example?). But then... that's kind of the point--the "export democracy" project is a little bit naive. The point isn't that the fall of Communism was a bad thing per se, because obviously very few would want it all back, it's that it was abysmally managed (a big issue was shonky neoliberal Western economic advice leading to "shock therapy" and wholesale deindustrialisation and mass-unemployment) and that in many places people legitimately miss aspects of the old system such as job security, pensions and health care... and that many quality-of-life indicators have actually declined in a lot of places. Post-communism is a multifaceted issue... not to be approached in triumphalist "the evil empire has fallen!" terms. It's not a desirable blueprint for future societal remodellings, it's a "what not to do" lesson on the virtues of gradual change. Third, I don't think it's valid to view regimes as threats based entirely on their ideological stances. Your statement that "China has visions of a world wide Chinese hegemony in the future" and "China would be happy if North Korea attacked South Korea or Japan" is key here. You keep talking about China wanting war and salivating to destroy Japan and so forth, which strikes me as unfair. Sure, they've certainly got designs on areas they consider part of their historic nation, rightly or wrongly (and there's questions as to whether this includes, say, North Korea as part of the historic Korgoyo kingdom) but that's hardly a global imperialist project. For what it's worth, Chinese strategic thinking as defined by Chinese strategists is the China's Peaceful Rise doctrine... mistrust it if you will, but be aware that you're simply doing the mirror of what other people do when they mistrust America's more idealistic stated foreign-policy goals. I believe that power interests are a far bigger factor in security than ideology and I don't buy the Democratic Peace Theory. For example, it's probable that the Cold War would have happened even if Russia was still a Tsarist monarchy or had stabilised under Karensky as a more Social Democratic or even Liberal state rather than Bolshevik/Communist one, because post WW2, the US and Russia would still have been confronting each other as dual hegemons over a power vacuum in Europe, and would still have been compelled into a security dilemma together no matter what their political systems. Granted it's also possible to argue that the paranoid personality of Stalin was the prime cause of the Cold War, but I favour the structural explaination. The character and rhetoric of the confrontation would have been different with different governments, but confrontation still would have occurred in some form. So where we're essentially differing here is you keenly anticipate the chance to reconstruct North Korea along liberal democratic and capitalist lines and think it would work well, whereas I, simply, don't given the past history of such projects. I'd love it if it were possible to remake the international order in a more appealing image and to shape countries into modern secular social- or liberal-democratic republics, but there's simply no evidence that the democracy-export project is possible or that ideologically driven humanitarian interventions and nation-building projects work very wellat all. Actually now that I think about it, there's not much evidence nation-building and reconstructions work period, which is depressing... even East Timor, with all the right theoretical preconditions, is turning into a basket-case. We also differ in that you want to push them very hard in order to actively weaken North Korea and want to seek regime change--that's rollback, not containment. In contrast, I think seeking regime change rather than maintaince of the status quo is not in the region's security interests and that the preconditions necessary to create an opportunity for regime change (war or the collapse of the whole North Korean state) aren't desirable ideas for any of the other players. Regime change means either war or the collapse of North Korea or both. Call it "not caring about the North Korean people" if you will, but emotional blackmail isn't effective argumentation and at any rate I can equally accuse you of not caring about the Japanese, South Korean or Chinese people by being so cavalier about regime change. Oh and I swear a lot, it's part of my style. No big deal. Attribute it all to my rough and crude Australian ways or something. Also, GODWIN. (edited by Arwon on 10-19-06 03:04 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
|
Plus Sign Abomination, you have a high post count, so I assume you know how to use the quote tags?
Granted, but there have been no massive body counts from military action on either side for over 50 years, so if the fighting starts again and thousands more people die within a few days, I think we could safely call that a second war. It’s really not important to me what we call it, though.
Hardly. There’s really little point in debating that with you, as I can’t prove to you what’s in my mind, but I’m very happy with South Korea and Japan, neither of which brutalize their own people or are threaten to invade their neighbors. Whether they think America is the schiznit or not is irrelevant. I don’t deny that I would prefer it if people liked us, who wouldn’t, but if they don’t like us, as long as they aren’t actively trying to kill us, that’s OK.
Well, I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying there, because that isn’t a complete sentence. You could be saying that “the installation of friendlies proves that you want American hegemonic control.” If that was what you meant to say, that I would point out that South Korea and Japan are both free countries. Neither of them are “friendly” dictatorships propped up by the US, like Saudi Arabia. The Saudis aren’t great friends, but you understand my meaning. Again I would like to point out that both of you are getting only about 35% of your information about me from the actual text I write, and are assuming the other 65%. As I’ve said already, I don’t want a friendly dictatorship in North Korea. I want a democracy. Preferably the South Korean democracy. I believe that a democratic government is the best practical government that humans have yet invented. In the future we may develop something better, but for the moment, I believe that humans are most free when they live under a democratic government. Please take note (as I’ve said before but you refuse to hear) that this government doesn’t have to be identical to the US government (with a president, vice president, 9 supreme court justices, bicameral legislative branches, etc). There are many, many models that we could look to for the new North Korean government, including the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, and South Korea. One way or another, though, I believe the North Koreans would be happier living under a government that ensured a basic level of economic, political, and religious freedom, a free press, security from street crime, food, employment, etc.
I did not say that the concept of regional stability was false. I only said that the term was a “cop out term”, the definition of which I explained in my previous post. Stability in the region is most definitely important. I was taking issue with the suggestion that the current North Korean regime is more stable than a democracy would be, or has a mores stabilizing effect on the region than a democracy would be. Perhaps in the short term, especially if China tried to dig its claws into North Korea during the transition from dictatorship to democracy (though this can be prevented by the US). In the long run, though, democracies are stable, and have a very stabilizing effect on the region. If every single country in the region was a true democracy (not a semi democracy), would there be any issues as grievous as the North Korean problem? Look at Europe. Great Britain, France, or Germany could try to conquer portions of Europe, as they have in years past, but there are all stable democracies now, and have given up war as their favorite pass time. Look at North America. The US could conquer Canada or Mexico any time it wanted, but we don’t. Now let’s look at North East Asia a few years in the future. Japan could conquer the Korean Peninsula, but a democratic Japan and a democratic, unified Korea would be able to work out their differences peacefully, as the US, Canada, Mexico, England, France, etc do. As the not so old saying goes, when do democracies go to war with each other? Not too often.
Exactly, a destabilizing force, such as North Korea. And a hardly see how North Korea failing to easily transition from a dictatorship to a democracy after KJI’s death or removal would cause any sort of domino affect on China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea. North Korea as it is today is far more destabilizing to the region than a North Korea that has failed to transition cleanly to a democracy.
I agree that pacifying and liberalizing North Korea will increase stability in the region, if that is what you’re saying. However, I don’t agree that KJI can be either pacified or liberalized. Once KJI is dead or hiding in a spider hole, what then? If we leave North Korea alone, one of the top generals may easily take control. If the North Korean people have not toppled KJI and his father on their own by now, what makes you think they are likely to do the same to KJI’s successor? All I’m saying is, when KJI does fall, I think the best option is to try to reunify the countries. Why? Tell me, where will you find a North Korea who is educated enough and popular enough to become the president of a new North Korean democracy? I’m not suggesting that the North Koreans are inferior, but they have been kept uneducated and ignorant by KJI. So, rather than allowing North Korea to flounder in the netherworld between dictatorship and democracy (as you seem very eager to do), or worse, to fall back into another dictatorship, I suggest that we reunify the peninsula and give the government in Seoul control over the North. Why? Because the South already has an established democracy and a strong economy. I think the US and the rest of the world should be willing to help pay the cash required to bring North Korea back from the dark ages (which means just the US, because the rest of the world couldn’t care less).
Really? Try the only countries in North East Asia. 
We come yet again to the same argument: China and Russia are not nearly as concerned with fixing the problem in North Korea as the US is. China and Russia are important, because they are very powerful. But they are not democratic. They are not peace loving. They do not have the interests of the North Korea civilians at heart. China and Russia would solve the problems in North Korea only if it was in their best interests. And the end result of a North Korea “helped” by China and Russia would most definitely not be a stable democracy with a strong economy, like South Korea. 6 party talks will go nowhere. 3 cops and 3 convicted felons can talk to each other all they want, but they will never reach a happy agreement.
Of course not. The US has a strong military and a nuclear arsenal, but we are not a destabilizing force. It is a strong military and a nuclear arsenal coupled with a brutal dictator that makes North Korea a destabilizing force.
And don’t you think it more likely that hawkish Prime Ministers will continue to be elected as long as Japan feels threatened? If KJI was removed and North Korea became a stable democracy, Japan would have far less reason to need a hawk in office or a strong military of their own. For the moment, I can’t say I blame them, though. China is gaining in power every day, North Korea fires missiles at China and now has nuclear bombs to put on those missiles, world opinion is turning against Japan as people behave increasingly more friendly toward China and more conciliatory toward North Korea. Japan could easily decide that the only people they can rely on for security is themselves. The way to prevent an East Asian arms race, though, is to remove the regional threats so everyone would feel more secure. Removing KJI would go a long way toward that goal.
I agree, but once again, we come to the problem of what should happen and what is likely to happen. Just how do you define “constructive sanctions”, for starters. Second, the world is not unified behind any goals regarding North Korea, much less the goals we would like to see. As I’ve said before, China and Russia are not interested in turning North Korea into a stable democracy, which is my goal, at any rate. Much of the rest of East Asia is too weak to effect much change. Much of Europe and the west seem very apathetic to the situation. That effectively leaves the US, South Korea, and Japan. These three, I believe, could agree on a course of action that would eventually turn North Korea into a stable democracy. Their attempts will be greatly hindered if China refuses to cooperate, and they will. Of course, if China, Russia, East Asia, the US, and Europe all worked together in perfect harmony, North Korea could be dealt with peacefully and effectively. But that will never happen. The difference between us is that I recognize that this scenario of cooperation will never happen, and I try to find ways to work around it.
Not overwhelming strength. If KJI believes that the US forces will crush him, he will not start a war.
The comparison is this: Hitler attacked Poland because he believed he could win. Yes, Hitler wanted certain parts of Poland for a host of reasons, but he wouldn’t have attacked if he thought he was going to lose. Dictators intent on perpetuating their own existence do not start wars that they know they are going to lose. Hitler was certain he could defeat the combined forces of France and England (and he was right). He also thought he could defeat Russia, though he was wrong. Saddam Hussein knew he could defeat Kuwait. Of course, because Kuwait was tiny. But he didn’t think he could defeat the US military. What he did think was the US would stand by and do nothing while he invaded Kuwait. He was wrong. A number of things could encourage KJI to start another war. He may think that China will protect him from America, as they did in the first Korean War. He may think that the US will only devote a small number of forces to Korea, because we are over stretched with Iraq and Afghanistan and America lately favors limited wars. He may think that America will not risk starting a larger war, and that we would gladly trade South Korea to avoid a larger conflict. He may think that the UN will prevent the US from joining in the war. He may think that US public opinion for another war would be virtually non existent. We must make it clear to KJI that none of these are true.
Any idiot with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. I’m sure you could see the writing on the wall back in the late 80s. I’m not really interested in dragging up an old debate about the fall of the USSR here. That could fill a dozen threads by itself.
An alliance of weaker countries banding together to defeat a single strong country is different. Each individual is weaker, but together they have a chance.
Hardly. If we had attacked Hitler years earlier, we would have avoided the millions of deaths in WW2. Attacking dictators can lead to problems, especially when there are other dictators nearby who fear the same treatment, but not necessarily. Again, I’ll relate KJI to a mafia boss. Should the FBI make it a policy to stop arresting members of a mafia family, because the rest of the family has pledged to ramp up street violence as a response? None the less, your point is wrong because, yet again, no one has read the many, many times by now that I’ve said a preemptive strike against North Korea would be too costly to South Korean civilians. I won’t say it again. Read it and understand it.
*Cough* Yet again, I didn’t say attack North Korea, whether they are in a state of weakness or not. And that has nothing to do with a cold war mind set.
But you are both ignoring the fact that KJI sitting alone in his corner of the world still results in many North Korean civilians dead and brutalized. So he’s not killing South Koreans or Americans in a direct war, but why are North Koreans any less valuable? You continue to make it sound as if KJI sitting alone in his corner of the world is an acceptable situation. So he’s not bother other countries, but he’s still brutalizing his own people. I don’t care if it’s happening in other places as well, that doesn’t make it any less wrong. I’m also not saying that North Korea is the only place where civilians are being brutalized that I care about, but this thread is about North Korea. We could just as easily talk about Darfur. I care about those innocents as well, but that’s a mater for a different thread.
Wrong. There is a difference between “peace” and “lack of war.” China doesn’t want an open war of the traditional kind. China doesn’t care, however, if North Korea (or Chinese) civilians are being brutalized, of if KJI has nuclear weapons, or if KJI makes South Korea sweat. China doesn’t want open war, but that’s a long, long way from peace in any sense of the word other than simply “lack of war.”
Neither India nor Russia would go to war with China over Korea.
If Bush still had the foreign policy attitude today that he had before the Iraq invasion, he would already have taken military action against Iran. Bush has realized that the war in Iraq was not as easy as he thought it would be, and he has seen how vicious the American opposition and the foreign public are when they are unhappy. So he has opted for relative inaction with Iran and North Korea. He seems to have decided to try to salvage his reputation in the last few years of his presidency instead of doing what needs to be done. More than likely, the next president is going to be even worse.
That makes very little sense, if any. Pardon the pun. The Security Council will likely accomplish little with North Korea. The new Secretary General is a South Korean, but I fear he may be just as ineffective as Khofi Annon. Anything happening in the Security Council must be approved by both Russia and China, neither of which would support a war with North Korea, or the level of sanctions that would prevent him from exporting missiles for cash or importing the things his regime needs to survive, like oil.
As I said before, that is true if your definition of peace is limited to “not war.” Mine is not.
I didn’t say annex North Korea, I said control, as in pulling a puppet’s strings.
Oh, please. You’re not looking for the greater good, your trying to avoid a difficult situation. You know that transition from dictatorship to democracy (and the removal of KJI) won’t be easy, so you don’t want to do it. You’re content to allow KJI to remain in power as long as he’s not upsetting your so called regional stability. I’m not.
You don’t have to settling for saving some lives and not others. We can have both. Obviously, if we start a war and millions die, that doesn’t contribute to the greater good. But KJI can be removed without starting a war.
I asked first.
Sorry, but I thought America was all about shedding blood for freedom. I guess not. I thought freedom was one of the few things worth shedding blood for. I guess not. Besides, I’m not talking about individual freedom as paramount to all else. Obviously, that would be anarchy. But a democratic country like South Korea is massively superior to North Korea in the area of individual freedom.
No, he instead said that bringing a liberal democratic government to North Korea would be too hard, so we shouldn’t try. And I fail to see any way of bringing a democracy to North Korea without destabilizing the regime. KJI will not soften his rule to a semi democracy, and I’d rather not force the North Koreans to wait any more decades than they have to before they get their democracy.
Really? Is three bigger than two? I guess I had that backwards. I’ve already said that other countries (especially the US) should help with the cost, instead of putting the full burden on South Korea. In the long run, though, South Korea will benefit from gaining millions of people. Not right away, but eventually. Besides, my original comment still stands. Just because it won’t be easy, we should just ignore the North Koreans? Just because it will be expensive, they don’t have the same value that we do?
Show me where they have come up with proactive solutions, or any solutions, for that mater.
I disagree. Actions speak louder than words, remember. A diplomat or UN ambassador may say “we want to engaging this issue and end it in the least painful way possible.” But that means nothing. That means the least painful way for them, not for the North Koreans. That means the diplomat or politician in general doesn’t want to work too hard or spend too much, but doesn’t want to appear uncaring. When countries show by their actions that they are willing to spend time and money and political capital to solve the North Korean problem, then I’ll be happy. You and Arwan are perfect examples. ‘Don’t risk regional stability just for the North Korean’s sake.’ After all, 25 million North Koreans is a small price to pay for regional stability, right?
Yes, actually. I am very old, and I was a Roman gladiator in my youth. I killed 3 lions and 12 slaves during my years as a warrior of the coliseum. Apparently I was quite the crowd pleaser.
Hardly. Only Great Britain and France spend more than 2% of the GDP on their militaries. They certainly do not pride themselves on their militaries. What’s more, those militaries are not equipped to fight anywhere anytime, as the US military is. Which is why the US military is the obvious choice if ( if ) KJI starts a second Korean War.
Proclaim that I’ve lost whatever you like, it means nothing. Unilateralism is only bad if the other countries are willing to work with you. But when it comes to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Darfur, and a host of other places, much of the rest of the world is either content with the status quo, or simply not willing to risk more than a few pennies or a paper cut to change it.
You aren’t the voice of reason. You’re the voice of inaction. I’ve said it before, you’re far too content with the status quo. Unfortunately, the status quo involves quite a few people dying and being starved and oppressed. I’m not willing to start World War 3 over North Korea, but I’m not content to do nothing and hope the problem solves itself. I’m also not foolish enough to think that the world community will come together on their own and solve the problem, or that a world community even exists at the moment. ---The above text refers to Plus Sign Abomination’s post. The text that follows refers to Arwan’s post. ---
Of course. What was that about negative knee jerk reactions to Americans, again? No, liberal and conservative are not good terms to use. Not only is there incredible diversity within the groups, but they are relative to time and place.
Communists, Anarchists, and Amish are also rare in American politics. Does that make them anything special?
Of course, because we’ve all taken international relations 101. I have, but not everyone has. Besides, it matters little what label you give someone. What does matter is what that label means. I’m actually proud to be called a neocon. I could be put in worse company than theirs.
If you don’t like ideology, then think of it as pragmatism based foreign policy. Which countries are the most peaceful in the world? Democratic countries. If you read the first half of this post, you will know that I don’t define peace as simply not starting war with neighbors. Democratic countries are also far less brutal to their own people. Which is worse, the period of hardship in the transition between a dictatorship and a democracy, or a country that remains a dictatorship for another thirty years, and then begins the transition from dictatorship to democracy. Allowing KJI to continue doing his own thing won’t solve any problems in North Korea, it will only postpone them. Whether KJI falls within 10 years because he is forced out, or whether the regime continues on even after his death, North Korea will one day have to make the transition from a dictatorship to a democracy. Why not now when we can help them through it, rather then later when they may have to flounder on their own? I got a little side tracked there, but the pragmatism point stands. It is not only morally right to encourage and help with the spread and growth of new democracies, but it also contributes to world peace, in the sense that democracies rarely fight each other. As for steering countries and the Iraq war: Countries can be steered, it happens often. Though it is not exact, it does happen. Steering people is not exact, either, but we do it. It still comes back to the same thing, you’re not just saying “think twice about this, because it’s going to be hard.” I know it will be hard, but that shouldn’t mean we abandon it altogether. What you’re saying is not to even try to help North Korea but to “wait and see.” If we wait, we will see quite a few North Koreans dying. The longer we wait, the more North Koreans. I believe we should expedite the process as much as possible without starting the Second Korean War. It’s not as if the North Koreans are becoming steadily more democratized as time goes on.
The US put quite a bit of money and effort into rebuilding Europe. I grant that rebuilding is easier than building, but once again, it’s not as if the North Koreans will be worse off for the trying. There would be few governments worse than KJI, so we couldn’t harm the North Koreans in an economic way much more than they already have been.
Exactly, which is why I think the South Korean government should be given control over North Korea. Rather than trying to create a democracy out of nothing, we would only be integrating non democratic people into an already existing democracy. It will be easier than starting from scratch.
Ah, that’s right. I’m only looking foreword to this because I want to see KJI gone. I care nothing for the North Korean people. Let me scroll back up and see if that’s what I actually said. Oh, it’s not. I look foreword to this because I know that the North Korean people will be better for it in the end. I look foreword to it because I hope in 50 years we can look back and wonder what it was like way back when the Korean peninsula was divided and at war, and when the North Koreans were suffering and impoverished. I look foreword to it because I hope that eventually (and it will probably be a couple hundreds years) everyone will have the same political, religious, and economic freedoms that we take for granted in America. I hope that comes sooner, rather than later, for the North Koreans. You, apparently, think they have all the time in the world. I find it very difficult to talk with people who try their hardest to find good points in the former communist system and bad points in a democratic system. It’s like the people who try to point out that Hezbolla gives out “health care.” Both communism and democracy have good and bad points, but communism has a whole lot more bad points, and democracy has a whole lot more good points. And communism is not the way of the future. Former communist nations have to modernize some time. You can’t put it off forever. I agree that the transition is not easy, and that it can be made easier, but that transition will not happen at all with people as apathetic as you. Remember that democracy is not the natural state of humans in large groups. Humans have lived in dictatorships for many years. Democracies take some work to set up and maintain, but they are far better than the dictatorships that came before them. That you even have to add “per se” after “the fall of Communism was a bad thing” kind of annoys me. You speak of job security and health care under communist states. While not all democracies becoming shining examples, no communist state has ever achieved the living standards enjoyed by Americans, Western Europeans, Australians, Canadians, etc. And it is only through democracy and economic liberalization that Eastern Europeans have even a hope of achieving parity with their Western European neighbors. If they go back to the communist system, their livings standards will fall even farther behind the rest of the world.
OK, I think I will.
No, because America treats its own people far better than China does, and America actually has a record of spreading democracy in the world, democracies which are then free to peacefully oppose the US.
That’s nice when your theory is so powerful that is counters the facts of reality. When have democratic countries gone to war with each other? Not often. Theorize all you will about Russia, the facts say otherwise (and a Tsarist monarchy is not a democracy).
If your theory is correct, then the US and the EU will one day start an arms race and have proxy wars. The EU is weak now, but one day it will be an economic rival to the US, and a rival in consumption of oil and usage of space. I believe there may be economic tensions between the US and EU, but we will never get so aggressive as the Cold War.
Do I keenly anticipate the chance to bring the North Koreans up to our standard of living? Of course I do. Do I think the transition will be easy? No. Do I think the best alternative is to leave them as they are? No. Do I think the transition is eventually essential? Yes. And it’s OK for you to caution people who are too reckless, but it’s not OK to suggest that the North Koreans would rather be left as they are.
That’s certainly not true. Democracy has not worked immediately everywhere it’s been tried, but it has worked often.
There we go again. KJI is more stabilizing to the region than a democracy, or even a semi democracy with serious problems? Actually, if North Korea literally falls apart, the region will be more stable, because there will not be a thug with a nuclear weapon threatening South Korea and Japan. Your idea that KJI, though brutal, is still a stabilizing force in the region is entirely false.
As I’ve said dozens of times by now, I’m not looking for a preemptive strike. If you haven’t gotten that by now, there’s little point in continuing this. I said in my very first post that we will have to wait for KJI to fall, unless he starts a war. As for a collapse of his regime, that wouldn’t be a bad thing.
And how exactly does my acting cavalier endanger the Japanese, Chinese, and South Koreans? KJI is not a threat to the Chinese, and I’m not asking the South Koreans or Japanese to go to war with North Korea. I don’t believe that KJI will use a nuclear bomb on South Korea or Japan if he thinks the US will retaliate. You’re treating him as a noble statesman who only wants peace, but will drop nuclear bombs on innocent people if he feels threatened. Some noble statesman. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| You seem to be having awful trends separating your own moral judgements from what is actually being said. Also, "quote war" dissections are a crutch, and a fucking annoying one at that.
The point about post-communism is not a defence of the state socialist system by any means, that has been thoroughly discredited. I'm talking in thoroughly amnoral and dispassionate terms here, there's no moral judgements being made--just a general point about how the transition in Eastern Europe was very problematic and not that successful. What I'm trying to get you to recognise is that there's been some very very serious problems in many parts of the post-communist world (and jesus, I haven't even mentioned the former Yugoslav countries, because really that's a whole other thread) and that these must be recognised as creating complexity and ambiguity... meaning they shouldn't be held up as models to follow. Are you even aware of how much disillusionment and nostalgia and conviction that nothing much has changed, exists in these places these days? The declining life expectancies? The crippling unemployment and de-industrialisation? The massive levels of corruption and instability? The rise of extreme political groups (with Russia, for example, lurching towards a mild sort of Fascism)? Until you come to terms with this stuff you shouldn't be triumphantly extolling the virtues of the process. You CANNOT just say "well they're nominally democratic now, therefore everything's awesome and we should try and make it happen everywhere". This attitude is at the very heart of the problem and why there's such skepticism about the neoconservative democratisation process. It speaks of a shocking unwillingness on the part of those who would crusade for change to actually learn from mistakes and try to apply these lessons elsewhere... it constantly strikes me as ironic how the people keenest on the democratic evangelism project are those least willing to look at past examples and precedents and try to actually learn from them. The mere fact that they have elections doesn't really count for that much when you consider how fucked many of their political and economic systems actualy are. Nobody with any familiarity with the region considers the majority of these states as successful examples of transition, or models to be followed, and yet here we have a lot of pie-in-the-sky Westerners wanting to assume everything's great there because hey, COLLAPSE OF COMMUNISM, and wanting to repeat the same mistakes elsewhere because they're blithely ignorant as to the problems on the ground, unwilling to take a closer look, and therefore blithely ignorant of how to avoid them in future. I'm not about to trust someone to know what they're talking about enough to do it again, if they're not willing to grapple with the complex realities of past transition projects. Platitudes about how "it won't be easy" are hardly comforting when the people mouthing them have NO IDEA what the precedents actually are. Spouting off about the living standards of the West is really missing the point quite badly, because other parts of the world are categorically NOT THE WEST and no mere adoption of a liberal democratic political system is going to fix them. If anything that's ass-backwards--putting the horse before the cart. You really are presenting a false dichotomy, a binary choice that simply does not exist, between western liberal democratic systems and Stalinist communism. Can we just be clear here. Can you state, in a few simple sentences, what exactly you expect to happen on the Korean peninsula? What do you do if the regime just collapses? What if China and South Korea close their borders to the millions of desperate refugees? What if South Korea doesn't want unification because it's too expensive? What if China decides it wants a role in the process, or simply marches its own troops into a collpased North Korean state? ...... Back to the Democratic Peace Theory, which you're pushing here. It's attractive but unfortunately it's suprious bunk, in several ways. Firstly, it confuses correlation with causation--it ignores the potential for other explanations. For example, maybe states don't go to war because they're similar (for example, autocratic Asian and South American states have also been quite peaceful, likewise Middle Eastern absolute monarchies) or maybe it's more to do with economic and social factors which have often coincided with democracy. Hell, a good Marxist theorist will tell you it's the interconnected interests of global capital keeping the peace, not democracy, which is actually reasonably compelling when you consider some of the nondemocratic states the democratic world is in a comfortable peace with (they'd argue that there's still plenty of conflict hidden at the bottom and in the margins of the system, however). Second, states that are democratic HAVE gone to war. The Spanish-American War was fought between two democracies. The Boer War had democratic combatants on both sides. In World War One both Germany and the UK had elected parliaments who voted overwhelmingly for war--Germany didn't turn into a virtual dictatorship until well into the war. Finland fought on the Axis side in World War 2. In the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 a couple of the Arab armies came from democratically elected leaderships and the UK gave unofficial support to the Arabs. Pakistan and India have fought each other at times when both were democracies. Likewise Peru and Ecuador. Lebanon and Israel are both democracies and they fought each other this year. A democratic Turkey has fought in a democratic Cyprus and continues to fight its Kurdish population within its own country. Colombia has been democratic for most of its blood-soaked history (which is bizzare to say the least) and yet it's seen more or less constrant internal warfare for at least 60 years. Iceland and the UK have come to naval blows over fish, likewise, I'm pretty sure that Spain and Canada have. Israel and the Palestinian Authority are both, surprisingly enough, democracies, too. Third, as has no doubt been illustrated by this list, there's so many definitional issues and other factors potentially at play in any conflict situation that it's extremely problematic to attribute any given political situation to democracy or lack there-of. It comes back to the old chestnut about what is a democracy... or what a war is, for that matter. Fourth, there is the problem of praxis. Yes, praxis--the nexus between theory and action. EVEN IF we accept that pre-existing democracies don't go to war much, there's still the "so what?" question. We've seen repeatedly, over and over again, all over the world, how bloody difficult it is to create democracy from outside in societies without traditions of democracy. Because, as alluded to previously, it's very backwards to assume that creating democracy will lead to a successful society... surely it's the reverse. The democratic peace theory implies that the appropriate foreign policy is to evangelise democracy all over the world, damn the consequences... but unfortuantely this doesn't seem to work very well, because a state's internal dynamics are much stronger influences than any external pressures. In response to the argument that exporting democracy isn't viable you said "Democracy has not worked immediately everywhere it’s been tried, but it has worked often" which misses a fundamental distinction between democracy from within and democracy from without. Which is, when we're talking about the neo-conservative democratisation project, is the essential distinction. ..... Which leads me, again, into the problems of nation-building. The only successful example you've come up with is the Marshall Plan after World War 2. Would that I could believe there was another Marshall Plan in the works for anyone, anywhere. The Marshall Plan was fundamentally different than any concievable circumstance in the modern world. The economic systems, political contet, internal dynamics of the target regimes, were all totally, completely different. Firstly, there was a massive degree of self-interest that is lacking in any contemporary scenario. Politically, there was the need to counter Communist influence, especially in places where the entire pre-war political elite, both liberal and conservative was tainted by collaberation, while the Communists were in many places heroes of the resistance and anti-fascist fight. There is no such imperative in any concievable contemporary context. Additional was the economic incentie... the strength of the American economy and its status as an exporting power. The Marshall Plan was incredibly expensive, and the US was basically able to afford it because they were in a massive war-boom and needed markets. By contrast, the US is these days an importing nation and nowhere near capable of similar outlays. Second, the nations of Europe already had advanced capitalist systems before the war and there was not a whole lot of need for structural adjustment tpye dealies, or for creating capital for development out of nothing. Third, the global economy is completely different now. After 1945 the US ended up presiding over a system of fixed exchange rates, the vaunted Bretton Woods system which was a way for the US to ensure financial stability for the recovering countries. This led to the boom in the 50s and 60s but collapsed in the 1970s and this system does not exist today in our globalised trade environment of floating exchange rates, market fundamentalism, and so forth. The rather ruthless prevailing economic orthodoxy these days is far less beneficial to helping developing countries than in the Marshall Plan era. The point of all this is that the post-WW2 rebuilding projects, as wonderfully successful as they were, have zero relevance as precedents to any concievable contemporary situation and you need to find a better analogy if you're going to argue that we should be seeking to spread democracy and so forth. ..... The essential point here is that the neoconservative democratisation project has been discredited. What keeps happening is people keep pointing out the numerous problems and basic realities of power politics and the response is to a) spout off about how evil someone is, how people are dying, etc etc, b) reassure us how it'll all work out this time and c) accuse you of hating America. Unattractive histrionics. It's wonderful to be all hand-wringing and bleeding heart and go on and on and on about the poor huddled masses getting abused by their nasty leaderships, and obviously no-one wants this shit to continue, but it's quite another thing to actually be able to do anything constructive about it. If wishes were horses, you know the rest. Hasn't Iraq taught you that good intentions and impatience aren't enough to fix things? Nobody is happy that the North Korean situation has no good solution, but then, the world's a pretty shitty place and you don't have a damn monopoly on being concerned about the problems of the world, nobody's got a good solution to the problems in the Congo, either. Or the dictatorships in Burma, Uzbekistan, Syria, Belarus, Zimbabwe, etc etc etc. Or AIDS in Africa. Or climate change. Moreover, it's really very insulting that you feel the need to keep telling us that North Korea is, in fact, a shitty place to live. Don't you think that's KIND OF AN ASSUMED GIVEN? ..... Actually, I kind of agree that it's possible to intervene in Darfur to good effect. Different situation. Maybe I'll start a thread on it. (edited by Arwon on 10-21-06 10:37 AM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| First thing: I've never engaged in mass-quoting. I think that it is idiotic and takes away from the thrust of the post.
Second: You have offered no new information. You're rehashing your irrational, overly emotional opinions again and again. All the while you're trying to deperately paint Arwon and I as not really caring. To this point I find this debate over and done with. It is going to cycle into a spiral of reality vs. "KJI NEEDS TO SEE THE USA HAS BOMBS FOR BRAINS!". Opa. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
East Europe is a very large region. For all of them to simultaneously convert to democratic countries with strong economies would obviously be much more difficult than just North Korea alone, especially if North Korea has South Korea and America to help in terms of manpower and cash, as well as a stable, democratic government to take over. As I said before, it�s harder to build a democracy out of nothing, as in Iraq or some Eastern European countries, then it is to simply integrate a country with no history of democracy into one with a fully functioning and stable democracy. North Korea will be easier to rehabilitate (or just habilitate, I guess) than Eastern Europe, provided South Korea and America help, and China does not interfere.
The real question is the North Korean military. Without that, KJI has no power. Even if he dies, one of his generals will still control the military and, effectively, the country. What I want is for the South Korean government to take control of the North, not militarily, but politically. This cannot happen if a North Korean general controls the military stationed at the DMZ. It is possible that a general who assumes control after KJI dies (or is assassinated by his own generals of officials) will be a peace minded reformer, in which case we can negotiate a unification with him. This is unlikely, however. It is far more likely that the general in question would be just as bad as KJI. If he was interested in negotiation, he would probably demand that he be given some position of power. All of that is assuming the North Korean people remain as they are today, not actively trying to topple KJI on their own. If KJI dies or is otherwise no longer in power and someone else replaces him who is just as bad, then we are in the same situation we are in today. Nothing has changed for better or worse, except perhaps that the general or whoever takes over might not be as widely accepted, as he isn�t a descendant of the �great leader� Kim Il Sung. If, however, the North Korean people grow tired of KJI�s mistreatment of them, the situation changes drastically. If KJI is no longer in power because the North Korean civilians rebel against him, or because his own army refuses to follow him, the situation is much easier. That isn�t terribly likely, either. Even if the North Koreans unanimously hate KJI, they aren�t likely to rebel (and most rebellions would fail) because KJI would still control the army. If every one of the North Korean civilians rebelled against KJI at the same time, as opposed to very small pockets of resistance one at a time, as is more likely, he wouldn�t stand a chance. Unfortunately, something like that has never really happened. The fastest way would be if KJI starts a second war. Then we could attack his palace and remove him, and destroy the most loyal elements of the North Korean army. I�m not interested in goading KJI into starting a war, because that would be very costly to the South Korean civilians. But, if KJI does start the war and South Korean civilians are already dying by the thousands, then we should take the opportunity. As long as the North Korean army is still under KJI�s control, or the control of whoever takes over the country next, there is little hope of removing the regime. Even if the �regime� or �government� collapses, the military will still be in control. North Korea would only be open to reunification if either the person in control of the army is willing to negotiate for peacefully unification, or the army is no longer as strong as it is now. The former is far less likely. The North Korean army is the key. Without it, KJI is just a weak old man. One thing that will help to weaken the military is feeding the North Korean people, as I suggested in my first post. Right now, there is a very strong incentive to join the North Korea army: the civilians have no food, and the army does. KJI can do this because other governments give him food in exchange for him agreeing not to build nuclear bombs. He then distributes the food only to those loyal to him, and builds his bombs anyway. We need to stop giving food to KJI, and instead give it directly to the North Korean people, as I said. When the situation is inverted so that the army is starving and the civilians are fed, the army will be much less likely to murder civilians for their Dear Leader. We also need to break KJI�s monopoly on information. We can do that by dropping information along with the food. We can also place a satellite right over North Korea and start projecting South Korean TV stations, and smuggle battery powered satellite TVs into North Korea. The older North Koreans will likely refuse to believe anything they hear, because they have grown up knowing only what KJI has told them. Still, people do try to escape from North Korea, which means that not everyone has been successfully indoctrinated. Also, the youngest generation will be more willing to listen, especially when the �evil capitalist propaganda� comes along with the food. That may not be a few sentences, but you try explaining what must be done in Darfur in a few sentences.
China most definitely will do that. I hope South Korea does not. I would work closely with the South Koreans on this, anyway, not go over their heads. If the South Koreans are so opposed to reunification that they would refuse to help the North Koreans, then I will accept that the world no longer cares and will give up all hope of helping North Korea. I don�t think the South Koreans will do that, though. Anyway, in my model, it wouldn�t be �North Koreans� coming into �South Korea�, because, once KJI�s regime has fallen, they should just be regular �Koreans.� I�m not trying to create a North Korean democracy completely separate from the South Korean democracy. I�m trying to create a unified Korea with the same old government and capital in Seoul. As for China, they already refuse refugees. I don�t foresee a way of convincing them to allow North Koreans to settle inside their borders, but that�s not surprising. As I said, the Chinese government has no interest in helping the North Korean people. However, when the Chinese refuse to allow North Koreans entry into China, once KJI is gone, the situation will not be as bad. The North Koreans will not face death as punishment for trying to flee. They won�t need to flee, though. I�m sure many will want to flee, simply because now they can and before they couldn�t, and they will hope to find a better life elsewhere, but their own towns will eventually improve. The North Koreans have very little to lose. There isn�t much harm we could do to them that hasn�t already been done, and there isn�t much we could take away from them that they already don�t have. But, as the US, South Korea, and any other country that is willing to help, continue to put money and infrastructure into the North Korea land, their lives will improve. We don�t have to build everything associated with modern life there. Some things will come on their own once North Korea has achieved a level of functionality. But we can start by building power plants, building farms, building factories, building houses, building schools, and building hospitals. Power plants are essential to building anything else. Homes are also essential. Homes built from modern building materials, even cheap ones, will be better than what many North Koreans currently have. Most of the North Koreans have no job skills, so low skill factory labor will provide a way for the North Koreans to start making a little money for themselves. I�m not talking about slave labor of 12 hours a day, 6 days a week for 10 cents an hour. We should pay them what a South Korean with no jobs skills would get working in a factory (like a high school drop out level job skills). These factories can make anything: shoes, cars, small metal parts, whatever that is simple work such as �insert tab A into slot B.� This will give the North Koreans a little money, which is a lot more than they have now. There will also be opportunities for the North Koreans with no jobs skills to move up within the factories and gain job skills and a higher pay grade. We should build schools so that the next generation of North Koreans will grow up with job skills. They could then more easily move to a South Korean city and find a higher paying job. Hospitals are also important. There are some international groups, like those that complain about the US not giving enough medicine to Africa, who could come and start distributing medicine in North Korea. The US government (and any other government that wants to help) could also encourage medical professionals to spend time in Korea by, for example, granting tax breaks or other goodies to universities that send medical students to North Korea. Obviously, this will be expensive, but no country has more money than the US. Other countries can and should help. Besides, we won�t have to pay for everything ourselves. Many companies will be dying to get their hands on millions of cheap laborers, so they will be able to front much of the costs for the factories.
I don�t think the South Koreans would do that, and I hope not, but, as I said above, if the South Koreans flat out refuse it, then I would give up any hope of helping North Korea in the near future.
China should have no direct role in the rebuilding of North Korea if it hopes to dig it�s claws into the recovering country. Remember, though, that�s yet another reason why we should give control of North Korea to South Korea. China could very easily decide to march troops into a collapsed North Korea, but they will not march troops into sovereign South Korean land. That is yet one more reason why we must make it very clear that this is not building up a North Korean democracy, but unifying the peninsula. With the Chinese government as it is now, I would be skeptical of just about anything coming from China to North Korea. If we�re talking about KJI�s regime falling quite a few years from now, however, and China has become a more democratic country in its own right by then, then they would be welcome to help, and their own massive economy could certainly help. I do not think �they [Eastern Europe] are marginally democratic and everything�s awesome�, as you suggest. However, the two situations are a bit different. In North Korea, there is no �job security� for the North Koreans to regret losing. There is no �universal health care� for the North Koreans to regret losing. In response to �democratic peace theory is suprious bunk.� You suggest that democratic states might avoid war, not because they are democratic, but because they are too similar. I don�t really think this is the case. For one, you provided a counter to your own argument in a earlier post: old Europe. The kingdoms of Old Europe were as similar to each other as Latin America or Asian dictatorships, if not more so, and they went to war all the time. And the Middle East dictatorships are not truly that similar to each other. Iran is a true Islamic republic, and Shiite controlled. Egypt is ruled by a more secular dictator. Saudi Arabia is a hereditary monarchy of the extreme Sunni variety. There is plenty of variation between them. That�s my reply to most of it. There�s a bit more I want to say, but I have to work tomorrow, so I should get some sleep. I�ll finish it tomorrow (edited by Koryo on 10-22-06 03:34 AM) (edited by Koryo on 10-22-06 03:36 AM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Funny, that.
Marginally democratic? Czech Rep., Polan, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia, and other nations usually under the improper Western definition of E. Europe (which is technically just Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus) are all current, working democracies (I don't give Russia or Belarus the same mention. Russia because of various issues with criminal corruption and Belarus because...it is current Belarus). Also, why shouldn't China help with rebuilding North Korea? It would be its immediate neighbour. It has the money and direct access needed to help rebuild. Welcome to International Relations 101. The Ivory Tower of Foreign Idealism is a lie. And what is wrong with China/S.Korea turning N.K refugees away at its borders? If you're willing to destabilize the nation and exclude the world's number 2 power from brokering in a massive internal problem then why should they have to foot the bill? Moreover, why should S. Korea have to foot the bill for increased police spending and massive reconstructive efforts (industrial, commercial, financial...whatever -ial you can imagine) that will come with an influx of 10s of millions of N.K refugees? Shouldn't America just build a freaking bridge from Pyongyang to Tuscon, Arizona if it is so right and imperative that it streamline and completely tackle the issue of KRAAAAZY KIM JONG IL? |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| It's interesting to note the prevalence of "hopes" and "shoulds" when confronted with the numerous perils of the situation, coupled with the assumption of the ability for there to be direct American control of the situation and assumption that South Korea will go along with rapid unification and using them as a political pawn against Chinese influence. Characteristic neoconservative extreme optimism I guess. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Because, as you would know if you had read it, the current Chinese government would be all to happy to have a puppet government in North Korea, or at least one very dependant on them. I seriously doubt China would be willing to shell out cash without the promise of repayment, anyway. You can call whatever you want “international relations 101”, but that doesn’t make it so. In fact, from now on, I’m going to call it biology 101.
Firstly, there is a bit of a misunderstanding on your part about “stability.” North Korea right now is not “stable” in any positive sense of the word. It is only “stable” in the sense that KJI isn’t going anywhere because his military controls the land. Many North Koreans want to leave right now, even when the country is “stable.” If KJI falls and millions flee the country, it won’t be a newfound desire to leave. They’ve always wanted to, except now they will be able to leave without dying. But here’s the thing. What you guys are saying is that South Korea won’t want to take in North Korean refugees because it would inconvenience them. But no South Koreans would die in the process. On the other hand, North Koreans do die on a daily basis by maintaining your precious “status quo” and “regional stability.” I’m sure you’re glad the region is stable, but I’m sure the North Koreans aren’t.
I make no assumptions about South Korea. As I told you (it’d be really nice if you would, you know, actually read my posts), I would work with South Korea rather than going over their head. Also, I think my optimism is better than your pessimism to the point of inaction. KJI’s regime falling will not in itself cause a regional nuclear war. It will also not be detrimental to the North Korean people. Any inconvenience to the South Koreans will be purely economic, not life threatening. On the other hand, if things remains as they are, North Koreans will die and are dying. You’re arguing as if “the situation is acceptable now, so don’t disrupt the fragile balance.” But the situation is not acceptable now, and KJI losing power would not upset the fragile balance. You also constantly speak of the North Korean government “collapsing.” There is very little North Korean government to collapse. KJI and his military might collapse, but it’s not as if there is an extensive economy currently managed by the government or banking systems or health care systems. If the North Korean government ceased to exist tomorrow, the North Koreans would be better off. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| 1. So, what's right about YOU installing a puppet government.
2. So, you would sacrifice a complete global market chock which could permanently cripple millions of people economically, effectively removing their freedoms that they currently enjoy as well as risk massive internal conflict and strife? And just for what? An ideological stipend? Do you see anything skewed in that? 3. So, there is this thing, this acceptability of the situation. I never claimed it was acceptable. Unfortunately I'm more inclined to engage more than three brain cells when it comes to international issues. I don't often do this, but you have simply lost. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Oh, I guess you have me there. Up until now, I didn’t see anything wrong with a puppet government. You’re a genius. The South Korean government is not a puppet government and, since I think the South Korean government should become the new North Korean government, then the North Korean government would also not be a puppet of the US.
And explain to me exactly how you are using extra brain cells. You are simply refusing to try anything. You have no alternative answer.
Then I'm proud to get something rare. You can declare whatever you like (I declare that today is armadillo appreciation day). You can also stop posting whenever you like, I'm going to continue. |
|||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign AbominationOf course, personal insults are absolutely justified, especially since the person to whom they are directed has yet to make a single personal remark at your or anyone else, as far as I can see. Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination 
--------------- Now, I won't pretend that I know all about international politics, because I honestly have not taken International Relations 101, but do you guys argue that Koryo is so off-base and incorrect because morality has no place in politics? I don't ask that in a condescending or a sarcastic way, but because I am earnestly interested about what sort of stance is normally taken on that idea. Would Koryo's idealistic proposals be ineffective because he is presenting them in a manner that would be simply ineffective in reality, or because no sort of international political actions are taken in the name of ideal morality, but only in the name of practicality? |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| The answer, SS, is basically both. It'd be brilliant if it wasn't the case, but Political Realism and cynicism is still the dominant mode of thought in international security and I don't think you could point to one example of a purely or even mainly moralistic foreign policy adventure that worked. East Timor, Haiti and Bosnia are probably the best examples and those countries are still basket-cases...
It's not that morality has no place, it's just that it has to be subordinated to other things, especially in dangerous situations. Politics is the art of the possible, and "We have to do SOMTHING" only goes so far. AT BEST in the present climate you can hope for either the coincidence of morality and power-politics considerations, or a vaguely moral stance when there's very little power-political issues at play (such as in East Timor and Bosnia), which in an area like NE Asia isn't the case. Especially with a regime like the current US administration--no way are we going to trust them to do anything so difficult and complicated. NE Asia with its precarious security situation, especially the prickly Chinese-Korean-Japanese relationship, is not the ideal venue for any sort of idealistic neoconservative "regime change" experiment. NK's one of the worst choices of venue. That's kinda why both South Korea and China would really rather live with the North Korean regime rather than push them too hard, even if they have nukes. There's no other choice. Koryo is trying desperately to argue that there is, he is trying to establish an imminent imperative for aggressive pressure, in the face of all reality and sense, basically using a mixture of moral outrage and the argument that China is evil and NK will use its weapons aggressively. Lots of inappropriate comparisons to Hitler and 1939 and the assumption that the alternative is OMG APPEASEMENT. We on the other hand are arguing that this nonsense and, regrettably, seeking regime change is the greater of two fairly sizable evils because it will A, piss everyone off and B, if it works, destabilise South Korea (and potentially, Northeast China) dramatically. And that's not even discussing the morality of sanctions, which is dubious at best. I might have to dig up an Economist article I read recently about the history of sanctions and when they do and don't work. When I've got more time I'm probably going to come back and get all Hans J Morgenthau and post about the times where naivity and optimism and good intentions and morality have directly fucked things up through the law of unintended consequences. I feel dirty given my distaste of Realist (cynicism, amorality, power-politics) theory, but it's preferable to misguided neoconservative crusading adventurism. Right now though, I have to go to an International Security lecture on, ironically enough, the Iraq war... (edited by Arwon on 10-22-06 11:11 PM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| "You have no alternative answer."
I've offered many, many alternatives. What have you offered? You know...Other than the same thing rehashed with an attempt at guilt tripping. |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| The thing is, you disagree with him, and I can understand that, I do too. But the truth still is that he's better informed then 90% of the people who come here, and you don't think they're idiots, just because they happen to agree with you. But if this were a forum with a more neoconservitive slant, he'd be "right", and you'd be the uninformed idiot.
Also, after reading through this unnessicarily long thread (and it wasn't easy, given the broken quote tags, lack of line breaks between quotes and replies, and the use of backticks instead of single quotes), I've noticed that although you and Arwon have generally said Koryo's plan wouldn't work and would like destabilize the region, you yet to specifically say why you think it wouldn't work and why you think it would destabilize the region. So, I guess I'll say why I think it wouldn't work. (The rest of this is directed to Koryo) First of all, there's the issue of dropping food loaded with propaganda. Although this is the least aggressive part of your plan, it's still far too aggressive for the situation. KJI is clearly very paranoid, and the whole reason for building his large military and weapons program is because he wants to stay isolated. South Korean or American planes flying in and dropping anything would likely only make tensions in the region much worse. You say you don't want a second Korean War, but moves like this is exactly the type of thing that would lead to it. I agree that it would likely slow recruitment into the NK military, but people are rather useless, without reasonable supplies, which is the very purpose of economic sanctioning. Secondly, theres giving nukes to Japan (or even merely threatening to do so). To me, this seems like a really bad idea. As it stands now, North Korea's nuclear program is rather uncalled for. However, if we start talking about giving nuclear weapons to a country in the region that they consider an enemy, it suddenly gets a small amount of justification. If there is any hope of disarming North Korea, through diplomacy or sanctions, it will go away as soon we talk about arming their enemies. If anything, this action would likely cause NK to step up its weapons program. Finally, if North Korea were to invaded South Korea, the US, should be there to defend SK, but this shouldn't be used as an opportunity to invade North Korea. With the help of the US, the North Korean forces could likely be pushed back behind the DMZ with a minimum (speaking relatively) of casualties, with a minimum risk of destablizing the region (atleast no more than allowing NK to have it way with SK). However, a full invasion into North Korean would likely cause massive casualties, and comes with it the possiblity of or a larger conflict with China. And although you're probably right that "China will not win", that's not really the issue. The huge economic fallout and ridiculous casualities that would be suffered on both side would make it simply not worth it. Even after the war, it would be a long time before relations between the US and its allies and China would recover. The last thing we need is Cold War II. Realistically the only way of dealing with North Korea is through containment and the slow weakening of their military through heavy sanctioning. The path to containment is through China. You're right when you say that North Korea would only attack South Korea if they felt they could win. But they know if they attack South Korea now, at the very least the US would be there, and even crazy KJI knows that's a battle he can't win. However, if he feels he can be backed up by China, he would be more likely to do something stupid. Like its been said in this thread already, you're misreading China's intentions. Although not likely to become a completely free and open society any time soon, the market is becoming more capitalist (and has been for quite a while) and the government is slowly loosening it grip on the flow of information. Basically The Party doesn't want China to be a giant North Korea, poor and isolated with the rest of the world breathing down its collective neck. They're on the path to becoming an economic superpower, and the last thing they need is this nut in North Korea slowing them down. So US and its allies in the region should work towards improving relations with China, and encourage them to make it clear to NK that they will not support any actions that might destabilize the region. Of course, beyond that, we can't really just sit back and expect the situation will resolves itself. With the isolation a popular uprising is unlikely, and it's even less likely, with the size of the North Korean military, that it would be successful. If KJI does lose power, it would most likely come through a military coup. Which would probably make matters much worse, since, although KJI may be content to build a large army and weapons program just to feel secure in his miserable little corner of the world, this wouldn't nessicarily be the goals of the generals that take charge. So this is where economic sanctioning comes it. By weaken the military by depriving it of essential commodities needed to build and maintain its forces through tough economic sanctioning, and loosening its ties to its allies, we can essentually neutralize the threat of North Korea. Except, of course, for the human rights issues. I obviously feel bad that the North Koreans live in the state they do. And I tend to believe when you are capable of doing good, there's an inheritant responsibity to do so. I just question our capability to do so. And if you list all the problems in the world that the US could help with, starting with the ones that we can do the most good with the least risk of causing more damage, liberating North Korea wouldn't even rank in the top ten. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emcee I never made a claim that he was underinformed. I said that he was rehashing the same argument without offering any new proofs or anything similar to that. Also, people with views similar to mine (though not here as this board is not politically oriented and based mostly on non-political issues) have been lambasted and attacked for saying, this, that, or the other thing. Even if I agree with you it doesn't mean that I won't think you're a drooling iditot.
Why it wouldn't work: The economy.. Absorbing a massive population that is uniformly poor into a freshly recovered tech-heavy nation. Why this won't work. It can't be done without a massive amount of contingency plans and the good grace of many deities of powers unbelievable. There are also issues of internal alienation and a potentially vast political divide. There will be massive unemployment numbers and there will have to be a massive dearming of a surprisingly well-armed military that is absolutely massive. There are problems never dealt with before. Plus, we'd need to get China on board and offer them logistic support to make sure Manchuria and other places in NE China don't get swamped with migrants. This causes an obvious domino effect and lowers the life quality of the Koreans and lowers the amount they can trade within the region. This also raises safety concerns. Investors are a fickle bunch. There is less money to be made where more money must be spent to provide security. Money leaves not just Korea, but also may leave Japan, China, and other Asian nations. One bright note would be the relatively free-market zones of Macau and Hong Kong. They may be able to weather the storm quite well. However, Emcee, I do have one main contention with your post: "slowly loosening it grip on the flow of information" China is doing quite the opposite of that. Ask an 18 year old who tank man is. Here the intelligent 18 year old, given the context of the conversation is China and politics, will remember the brave man in Tianeman Square. In China...very few have ever seen that picture. Even more the internet is unbelievably censored. PBS has some interesting documentaries on this. Also fun to read up on is the Great Firewall of China. |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination I'm speaking relatively. They obviously haven't completely released their grip, very far from it. I'm aware of censorship of the internet, but the internet is still relatively new, so although there may be more censorship there, that's only because it simply didn't exist before. Really though, I'm more talking more about the flow of information within the country. Although, the media is still technically controlled by the government, it doesn't really "own" it to the same extent. Given that they have to provide their own funding, media outlets are more likely to try to push the limits on what they can say. And The Party seems to be giving them some lead way. There is obviously a line that can't be crossed, but that doesn't stop the media from coming right up to it. As for the future, I guess its just speculation, but with a growing middle class, new forms of communication, and increased globalization, I find it hard to believe that The Party can keep the 1.2 billion Chinese in the dark too much longer. Atleast not as much in the dark as they want them to be right now. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Actually I disagree with you in tha regard, Emcee. In the unlikely occurrance that NK was stupid enough to start a war, it'd probably be best to roll in and occupy it if at all feasible. I just don't think it's a circumstance we should be trying to make more likely. This is, of course, assuming Chinese reluctant acceptance, which seems a reasonably likely development in any circumstance that actually saw the North attack the South. The Chinese would probably extract concessions on the form of post-war governance but that'd be a fair price, I should think.
... As for China and openness... well, Chinese development is interesting. On the one hand, it offers the single most successful example of reforming a Communist economy and the best model for countries like North Korea and Cuba to follow. On the other hand, the assumptions about the links between prosperity, market economics and freedom of information may not be accurate as regards China. Remember, China is an old, old civilisation with a long history of strong, bureaucratic, top-down rule and collectivist philosophies, and moreover, they thought of Adam Smith's ideas at least 500 years ago with no connection to ideas of liberty or freedom. It's entirely likely that the link between enlightenment philosophies of individual autonomy and free market economics was entirely by chance in the West and their connection is thus overstated in Western discourse. Assuming the Chinese governments maintain growth and reasonable satisfaction there's every chance it can survive a a single party state--I mean just look at Singapore for an example of a successful authoritarian single-party state with a high level of economic development and satisfaction. The biggest worry, probably, is the masses of rural poor--another feature of Chinese history is rural uprisings. Finally, on sanctions, from the Economist newspaper (subscription only link):
|
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| I believe I had already suggested that sanctions wouldn’t and haven’t worked. I understand that North Korea is a much more serious issue than many. When we invaded Iraq, Saddam couldn’t drop a nuclear bomb on his neighbors as a final flip of the middle finger to the world, while KJI can. But I also strongly deny that the current situation is anything remotely resembling stability. North Korea’s existence hasn’t caused another war in 50 years, but KJI hasn’t had a nuclear weapon until the last few years. Japan and South Korea may not be developing nuclear weapons at this moment, but how long do you think that will last? Extremist regimes can come to power more easily when their people have something to fear. South Korea and Japan are behaving very peacefully right now, but it wouldn’t take much to push them toward nuclear armament. A slightly less democratic leader then those two countries currently have now could find it much easier to gain office and order the creation of a nuclear arsenal if the civilians have something genuine to fear, such as North Korea. If you want to see an Asian arms race, leave KJI in control of North Korea and nuclear weapons. I don’t believe that we have to accept the world exactly as it is. For the first time ever on Earth, we have a large number of democratic nations. The future could be almost entirely democratic, or we could slide back to the way the Earth has been for almost as long as nation states have existed. I seriously doubt that any region dominated by a hegemonic China would produce very many democracies, if any at all. As I said earlier, democracy isn’t the natural state of humans in large groups. We have to work hard to create and maintain them. The European Union doesn’t have the political, economic, or military muscle to project its influence all around the world. I firmly believe (call it jingoistic if you will) that the US is the major force for spreading democracy in the world today. If we didn’t exist, I doubt there would be very many democracies, and most of those would probably lose quickly to larger authoritarian countries like Russia or China. Without the US intervention, I see no hope at all for any form of democracy in the Middle East, whether in Iraq or Palestine, because regional powers like Iran will greatly overshadow them. The same is true of East Asia. Without US intervention and “interference” in the region, I think we could easily see South Korea invaded by North Korea, Japan sliding back into a dictatorship, and Taiwan annexed by China. I don’t think North Korea is one of the worst places to try to affect this change (and I take offense at it being called an experiment). In fact, I think North Korea could potentially be the deciding factor in whether the entire region goes toward China (authoritarian with few political freedoms) or the US. You may call US hegemony imperialistic, but I seriously doubt that Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan could resist China politically or economically. While US projected power does not always promote democracy (such as Saudi Arabia), it certainly is one of the few countries that has both the will and the ability. The other world powers, like China and Russia, will not create a single democratic country through their own imperialism, and most of the other democracies don’t have the ability to defend it. Could you see Canada protecting Taiwan from China? Or the Netherlands protecting South Korea from North Korea? Or Luxembourg protecting Kuwait from Iraq? I’m sure you view any discussion about democracy what so ever as more neocon talk, but that really doesn’t bother me. (edited by Koryo on 10-24-06 09:34 PM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - North Korea's got Nukes.....and I care, why? |
| |
