More Politics - North/South Korea

[Baker]

I read this sometime last night:

"North and South Korea Sign Reconciliation Pact"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299261,00.html

"North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun also promised to boost economic ties — opening regular cargo railway service along restored tracks crossing their heavily armed border and creating a joint fishing zone on their disputed sea frontier."

If this happens, I think that would be great a thing. The reason I say "if this happens" is dictatorships like North Korea that oppress/starve/imprison their citizens really have a hard time liberalizing (they are good at signing papers, but not good at following thru).

On another note: The whole North Korea thing has always been surprising to me because really what do we have to do with things going on in Asia?

South Korea has one of the most healthy economies in the world, why on Earth do we still have troops over there? They can easily afford to defend themselves.

And yet another thought: North and South Korea have been separated for over 50 years. It would be nice if someday they reunified the country before all the people who lost contact with relatives die off.

/Maybe not the most interesting of topics, but I thought this was a little interesting.

[spooker]

Our troops are there as a "trigger"--to provide some initial defense and trigger and coordinate the arrival of more americans if it gets hot. The south is still outgunned 1 million troops to 600,000 by my last count. The funniest thing is, as soon as it became clear earlier this year that there was a coming rapprochement between North K./China and South K./US/Japan, some very intelligent commentators started saying that the North wasn't entirely opposed to having American troops on the peninsula because they could act as a counterweight to Chinese forces. WHATTT???? The power arrangements created and reinforced by 50 years of war are completely reversed, when just one year ago the glorious leader and our commander in chief were still snarling at each other? But I could see this as a possible strategy for North Korea in the future--playing off the 2 superpowers (though ignoring Japan mostly), mostly because it no longer shares the bond of communist ideology with decadently capitalistic China, just a disposition towards totalitarianism, and also because China is desperate to legitimize its much touted "rise" as a world power by appearing to be a constructive partner in world peace, leading it to withdraw support from it's wayward stepson. Bush is desperate for any sort of foreign policy victory after Iraq--it's just sad that his victory in Korea will come from him acting the most un-Bush-like he has ever been--by being conciliatory and weak.

On another note: The whole North Korea thing has always been surprising to me because really what do we have to do with things going on in Asia?

Silly Baker....everybody's business is our business. :p

[Stung]

What is really funny is how the U.S. is suddenly quiet (mostly) with respect to North Korea now that they have nukes. Talk about strengthening the Mutually Assured Destruction Theory.

[Cataklysque]

Well, North Korea is of great concern. Per a 2001 speech by Dubya, it is our duty to 'rid the world of evil'.

[Baker]

Silly Baker....everybody's business is our business. :p

In 1960, the USA had a mind-boggling 52% of the world GDP. Europe was rebuilding from WWII and most of the rest of the world was only beginning to truly enter the industrial age.

In that environment, activism and helping the whole world out was far more important.

But that was then, South Korea has a GDP of $1.2 trillion (US) and is an economic powerhouse.

They certainly have the economic resources to pay for a military to defend themselves. Things were different in 1950 when China and the Soviet Union were arming North Korea and at the time South Korea was an agrarian pre-industrial country.

mostly because it no longer shares the bond of communist ideology with decadently capitalistic China, just a disposition towards totalitarianism, and also because China is desperate to legitimize its much touted "rise" as a world power by appearing to be a constructive partner in world peace

Heheh, China is becoming almost as capitalistic as Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong.

They may have a disposition towards totalitarianism, but that will change. Cell phones, the internet, text messenging, global business interactions and foreign travel ... you can't censor all of that.

What is really funny is how the U.S. is suddenly quiet (mostly) with respect to North Korea now that they have nukes. Talk about strengthening the Mutually Assured Destruction Theory.

I think they reached some sort of deal in May, I guess. I don't recall ever hearing about it.

Because North Korea really isn't a political divisive issue, I don't think the so-called "news media" is interested in talking about it because it doesn't get ratings.

[spooker]

Yes they certainly have been quiet about it. The tipping point came when Bush designated N. korea a state sponsor of terrorism, leading to a bank in Macau freezing 30 million of Kim Jong Il's personal money (which is a lot of money in that country). I really don't know why, but Kim jong was absolutely desperate to get that measly 30 million back.
i think the bush administration has intentionally been quiet about it--we've heard next to nothing about making peace with n. korea considering how important it is--because it has been him essentially turning and running with his tail between his legs, being forced to give economic aid to the world's biggest human rights violator because we allowed them to get nukes and our forces are tied down elsewhere. What has our leverage been? $30 million. What has theirs been? nuclear weapons. I'd say they won. But there was also just as little said about N. Korea when they tested their primitive nuclear bomb and were still on our bad side. Keeping things quiet seems to have worked

Well, North Korea is of great concern. Per a 2001 speech by Dubya, it is our duty to 'rid the world of evil'.

umm hey kataklysque, I think we've moved on from that point of view. Yes Kim jong il is largely evil, but his nuclear weapons have arguably been a response to our threats, just like iran's are. And i think we've moved on from the crusader foreign policy, not from having relinquished our desire to rid the world of evil, but from having faced our own limitations

[Baker]

The tipping point came when Bush designated N. korea a state sponsor of terrorism, leading to a bank in Macau freezing 30 million of Kim Jong Il's personal money (which is a lot of money in that country). I really don't know why, but Kim jong was absolutely desperate to get that measly 30 million back.

You know, if that's true and North Korea decided to go for peace to get $30 million back, that is funny.

A "measly $30 million" --- well, as one of the poorest countries in the world that $30 million is probably a huge sum of money, even to what's his face.

How does that country make money anyway? The don't export food because they can't make enough to feed their country and they don't have any modern technology. They don't have oil or anything that is a valuable natural resource.

Maybe that $30 million is irreplaceable?

Add: Wow, Spooker it looks like that money was the tipping point from doing some light searching on this. Amazing. From reading some things, it looks like most of the Fortune 1000 companies draw in more revenue in a year than North Korea.

[Stung]

Cataklysque was being satirical. He's always satirical.

[golden_boy]

why on Earth do we still have troops over there?

Because of the Oktoberfes... oh wait. Frauleins? Oops, wrong country. Military infrastructure and geostrategical reas... hey! I know!

Crusade against evil! Enemy without a face! The meaning of American jus... hmm... no.

Why on earth do you still have troops over there?

:-D

[golden_boy]

Oh and of course, weapons of mass destruction. *ducks*

[Cataklysque]

No, we're not over that. YOU might be over that, and I think it's very anti-american of you to think so. That's exactly how the terrorists think.

You make me sick. According to Dubya, who was quoting Jesus Christ, the leader of the republican party, "If you're not with us, you're against us".

The biblical quote was actually "If you're not with me, you're against me" and not used in the same context. It had nothing to do with waging war on the rest of the world either, but I trust that George W. Bush has consulted Jesus personally prior to making any decisions regarding the U.S.

[spooker]

teehee

[Aquashark]

Kim Jong Il: "I'm an Internet expert". true story!

watched the other day a National Geographic documentary about life in NK. it was really depressing..

our former communist dictator (Nicolae Ceausescu) after a visit in North Korea (1971) was inspired in adopting a similar personality cult. by 1980-1982 our country turned to shit, luckily he wasn't that insane to throw people in mass detention camps or starve people to death.

[mithril]

How does that country make money anyway? The don't export food because they can't make enough to feed their country and they don't have any modern technology. They don't have oil or anything that is a valuable natural resource.

They make lots of missiles and sell them to other countries for cash. There is an excellent book "Aquariums of Pyongyang" by a guy who spent most of his life in a north korean labor camp and eventually escaped to the South. He says in the book that a lot of political prisoners are forced to work on building weapons that are then sold. Also, China gives them aid too.

[Baker]

our former communist dictator (Nicolae Ceausescu)

That guy got executed at a TV station (by "the people"). :d

after a visit in North Korea (1971) was inspired in adopting a similar personality cult.

It seemed to work for Mao, who managed to regain prominence for a couple of decades (and stagnate their economy for 3 decades :d :d :d).