View Full Version : North Korea: 2012-2016
SWJED
06-20-2006, 05:24 AM
20 June Washington Times - N. Korean Threat Activates Shield (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060620-123010-4554r.htm)by Bill Gertz.
The Pentagon activated its new U.S. ground-based interceptor missile defense system, and officials announced yesterday that any long-range missile launch by North Korea would be considered a "provocative act."
Poor weather conditions above where the missile site was located by U.S.
intelligence satellites indicates that an immediate launch is unlikely, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
However, intelligence officials said preparations have advanced to the point where a launch could take place within several days to a month.
Two Navy Aegis warships are patrolling near North Korea as part of the global missile defense and would be among the first sensors that would trigger the use of interceptors, the officials said yesterday.
The U.S. missile defense system includes 11 long-range interceptor missiles, including nine deployed at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The system was switched from test to operational mode within the past two weeks, the officials said.
One senior Bush administration official told The Washington Times that an option being considered would be to shoot down the Taepodong missile with responding interceptors...
Strickland
07-08-2006, 03:40 PM
What would the benefits be if the US publicly renounced its treaty obligations with Taiwan in order to gain Chinese support with North Korea, and further forge a Sino-Japanese--Korean-American alliance?
SWJED
07-08-2006, 06:40 PM
What would the benefits be if the US publicly renounced its treaty obligations with Taiwan in order to gain Chinese support with North Korea, and further forge a Sino-Japanese--Korean-American alliance?
While sending a long-term message that we abandon democracies in order to gain those same short-term benefits. Bad idea…
Moreover, memories run deep in three of the four countries you include in this alliance. Any alliance between the PRC, Japan and the ROK would be fragile at best and subject to abandonment at the slightest of perceived provocations - Japanese PM visiting a war shrine in Tokyo, Japanese text-books, PRC and ROK maritime claims and surveys - you name it.
Your proposed alliance would also be a major disruption of the financial status-quo in East Asia. I believe, rhetoric aside, Japan and the PRC like the idea of a financial gateway into their countries via the ROC. Regardless of the public statements - business rules and quite a bit of it is done between the three.
Stu-6
07-09-2006, 03:15 PM
My thought on the subject is that the military threat to Taiwan is overstated; I also feel no sense of obligation to the defense of Taiwan so the idea is somewhat appealing to me. Personal I think there is a lot of value in rethinking our relationship with China in general. I think a little flexibility on our part could further our international goals without any appreciable increasing of the threat to Taiwan or any of China’s neighbors.
cmetcalf82
07-11-2006, 12:25 AM
I agree with SWJED that the most costly result of renouncing Taiwan to garner support from China is the damage this would cause to the U.S. reputation with allies. Nations like South Korea, Japan, Australia, and India would wonder if the U.S. would "abandon" them given the need. Additionally his point regarding the difficulty of forming any sort of Sino-Korea-Japan is very true. The Japanese and Chinese are long term competitors in the region and the Koreans have long resented the Japanese for their past exploitation of Korea.
Secondly I disagree with Stu-6 as to the threat Taiwan faces from China. China truly believes Taiwan is a part of China. If China believed it possessed the capability (which it is rapidly building) and the opportunity to reintegrate Taiwan under mainland control they would seize it. This would not necessarily entail open warfare but could be accomplished through threats or even a blockade if the U.S. made its intent to remain uninvolved clear.
Steve Blair
07-11-2006, 08:53 PM
I also agree with SWJED on this one. You may gain some short-term bennies from China by doing this, but it certainly would send the wrong signal to other powers in the region. There are also, as cmetcalf82 pointed out, a number of existing issues with Japan and the rest of Southeast Asia that would need to be addressed before any real steps foward could occur. Both China and the Koreas have long-term issues with Japan. There needs to be clear thinking about policy in this part of the world, but abandoning longstanding treaty obligations for limited or undefined gains isn't a good way to start.
Stu-6
07-11-2006, 11:53 PM
Well China does view Taiwan as part of it but that doesn’t mean they would go to war at the drop of the hat. I think they would consider the possible repercussions and are only likely to attack if the situation changes. I also think the connection between our Taiwan policy and Japan and Korea is overstated we have actual troops on the ground in both Japan and Korea which makes a major difference in determine our reliability in a fight. I think it might also be worth noting that our stated policy on Taiwan over the years has changed and incorporated various degrees of ambiguity with no obvious ill effect on our relationships with outer states.
SWJED
10-10-2006, 11:27 AM
On Today's SWJ Daily News Links (http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/news/061010.htm)...
Click on the link above for:
North Korea
U.S. Doubts N. Korean Test Was Nuclear - Washington Times
Low Yield Of Blast Surprises Analysts - Washington Post
Blast May Be Only a Partial Success, Experts Say - New York Times
Even if Device Was Flawed, Test Crossed a Threshold - Los Angeles Times
The Moment that Shook the World - London Times
U.S. Proposes Stringent U.N. Sanctions Against N. Korea - Voice of America
Pentagon Assesses Responses, Including Possible Blockade - New York Times
U.S. Proposes Embargo, Sanctions on N. Korea - Washington Post
World Condemns North Korea - Los Angeles Times
Condemnation Swift, But Options Limited - USA Today
World Powers Ponder Sanctions - London Daily Telegraph
Bush Seeks Action from U.N., 6 Parties - Washington Times
Bush Rebukes North Korea; U.S. Seeks New U.N. Sanctions - New York Times
U.S., Japan Lead Push to Sanction Pyongyang - Washington Times
Nuclear Test Sparks Global Condemnation - Voice of America
U.N. Members Condemn N. Korea Over Test - Associated Press
Bush Condemns N. Korean Nuclear Test - Voice of America
S. Korea, Japan Condemn N. Korea - Voice of America
Tough Talk From Seoul, if Little Will for a Fight - New York Times
Rattled South Koreans Consider Test a Betrayal - Los Angeles Times
China Condemns N. Korean Nuclear Test - Voice of America
Angry China Is Likely to Toughen Its Stand on N. Korea - New York Times
China Opposes Military Action - Associated Press
China Rules Out War But Not Sanctions - Reuters
Neighbors See Threat, 'Betrayal' in Nuclear Test - Washington Times
North Korea Rocks Asia's Status Quo - Christian Science Monitor
North Korea's Political, Economic Gamble - Washington Post
A Look at Sanctions Against North Korea - Associated Press
A Look at N. Korea Nuclear Capabilities - Associated Press
Verifying Nuclear Test Blasts - Associated Press
Weapons of the World's Nuclear Powers - Associated Press
Text of North Korea's Nuke Announcement - Associated Press Transcript
For U.S., a Strategic Jolt After N. Korea’s Test - New York Times Analysis
Test 'Changes the Landscape' for U.S. Officials - Washington Post Analysis
Next Step Depends on U.S. and China - Los Angeles Times Analysis
Diverted Attention, Neglect Set the Stage - Los Angeles Times Analysis
The Defiant One - Washington Times Editorial
Responding to North Korea - Washington Post Editorial
North Korea and the Bomb - New York Times Editorial
Kim Jong Il's Challenge to China - Los Angeles Times Editorial
Rebottling N. Korea's Nuclear Genie - Christian Science Monitor Editorial
New Dawn of a Dangerous Age - The Australian Editorial
Answering North Korea - Washington Post Editorial
The North Korea Nuclear Puzzle - Los Angeles Times Editorial
North Korea and the Dominoes - New York Times Editorial
Raising the Stakes - Wall Street Journal Commentary
Coming-Out Party - Washington Times Commentary
In a Test, a Reason to Talk - Washington Post Commentary
No More Negotiating With N. Korea - Los Angeles Times Commentary
Talking With the Monsters - New York Times Commentary
Is U.S. N. Korea Policy Working? - Real Clear Politics Commentary
Now What? - Slate Commentary
It’s the Nukes, Stupid - National Review Commentary
Wanted: New Deterrent For a Tyrant - London Times Commentary
Region in For a Shakeup - The Australian Commentary
If Kim Jong Il Gets Nukes - Los Angeles Times Commentary
Correct Response is Critical - The Australian Commentary
Stalking the Hermit - Tech Central Station Commentary
He Huffs and He Puffs - Weekly Standard Commentary
'Dear Leader' Feels Ignored - Real Clear Politics Commentary
North Korea: War Is Coming To American Soil - Captain's Quarters Blog
It's Always America's Fault - Belmont Club Blog
North Korea Tests Nuclear Weapon - The Fourth Rail Blog
North Korea Nuke Test Stirs Region - Threats Watch Blog
"Collapse Brinkmanship" - The Adventures of Chester Blog
Was N. Korea Testing a Suitcase Nuke? - Belmont Club Blog
Fizzlemas In North Korea - Captain's Quarters Blog
Stratfor: No "Satisfactory Military Solution" - Counterterrorism Blog
Rogue Nuclear States
Mutually Assured Disruption - New York Times Commentary
Japan
Japan Likely to Rally Behind PM’s Call for a Strong Military - NY Times
Japan's PM Abe Gets Helping Hand From N. Korea - Reuters
"U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday."
"U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast's readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation."
--Washington Times, U.S. Doubts N. Korean Test Was Nuclear
SWJED
10-11-2006, 10:48 AM
On today's SWJ Daily News Links (http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/news/061011.htm)...
North Korea
Report: N. Korea Threatens More Nuke Tests - Associated Press
Scientists Still Analyzing Claim of Nuclear Test - Voice of America
U.S. Waits for Information On Nature and Success of Device - Washington Post
Small Blast, or ‘Big Deal’? U.S. Experts Look for Clues - New York Times
White House Casts Doubt on N. Korean Nuclear Arms - Reuters
Was North Korea's Nuclear Device a Dud? - Associated Press
U.S. Envoy: Nuclear Test May Never be Verified - Reuters
Cold War Aircraft Searches Sky for Proof of Test - London Times
Even a Small Nuke Poses Big Threat - USA Today
'No Evidence' of Second Nuclear Test - The Australian
Japan Quake Reported as 2nd Test - Washington Times
North Korean Proliferation at Heart of Nuke Test Issue - AFPS
Israel Worried North Korea May Help Iran - Associated Press
Rice Asserts U.S. Plans No Attack on North Korea - New York Times
N. Korea: Sanctions Would Start War - London Daily Telegraph
Kim Has Case of ‘Malign Narcissism,’ Expert Says' - Los Angeles Times
Economy Built on Drugs, Ivory Poachers and Counterfeiters - London Times
North Korea and Iran - Washington Times Editorial
In Search of a North Korea Policy - Washington Post Commentary
Dancing with Kim - Washington Times Commentary
Kim Kindled Nuclear Funeral Pyre - London Times Commentary
Solving the Stalemate, One Step at a Time - New York Times Commentary
Perils from Pyongyang - Washington Times Commentary
North Korea Isn't Our Problem - Los Angeles Times Commentary
It's Always America's Fault - Belmont Club Blog
North Korea Tests Nuclear Weapon - The Fourth Rail Blog
North Korea Nuke Test Stirs Region - Threats Watch Blog
"Collapse Brinkmanship" - The Adventures of Chester Blog
Was N. Korea Testing a Suitcase Nuke? - Belmont Club Blog
Fizzlemas In North Korea - Captain's Quarters Blog
Stratfor: No "Satisfactory Military Solution" - Counterterrorism Blog
A U.N. Blockade of North Korea? - Westhawk Blog
Second Nuke Test Reported, but Veracity Doubted - Belmont Club Blog
North Korea Warns: Bigger Tests, Missile Launch - Threats Watch Blog
Senator John McCain On North Korea - Captain's Quarters Blog
South Korea
North-South Korea Relations Suffer A Sudden Chill - Washington Post
S. Koreans Feel Betrayed by Nuke Threat - USA Today
Koreas' Ties Likely to Bend, Not Break - Washington Times
S. Korea May Bolster Conventional Arsenal - Associated Press
All Quiet on Korea's DMZ, Just a Bit More Spit - Reuters
N. Korean Troops at DMZ Said Bolder - Associated Press
China
China Says It Will Back Sanctions On N. Korea - Washington Post
China Hints Agreement on N. Korea - Washington Times
China Joins Clamor to Curb N. Korea - London Daily Telegraph
China Rules Out Military Action, But Not Sanctions - Voice of America
China Supports Sanctions Against N. Korea - USA Today
China: N. Korea Faces 'Punitive Actions' - Associated Press
China Says N. Korea Should be Punished - Reuters
China Ponders a Problematic Friendship - Christian Science Monitor
Japan
Japan Mulling Harsh Sanctions Against N. Korea - Voice of America
Japan to Keep Prohibition on Nukes - Washington Times
Asia
The Scramble for a Way to Stop Nukes - Christian Science Monitor
Word of Test Confirms Stances in 2 Nations - New York Times
United in Their Protests, Not Their Politics - Los Angeles Times
Wary Neighbors Shy Away from Punishing N. Korea - London Times
A Nuclear Leviathan in the Pacific - The Adventures of Chester Blog
Pakistan
Pakistan Denies N. Korea Nuke Test Link - Associated Press
Rogue Nuclear States / Post-Cold War Period
U.S. Fears Export of Technology - Los Angeles Times
Rogue Realities - National Review Editorial
Mutually Assured Disruption - New York Times Commentary
We Need a New Deterrent - Washington Post Commentary
The Bus is Waiting - New York Times Commentary
selil
11-04-2006, 03:53 PM
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20061103-122702-4895r.htm (pop up warning)
The Pentagon has stepped up planning for attacks against North Korea's nuclear program and is bolstering nuclear forces in Asia, said defense officials familiar with the highly secret process.
The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the accelerated military planning includes detailed programs for striking a North Korean plutonium-reprocessing facility at Yongbyon with special operations commando raids or strikes with Tomahawk cruise missiles or other precision-guided weapons.
The effort, which had been under way for several months, was given new impetus by Pyongyang's underground nuclear test Oct. 9 and growing opposition to the nuclear program of Kim Jong-il's communist regime, especially by China and South Korea.
A Pentagon official said the Department of Defense is considering "various military options" to remove the program.
"Other than nuclear strikes, which are considered excessive, there are several options now in place. Planning has been accelerated," the official said.
A second, senior defense official privy to the effort said the Bush administration recently affirmed its commitment to both South Korea and Japan that it would use U.S. nuclear weapons to deter North Korea, now considered an unofficial nuclear weapon state.
"We will resort to whatever force levels we need to have, to defend the Republic of Korea. That nuclear deterrence is in place," said the senior official, who declined to reveal what nuclear forces are deployed in Asia.
Other officials said the forces include bombs and air-launched missiles stored at Guam, a U.S. island in the western Pacific, that could be delivered by B-52 or B-2 bombers. Nine U.S. nuclear-missile submarines regularly deploy to Asian waters from Washington state.
The officials said one military option calls for teams of Navy SEALs or other special operations commandos to conduct covert raids on Yongbyon's plutonium-reprocessing facility.
The commandos would blow up the facility to prevent further reprocessing of the spent fuel rods, which provides the material for developing nuclear weapons.
A second option calls for strikes by precision-guided Tomahawk missiles on the reprocessing plant from submarines or ships. The plan calls for simultaneous strikes from various sides to minimize any radioactive particles being carried away in the air.
Planners estimate that six Tomahawks could destroy the reprocessing plant and that it would take five to 10 years to rebuild.
SWJED
11-04-2006, 04:02 PM
... Even if there was only an iota of a chance we would use force against the DPRK; planning, accelerated or not, is what they get paid for.
Uboat509
11-05-2006, 01:59 AM
I have to wonder if this is one of those intentional "leaks" so that we can tell NK "If you keep screwing with us we will crush you," without actually saying "If you keep screwing with us we will crush you."
SFC W
Jedburgh
11-14-2006, 04:09 PM
ICG, 13 Nov 06: North Korea's Nuclear Test: The Fallout (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/north_korea/b56_north_koreas_nuclear_test___the_fallout.pdf)
...There are no good options for resolving this crisis, but the least bad option remains a negotiated settlement. To achieve this, the U.S. and others will need to present a long-term view of economic change in North Korea while offering what amounts to a guarantee not to overthrow the Pyongyang regime. The undertaking will involve a considerable investment of diplomatic energy and financial resources and should be matched by a ramped-up effort to ensure that North Korea cannot proliferate nuclear weapons or missiles. But it provides the only prospect for peaceful and gradual change on the Korean peninsula.
Sanctions without sustained, direct diplomacy would only mean escalation. The Bush administration has operated under the flawed assumption that direct negotiations with its foe are a concession, when this may be the only way of moving forward. With Washington, Tokyo, Seoul and Pyongyang all locked into policies which are likely to change little until new leaders emerge, however, Beijing’s is the government to watch...
Jimbo
11-19-2006, 06:03 PM
I am not an Asia, expert. However my younger brother owns his company in the PRC. His office is in Beijing. He majored in CS and minored in Chinese at Texas. When he was last home we were talking, and he said that reading the OpEd pieces in the chinese newspapers, the chinese tend to think the DPRK leadership is insane (his words, not mine). China has some levers on the DPRK, but my brother points out that we in the U.S. tend to over-estimate the ability of the Chinese to pressure the DPRK. Furthermore, my brother said that the Chinese are pimamrily concerned about a mass illegal immigration if/when the DPRK collapses (Mentioned elsewhere on this website.). My brother has traveled extensively in the region (on his own, not package tour stuff). He stories of a trip out to Xiangjiang/Uighurstan (SP??) was fascinating.
jcustis
11-20-2006, 03:10 PM
Strickland's post about our policy on Tawain, vis-a-vis gaining Chinese cooperation on the DPRK, made me consider the future of the DPRK. After seeing and hearing the conditions in the country, is it due for a revolution like Romania?
aktarian
11-20-2006, 04:46 PM
Coup with Chinese behind it.
jcustis
11-20-2006, 04:49 PM
Hmmm...That would be the makings for a new Clancy novel, and frankly was something I had never thought of.
Sergeant T
11-21-2006, 11:31 PM
For those with too much free time I highly recommend Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader (http://www.amazon.com/Under-Loving-Care-Fatherly-Leader/dp/0312323220/sr=8-1/qid=1164151440/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1465505-6800752?ie=UTF8&s=books) by Bradley Martin. It's a pretty hefty tome but very thorough. Most of the book focuses on his interviews with various defectors. It's probably the best look inside the regime I've come across.
120mm
11-22-2006, 11:47 AM
ICG, 13 Nov 06: North Korea's Nuclear Test: The Fallout (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/north_korea/b56_north_koreas_nuclear_test___the_fallout.pdf)
I thought direct negotiations were thought more to be a slight to our allies in the region.
Unilateralism, anyone?
Bill Moore
11-23-2006, 04:50 PM
While it is impossible to predict what will happen in North Korea I think it is safe to say that China has no interest in seeing North Korea implode in the immediate future, since they are hosting the Olympics in 2008 (major show case demonstration for what many predict will the nation with the world's largest economy by 2020), and S. Korea is more concerned about their economic development than their starving brothers and sisters in the North (a conflict of any type with the North would most likely be severely disruptive). I would place my money that the status quo will continue "if" North Korea's neighbors' have the ability to help Kim Jung Il maintain it.
UCrawford
11-28-2006, 03:21 PM
I think that Kim Jong-il will survive as leader of North Korea only as long as he's able to keep the military fed and happy...which is becoming more and more problematic it seems. When he's no longer able to do that, I suspect his time left in office will be very short. Militaries don't react well to leaders who don't give them their food or their paychecks, especially when the military are the only ones getting food in the country. Of course, Kim would probably choose to cede much of his power to the Chinese government in exchange for their help if it ever came to that point. I seriously doubt he's so detached from reality that he doesn't realize that a military coup would ultimately result in his execution.
979797
11-29-2006, 01:54 AM
Why hasn't anyone thought about colluding with the Chinese to overthrow Kim? China has to have more inroads in their military than we do... surely there must be SOMEBODY who can replace Kim that we can deal with as well.
The Chinese stand to lose the most here from Kim's antics... and this isn't the first episode. The Chinese are communist, but they're also practical. I'm surprised they haven't "solved" the problem yet.
Uboat509
11-29-2006, 05:17 AM
Kim serves as a useful distraction. Despite all the saber rattling, I suspect that he is no where near as dangerous as portrayed. He has a huge army that is very short of funds to train and make repairs. He has a population that spends most of the time on the line between hunger and starvation. His missile tests have failed, miserably and his nuke made such a poor showing that it tool several days to determine if indeed it even was a nuke. Even his most optimistic generals have to be aware that if they do attack the ROK army and subsequently the US military will punish them severely, not to mention how pissed China will be because they will have to deal with the floods of refugees. I'm not saying that he isn't dangerous but unless he is cornered I seriously doubt that he will follow through with any of his rhetoric. Even he can do the math on that one.
By the way, is it still accurate to refer to China as Communist or would it be more apt to describe them as a burgeoning capitalist nation with a strong authoritarian government?
SFC W
pcmfr
11-29-2006, 03:52 PM
China likes the situation exactly as it is and would never support overthrowing KJI. The worse thing they fear (both politically and militarily) is a unified democratic Korean Pennisula, allied with the US.
aktarian
11-30-2006, 07:03 PM
China likes the situation exactly as it is and would never support overthrowing KJI. The worse thing they fear (both politically and militarily) is a unified democratic Korean Pennisula, allied with the US.
As long as things remain as they are. But if Kim's antics would go in the direction of triggering a war with US or scaring Japan into heavily militarising (including nuclearisation) then I'm sure KJI's days will be numbered.
Which is why I think there will be a coup as Chinese will want some stability there and not some unpredictable leader.
SWJED
07-15-2007, 06:23 AM
15 July Washington Post - N. Korea Shutters Nuclear Facility (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/14/AR2007071400293.html) by Edward Cody.
After four years of off-and-on negotiations, North Korea said it began closing down its main nuclear reactor Saturday, shortly after receiving a first boatload of fuel oil aid.
The closure, if confirmed by U.N. inspectors, would mark the first concrete step in a carefully orchestrated denuclearization schedule that was agreed on in February, with the ultimate goal of dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons program in exchange for fuel and other economic aid, and increased diplomatic recognition.
More broadly, it constituted the first on-the-ground accomplishment of six-nation negotiations that have been grinding away with little progress since 2003 under Chinese sponsorship. The talks -- including North and South Korea, Russia, Japan, the United States and China -- are likely to resume next week in Beijing to emphasize the parties' resolve to carry out the rest of the February agreement and eventually create a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula...
T. Jefferson
07-15-2007, 11:22 PM
This should increase China's influence in both regional and world affairs.
Watcher In The Middle
10-19-2007, 03:38 AM
Here's the latest:
China halts rail freight to N Korea
By Anna Fifield in Seoul and Richard McGregor in Beijing
Published: October 18 2007 23:06 | Last updated: October 18 2007 23:06
China suspended key rail freight services into North Korea last week after 1,800 wagons carrying food aid and tradeable goods crossed into Kim Jong-il’s hermit state but were never returned.
Absconding with Chinese wagons would be a strange move for North Korea because Beijing is Pyongyang’s closest political ally and biggest provider of food, goods and oil. Analysts monitoring North Korea said Chinese officials had privately complained to them that the North Koreans were dismantling Chinese wagons and selling them back as scrap metal.
The Chinese railway ministry suspended a number of rail freight services into North Korea on October 11, humanitarian agencies operating in North Korea told the Financial Times. The ministry told international aid agencies that it would not send any more wagons into North Korea until Pyongyang returned the 1,800 Chinese wagons.
Full Article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bfc9a8a8-7d9c-11dc-9f47-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1)
You almost end up feeling sorry for the Chinese officials who have the point on these aid shipments to the DPRK. Imagine how it's going to play out when they call their superiors in Beijing up & tell them that not only did the aid get through, but now the Chinese are going to have to buy back all the transport gear as "scrap metal". Ouch!
As I understand it, this isn't the first time this has happened. I read somewhere that quite a bit of rail rolling stock also used for these aid shipments went into the DPRK from China, but all the PRC got back was the train crews - no rolling stock. The NORKs treated the railroad rolling stock as just another part of the overall aid package. Probably didn't even say "thank you".
If it wasn't so deadly serious, it would be great material for Comedy Central.
Jedburgh
01-06-2008, 01:53 PM
CSIS/USIP, 3 Jan 08: Chinese Views of Economic Reform and Stability in North Korea (http://www.usip.org/pubs/working_papers/wp6_china_northkorea.pdf)
This report is based on discussions with Chinese specialists on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) during a CSIS-USIP delegation visit to Beijing, Changchun, and Yanji, June 25-30, 2007. Topics discussed included trends in North Korea’s economy and prospects for reform; current trends in Sino-DPRK economic relations; China’s policy toward North Korea in the wake of the nuclear test; Chinese debates on North Korea; Chinese assessments of North Korea’s political stability; and potential Chinese responses to instability.
Complete 28 page report at the link.
Jedburgh
01-23-2008, 01:51 PM
New from CFR: Crisis Guide: The Korean Peninsula (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11954/korean_peninsula.html?breadcrumb=%2Findex)
An interactive, multimedia guide to the dispute between North and South Korea.
franksforum
01-25-2008, 05:59 PM
From the Parliamentary Library of Australia dated 23 January 2008:
Political Change in North Korea
Executive summary:
The prospect of political change in North Korea is a recurring question, buoyed by media speculation regarding the health of the current leader, Kim Jong-Il, the dearth of information about his succession and concern for the potential instability that could occur.
Australian interest stems from the possibility that political change in North Korea could potentially affect the economic viability of the region, which contains Australia’s three largest export markets of China, South Korea and Japan. Political change in North Korea could potentially require Australian assistance in humanitarian and/or military operations.
There are four scenarios for political change in North Korea. These are: hereditary or other familial succession, a smooth transferral of power to another centre of power, such as the military, forced political change through coup or revolution, and the disintegration of the state and its ultimate absorption by South Korea. Each scenario has specific warning signs that are yet to appear.
The key determinants of political change in North Korea are likely to be the military, external powers and the economy. Each of these determinants plays a central role in the political viability of the current North Korean leadership. There are several triggers of political change in North Korea, one of which is the deterioration in the health of current leader, Kim Jong-Il.
Given the potential economic and security impact, the issue of political change in North Korea is something that Australia and the region should be prepared to address.
Here is the PDF link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2007-08/08rp19.pdf
Jedburgh
03-13-2008, 12:39 PM
Presentation from a CNS Event, 12 Mar 08:
Paranoid Potbellied Stalinist Gets Nuclear Weapons: How the U.S. Print Media Covers North Korea (http://www.cns.miis.edu/cns/activity/080312_nprbriefing/media/080312_gusterson_presentation.pdf)
A Backward Country Led by a Paranoid Pygmy
• “The Weird and Scary Saga of how an Isolated, Bankrupt Nation Went Nuclear,” (Newsweek cover story title, 10/23/06)
• “North Korea is a hermit state ruled by a potbellied, fivefoot-three paranoid Stalinist who likes to watch Daffy Duck cartoons.” (Bill Keller in NY Times, 1/11/03)
• “…led by world-class paranoids and fantasists capable of believing their own propaganda… Such a regime may be beyond reasoning or, even worse, deterring in a conventional sense.” (Jim Hoagland in Washington Post, 10/12/06)
The presenter published an article with the same title (http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol15/151_gusterson.pdf) in the Mar 08 Nonproliferation Review.
Mainstream American print media coverage of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has been deeply flawed, a reality that skews policy debates and confuses public perceptions. Even simple factual descriptions of the parties’ obligations under the 1994 Agreed Framework have often been inconsistent and partial, informing readers about North Korea’s obligations more than U.S. obligations, and rarely acknowledging U.S. failures. The media repeated allegations about an illicit North Korean uranium enrichment program based largely on anonymous sources, who made what seem now to have been misleading statements. Journalists rely for comment on administration officials or members of Washington think tanks, while making little effort to gather opinions from academics, those on the left (as opposed to centrist liberals), or experts in Southeast Asia. Journalists also frequently present Kim Jong Il in ways that erase the Korean perspective on U.S.-Korean relations. Accurate, nuanced coverage of events on the Korean Peninsula is vital in producing an informed public and a policy-making process that is judicious, supple, and intelligent. This article concludes with various ways in which the media could better report on North Korea.....
AdamG
05-01-2008, 08:05 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3822538.ece
Kim Jong-il builds ‘Thunderbirds’ runway for war in North Korea
An airbase inside a mountain is the latest sign that North Korea, whose links to Syria’s nuclear programme came to light last week, is cranking up its military machine.
North Korean military engineers are completing an underground runway beneath a mountain that can protect fighter aircraft from attack until they take off at high speed through the mouth of a tunnel.
The 6,000ft runway is a few minutes’ flying time from the tense front line where the Korean People’s Army faces soldiers from the United States and South Korea.
Art imitates life. Life imitates art.
Ken White
05-01-2008, 08:39 PM
for years. I'm curious. Wonder how they know its 6,000 feet long if it's underground...
Ron Humphrey
05-01-2008, 08:40 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3822538.ece
Kim Jong-il builds ‘Thunderbirds’ runway for war in North Korea
An airbase inside a mountain is the latest sign that North Korea, whose links to Syria’s nuclear programme came to light last week, is cranking up its military machine.
North Korean military engineers are completing an underground runway beneath a mountain that can protect fighter aircraft from attack until they take off at high speed through the mouth of a tunnel.
The 6,000ft runway is a few minutes’ flying time from the tense front line where the Korean People’s Army faces soldiers from the United States and South Korea.
Art imitates life. Life imitates art.
of them to provide such a nice landing spot once whoever were to get finished cleaning off the military bases of all the rotting hulks setting on them:wry:
Entropy
05-11-2008, 02:40 AM
Inside the Hermit Kingdom (http://worldmeets.us/dailynk000001.shtml):
North Koreans May Be Turning Against the Regime and Beijing
"Now when the authorities blame America for the lack of food, people ask in turn, 'Is it the responsibility of America and South Korea to feed us? … why won't China help us, since it's our closest ally?'
-- A North Korean interviewed by the Daily North Korea
Kenyatta
05-12-2008, 02:56 PM
Actually from some of my South korean collegues, it seems that many North Koreans know their gov. has been lying to them for the longest time, they know what the outside world looks like.
This is due to the fact, the Chinese goods in the form of cheap cellphones, South Korean VCDs, etc. are being smuggled in huge quantities into North Korea. The North Korean border with China while heavilly regulated is rife with corruption.
While the North Koreans know that their gov. is a bitch, they can't do anything about the gov. The military is hardline and any dissent is brutally crushed. So the only solution is to run away to China or Korea in large numbers to escape their situation.
I think that all of North korea's neighbors would like to change the way North Korea is run. I think China is particular wants North Korea to go her way(economic reform while keeping a authoritarian gov.) but North Koreas leaders probably know that when Norht Korea opens up to the world that China did, there's a big chance they will lose their positions(and most likely their heads).
Though I also think that North Korea's regime will not last that long. I think the slow distentigration of its society which is happening right now will take its toll. the new generation of North Koreans growing up with bootleg South korean drama VCDs and bootleg Chinese Cellphones will probably be the ones to reform the country....see you in 20-30 years.
Kenyatta
05-12-2008, 03:09 PM
As for China being a threat to Taiwan.
I highly doubt it there will be war with Taiwan.
China and Taiwan are very closely linked economically. Most of the Taiwanese factories are situation in Fujian province, China. Taiwan is one of the largest investors in the Chinese economy. Also the pro independence party have been booted out of office in the recent election(due to rampant corruption and poor economic performance) and the KMT(Kuomintang) party is back in the drivers seat which by the way(ironically) acceptable to the Chinese gov. There is even talks now(that the Ind. party is gone) of directs flights from Taiwan to China.
TristanAbbey
02-21-2009, 10:50 PM
Folks may be interested in this summary of the NK succession reportage:
http://bellum.stanfordreview.org/?p=316
Would appreciate comments from the more informed, in particular about whether I'm right or wrong about the big story being the succession, not the missile test, saber-rattling, etc.
Ron Humphrey
02-22-2009, 01:21 AM
Folks may be interested in this summary of the NK succession reportage:
http://bellum.stanfordreview.org/?p=316
Would appreciate comments from the more informed, in particular about whether I'm right or wrong about the big story being the succession, not the missile test, saber-rattling, etc.
But if the kids competent at all there are probably quite a few in the hierarchy that might not mind the change at all.
Good indicator of this would be to look at why O originally "fell from grace" in the first place;)
Ken White
02-22-2009, 01:56 AM
With four trips to Korea South -- and few incursions into the North (long ago) -- between 1950 and 1975, I know enough about North Korea to be mildly annoying; I do not even approach the danger level. However, I've watched them fairly closely for about 58 years now and I'm firmly convinced you're correct.
The succession is / will be a big event and I suspect the jockeying is bitter and ferocious. As for the rest of the noise, they have played the west like a second hand Ukelele since 1951. They are masters of the bluff and have manipulated every US administration since Eisenhower to get this or that break.
They constantly approach but generally do not cross the line Though they sporadically (mostly through miscalculation) step on the line just to see if we're paying attention. They are concerned with three Nations; China and Russia for obvious reasons -- and us; even Japan and South Korea are 'also rans' with them. They can be irrational and unduly bellicose but they are not crazy. That said, the worst thing we could do is ignore them -- that would drive them into a perhaps irrational frenzy...
orange dave
05-19-2009, 06:41 AM
I've also had similar thoughts about such a trade, and I'm not quite as skeptical as some here. Giving up Taiwan is not going to be a blow to democracy everywhere, or make our allies distrust us. Taiwan has very little soft power, and it really hasn't ever done any kind of activism on the part of democracy, ever. Moreover, China has opened up quite a bit since we last re-evaluated our Taiwan policy, so even if this is about democracy one would have to take that into account. The analogy here with Japan is academic, as nobody in the region wants to see Japan re-arm itself. A similar trade could also be discussed for Korea, but this would only be in the very long term, after North Korea cleans itself up the way China has.
The only main caution I would have about this would be whether the Chinese are actually concerned over military control over Taiwan as they say they are. It would of course be a disaster if the US executed such a policy to only a lukewarm response in the PRC. It could be more effective to simply arrange some kind of apology for historical whatever, or to concede on some question of governance philosophy or the like. The US supposedly specializes in understanding foreign cultures better than they understand themselves, and this may be a case where that sort of skill is necessary.
I wouldn't totally take a Taiwan political trade off the table. It could be a useful element of our foreign policy 'toolbox' in that region, to at least hold in reserve. One should assume that the end of American protection would immediately mean a PRC conquest; however this wouldn't be bloody if Taiwan were convinced that they would lose and the US wouldn't back them up. So such a move would need to be planned very thoroughly.
Entropy
05-25-2009, 01:43 PM
LINK (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090525/D98D7MT80.html)
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea claimed it carried out a powerful underground nuclear test Monday - much larger than one conducted in 2006 - in a major provocation in the escalating international standoff over its rogue nuclear and missile programs.
Pyongyang announced the test, and Russia's Defense Ministry confirmed an atomic explosion at 9:54 a.m. (0054 GMT) in northeastern North Korea, estimating the blast's yield at 10 to 20 kilotons - comparable to the bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The regime also test-fired three short-range, ground-to-air missiles later Monday from the same northeastern site where it launched a rocket last month, the Yonhap news agency reported, citing unnamed sources. The rocket liftoff, widely believed to be a cover for a test of its long-range missile technology, drew censure from the U.N. Security Council.
North Korea, incensed by the condemnation of the April 5 rocket launch, had warned last month that it would restart its rogue nuclear program, conduct an atomic test and carry out long-range missile tests.
As always, the best technical analysis is at armscontrolwonk (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/).
Jedburgh
05-26-2009, 11:54 AM
....As always, the best technical analysis is at armscontrolwonk (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/).
The MIIS Center for Nonproliferation Studies' North Korea page (http://cns.miis.edu/north_korea/index.htm) is also a useful resource.
Brandon Friedman
05-27-2009, 04:47 AM
Not sure if this is the correct thread, but I think this news encompasses a few categories. South Korea's Yonhap News Agency is reporting (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2009/05/27/54/0401000000AEN20090527005800315F.HTML) that North Korea will no longer be "bound" to the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953 and that the peninsula will soon be "returned to the state of war."
SEOUL, May 27 (Yonhap) -- North Korea said Wednesday that it will no longer be bound to the Korean War armistice and will militarily respond to any foreign attempt to inspect its ships, denouncing South Korea's participation in a U.S.-led security campaign as a "declaration of war."
"As declared to the world, our revolutionary forces will consider the full participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) by the Lee Myung-bak group of traitors as a declaration of war against us," the North's permanent military mission to the joint security area said.
It said the North Korean military "will be no longer bound to the armistice agreement" that ended the 1950-53 war, and the peninsula will soon be "returned to the state of war" as long as the armistice remains ineffective, the mission said in a statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency.
That's pretty interesting.
Ken White
05-27-2009, 04:57 AM
under only two leaders versus our 11 leaders in the same period. They're pretty good at it. They generally bluster and bluff until someone pays a bribe of some sort and then they remain quiet until they want something else. They're a little dotty but not completely nuts.
Brandon Friedman
05-27-2009, 05:04 AM
Ken,
I get that, and I'm certainly no expert on Korea. But it's one thing to say this kind of stuff. And it's another thing to say this kind of stuff after you've spent the weekend detonating a nuclear bomb.
But maybe you're right. Hopefully this is just the latest cry for help on NORK's part.
Bill Moore
05-27-2009, 05:18 AM
that this is not a problem we can wish away. We also can't apply western logic to North Korea's decision making process, and I'm always a little apprehensive of those from the West who claim to understand their reasoning.
Western logic would tell us that it is illogical to saber rattle just before you attack when they must have as much surprise as possible before launching a military attack to even have a snow ball's chance in hell of achieving limited, although short lived, goals.
On the other hand, don't expect people or a nation in dire straits to make rational decisions. I believe their food stores are lower than the normal meager of recent years, so they may feel they have nothing to lose by upping the tension and risking a miscalculation.
Obiously a war that no one desires, but one we must remain ready for.
William F. Owen
05-27-2009, 10:19 AM
Well my understanding is that if UN forces or anyone else boards North Korean vessels or blockades NK, then that is a breach of the 1953 ceasefire.
See article 15. (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html) Might want JMM to jump in on this.
..but don't worry. According to the great and the good, "Big Wars" are unlikely. We only have to worry about insurgents and Hybrids. :eek:
And don't assume that THEY THINK military action is not in their interest. History is covered in examples of folks who did things that turned out not to be in their interest... and they did them anyway! I think it might not be a good idea to under estimate just how serious things are right now.
Ron Humphrey
05-27-2009, 05:10 PM
And don't assume that THEY THINK military action is not in their interest. History is covered in examples of folks who did things that turned out not to be in their interest... and they did them anyway! I think it might not be a good idea to under estimate just how serious things are right now.
wish I could disagree with you on this one. Especially if what Bill said is true. :(
Coldstreamer
05-27-2009, 05:52 PM
I know the conventional (ie media driven) thinking is that N Korea is 'so powerful as to render war unthinkable', but surely their kit and manpower, abundant though it may be, is of the same vintage or older than Saddam's Million man army we gently turned into fertiliser in 1991? Surely their SAM array is similary susceptible...or have they got up to date S-300 type stuff?
My point being - and God knows we don't need another war - that they probably can be contained pretty comprehensively, and that a stiffening of western resolve (rather than rewarding bad behaviuor) doesn't necessarily spell the apocalypse? I always wondered (other than the bitter fact that they are exporters of WMD and instability) whether NK was in the same bracket as Cuba - just ignore and wait to implode.
Idle thinking here.
William F. Owen
05-27-2009, 06:04 PM
Coldstreamer, mate. If you think Hezbollah had a lot of rockets, then North Korea has that to the power of 100. They could do very, very serious damage to the Seoul without leaving thier start line. Try to fight your way into North Korea, may be a bit of a challenge.
Ken White
05-27-2009, 07:12 PM
Brandon:I'm no expert either but I have watched them for years. While four tours there, peace and war may cloud my judgment a bit, I suspect it is more 'We want' ...
Not to mention that we don't know if they popped a nuke; we only know it appears they may have. A few dump truck loads of TNT can give a marginal simulation. We'll see what comes out in the long term.
Plus, there are worse things than Nukes in any event.
Bill: No one in the west understands their reasoning. Some in the west have been watching them for years and while patterns do not provide predictions or assurances, they do provide probabilities. Plus, as I said, they're dotty, they are not nuts; in fact, they're really pretty shrewd...
Wilf:
"..but don't worry. According to the great and the good, "Big Wars" are unlikely. We only have to worry about insurgents and Hybrids. "Absolutely. They've got it all figured out...:rolleyes:
They could do very, very serious damage to the Seoul without leaving thier start line. Try to fight your way into North Korea, may be a bit of a challenge.No question on the first part; on the second -- depends on which door you use but they're, even in their current debilitated state, no pushover that's certain.
Early days...
Coldstreamer
05-27-2009, 08:31 PM
I've got all that...tons and tons of coventional, stacked and ready...
But my point is, are they genuinely likely to launch a first strike if NK mainland has not been targeted. Wilf - do we really think that thy'd react that strongly to dodgy ships being searched at sea - particularly if kit was found aboard them that was even more politically embarrassing for them. I'm not sure I see it happening. A hell of a lot of the usual piss and wind...but then again that's what we've had from appeasing them, to a degree. But the problem with appeasement is their tech and proliferation is still getting out. So we still lose.
Fundamentally, I suspect regime survival is all, and they won't invite a Western retaliation. Hence 1st strike unlikely.
But as Ken says...early days. Another thing to pray for.
Hacksaw
05-27-2009, 08:41 PM
I would defer to Ken's supreior experience (that was delicately put don't you think) wrt psyche and tendencies...
I would defer to Ron's experiences wrt cultural understanding...
I do, however, have some feel for capabilities, terrain, etc regarding the prospects for combat on the frozen chosen...
My greatest apprehension while serving thinking about combat operations in Korea was not the indirect fires (although impressive and certainly capable of wrecking death and destruction) - we have an idea how to systematicly take that down... ROK Arty and our ability to execute counter-fire fight isn't a joke either...
The hordes of NK light infantry and special operaters is also worrisome and would certainly creat a degree of havoc before they were hunted down... or stopped at the local grocery store to fill their bellies...
No what really worried me was that they might figure out how to provoke the South into attacking the North... the tyranny of terrain, UGF/Harts, and non-existent road infrastructure is some scarry business... especially if they haven't already shot their load on an attack...
Agree with Ken... this is almost certainly sabre rattling for the sake of leverage to preclude the implosion someone else mentioned...
In a very perverse way, I miss the hours worked and rigor of live above the no smile line...
Live well and row
Ken White
05-27-2009, 08:50 PM
No what really worried me was that they might figure out how to provoke the South into attacking the North... the tyranny of terrain, UGF/Harts, and non-existent road infrastructure is some scarry business... especially if they haven't already shot their load on an attack...However, on a serious note; yes indeed, to that comment...
Few Americans ever realized that we stayed on that DMZ for 50 plus years not to deter the North from attacking the South -- but rather the reverse. :eek: :cool:
jmm99
05-27-2009, 08:51 PM
No doubt, NK has breached Art. 62's clear language (for rational or irrational reasons):
62. The Articles and Paragraphs of this Armistice Agreement shall remain in effect until expressly superseded either by mutually acceptable amendments and additions or by provision in an appropriate agreement for a peaceful settlement at a political level between both sides.
and some propose (based on news reports of "what should be done") to breach Art. 15 & 16's clear language (for the rational reason of preventing export of nuclear weapons):
15. This Armistice Agreement shall apply to all opposing naval forces, which naval forces shall respect the water contiguous to the Demilitarized Zone and to the land area of Korea under the military control of the opposing side, and shall not engage in blockade of any kind of Korea.
16. This Armistice Agreement shall apply to all opposing air forces, which air forces shall respect the air space over the Demilitarized Zone and over the area of Korea under the military control of the opposing side, and over the waters contiguous to both.
Ultimately, discussion of the Armistice will be trumped by each country's decision, based on its enlightened self-interests, of its need to invoke its rights under UN Article 51 (http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/bt-un51.htm):
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
whether those rights be an "offensive defense", or solely defense of territory as is the current Russian response (http://in.reuters.com/article/email/idINIndia-39913120090527).
Icepack6
05-27-2009, 09:10 PM
. . . .with all this new posturing, all I can envision is Kim-Jong-Il stomping his feet, and holding his breath until his cheeks turn blue. . . . .a la Team America.
Despite all of the needs in the North, the one consistent thing manifested over the years is dear leader wants legitimacy, measured ONLY by bilateral engagement with the US, not a committee of nations or the UN. For all the right reasons, we have rarely engaged KN without the UN, ROK, Russia, Japan and/or China coming along. Stuck in 1953 thinking, NK leadership is big on correlation of forces and wants to play with the big dogs. . . . and force one-on-one engagement with the US, thereby, establishing the legitimacy of the Kim dynasty.
Coldstreamer
05-27-2009, 09:35 PM
Mind you I bet real estate's cheap there...lot of beaches...we could be missing a trick for holiday property. Could be the next Croatia...perhaps with more submarine pens...
AmericanPride
05-27-2009, 10:04 PM
I think a major contributing factor to the size of the DPRK's armed forces is the lack of other employment (or busy work) for the population. When the population is conscripted and forced to support the military machine, threats to state stability are minimized -- even if at the expense of internal development or foreign relations. It's a common strategy in many underdeveloped countries (except where the military itself is unreliable, i.e. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). So I do not think we can accurately conclude that the DPRK wants to "play with the big dogs" on the basis of the size of their armed forces.
Icepack6
05-27-2009, 10:16 PM
Since KN has retracted from the Armistice, I believe there is an opportunity for moving Red Flag from Nellis to Osan AB, ROK. This would make Russia nervous, as the winds blow westerly from North Korea across Hokkaido Island to points northeast. Watch this space for reports of a large, fire-breathing atomic dinosaur.
slapout9
05-27-2009, 10:21 PM
Since KN has retracted from the Armistice, I believe there is an opportunity for moving Red Flag from Nellis to Osan AB, ROK. This would make Russia nervous, as the winds blow westerly from North Korea across Hokkaido Island to points northeast. Watch this space for reports of a large, fire-breathing atomic dinosaur.
You got my vote....if the wittle fellar wants a nuclear weapon we should give him one or two....those neutron ones that only kill people,don't want to hurt any of the little critters roaming around there.:D
Uboat509
05-28-2009, 01:43 AM
My question would be, how much do we really need to worry about this, even if they do decide to attack? I have not been to Korea but I have a number of friends who have and by all accounts the ROK army is a very professional competent force. Add to that the fact that China doesn't want to deal with all the fallout of a war on the peninsula and will not tolerate KN slinging WMDs around. I don't think that they can afford to not become militarily involved. On top of all that add the fact that for all their bluff and bluster the KN army appears to be largely starving conscripts with antiquated equipment and substandard training. While I'm sure that we would provide some air and naval cover, I'm just not convinced that we would need to provide any significant ground forces.
SFC W
William F. Owen
05-28-2009, 01:40 PM
Wilf - do we really think that thy'd react that strongly to dodgy ships being searched at sea - particularly if kit was found aboard them that was even more politically embarrassing for them. I'm not sure I see it happening.
I wouldn't assume to predict what a North Korean Leader might do, or what might embarrass him. MacArthur said the Chinese would never intervene in Korea and the CIA said Iraq would never invade Kuwait. The Israelis were absolutely certain Egypt would not attack in 1973.
Hacksaw
05-28-2009, 02:42 PM
The answer to your question is that it depends...
Are the ROKs a first rate Army??? Yes and no... BCT and below they are excellent... Div and above - not nearly as proficient...
Would the US need to committ ground forces??? Maybe, maybe not... If the NK launch all their stuff... air could kill vast majority of heavy equipment (highway of death to the nth power)... and the counterfire fight would eventually attrit indirect fires to the point that ROK forces could certainly restore the international border.... but, if the NK conduct a limited attack and the ROKs/Coaltion want to go north...we better have a whole lot more than the ROK Army and air superiority...
Terrain favors the defender in the extreme on the Peninsula... as I stated earlier in this thread... what kept me up at night wasn't defeating a NK attack... rather it was going North into a defense dug into granite with templated TRPs and fields of fire painted onto the walls....
bad bad bad juju
Slumbering peacefully in Kansas
Coldstreamer
05-28-2009, 04:04 PM
I wouldn't assume to predict what a North Korean Leader might do, or what might embarrass him. MacArthur said the Chinese would never intervene in Korea and the CIA said Iraq would never invade Kuwait. The Israelis were absolutely certain Egypt would not attack in 1973.
Fair one. Prediction's always a dangerous sport. But going off past experience, rewarding bullies and lunatics always empowers them (back to Saddam and April Summer's ambiguous messages to him in 1991). Where as good old fashioned bullying, of the sort conspicuously absent in our dealings with..er..Korea and Iran, tends to yield results. Bcause the lines are thus clear. If we reward unreasonable behaviour we incentivise it. And, of course, all the while these nutters are spreading the WMD risk with characters like AQ Khan and the Iranians - because we haven't gripped them early.
J Wolfsberger
05-28-2009, 06:01 PM
Based on his past experience, Kim probably believes that he can threaten, bluster, and rattle some sabers, resulting in the west will sign an agreement to give him something, in this case food. He can then renege on whatever he promised to do.
The problem this time around is that we might actually do something - stop and search shipping to and from NK. He desperately needs the foreign currency from arms sales to purchase food. Given his health, some rumors I've read of a rise in influence of the armed forces, he could just be desperate enough this time around to follow through on his threats.
A lot of the behavior we've seen before. What's new, and a bit ominous, is the repudiation of the Armistice, and that he isn't raising the stakes in a transparent effort to get food.
orange dave
08-05-2009, 06:40 AM
Confucian culture is all about respect to one's superiors. All Confucian cultures are more centralized than their respective Western Communist or capitalist counterparts. Sometimes, Confucian societies can be pushed to defer to foreign rule: for instance, Japan and South Korea have adopted capitalist and democratic systems. Neither of these cases were really homegrown, the result of indigenous protest, but rather come from deliberate US policies. From these examples, the first thing required is a show of strength to establish status. The second, more subtle step then is a show of mercy, or an attempt at nation-building. Japan was a good example of that, and it is one of the most famous applications of such a policy (the other being Germany.) Besides this one model, which would only work in very specific political circumstances, this strategy has also worked when it wasn't even really intended. Nixon's rapprochement to China may not have been meant as a signal for them to keep their political system, but it did give them 'face' enough to open up to the world and start down the path to development. It may be unclear if that made China more or less of a threat down the road, today, but it was clearly the moral approach to take, as it brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
This is going to have to be the end result of the North Korea situation. Every Confucian society of geopolitical importance which has developed has done so as a result of American interference of some sort. (Taiwan, the only one which didn't originate from American designs, is kind of the exception that proves the rule, as their influence in the region has steadily been declining for practically as long as it's existed.) The only question is, how? There's no Taiwan here - selling South Korea to them would be crazy. So how do you make the first diplomatic overtures?
I actually have my own answer to that question, but I won't disclose it just yet, just to get people thinking the way I am. What I'm thinking of is quite political, and once I mention it then the thread will probably go off topic.
George L. Singleton
08-05-2009, 07:29 AM
Orange Dave, what you apprea to be talking about is the importance of education for moral development of the individual so that the state can be governed by moral virtue rather than by the use of coercive laws.
Taiwan has absolute freedom of religions whereas China is still an enigma when it comes to not allowing free and open, unfettered practice of religion.
Ever since the Ike years as President in the 1950s I well remember, I was a teenager then, the Qumoy and Matsu Islands challenges by Communist China militarily, which failed ultimately.
China has come a long way since the Nixon days and today the US economy owes China for helping keep our national debtd afloat. The defacto capitalism model for world trade by China has defanged many of the past negative habits of China, I agree. But the issue of freedom of all religions inside mainland China still haunts it, as evidenced recently with Muslim riots in far Western China.
The Deputy Dean of "the" main Medical College of China was visiting the Medical College of Alabama, a part of the University of Alabama at Birmingham campus, in the late 1980s. As the administrator of the VA's Medical Research & Development Division at that time I was asked by our local US medical school dean to take the Chinese Deuty Dean of their main Medical College to lunch.
During lunch the Chinese MD told me that his son was a premed student then at UAB, hoping to be admitted to the Medical College of Alabama in a few years. Secondly he told me that mainland China was (and I suspect still is) very backward internally, this was circa 1989) still very backward, with it's people still eating rice out of iron bowls.
Just to balance some remarks today about mainland China which economically is our main stay in terms of our national debt today.
Ken White
08-05-2009, 05:29 PM
as they define it. POTUS visits both; aid flows prompting a counterflow of love and decency. Development ensues. They all live happily ever after.
. . .
Thus two more nations are added to the long list of those who dislike the US for several reasons, not least that they responded to power by wanting acknowledgment and 'respect' from that power and demeaned themselves or were demeaned by needing,wanting or taking his aid. All these nations act nicely in public while working, sometimes feverishly, sometimes casually, behind the scenes to trip the big guy -- not necessarily kill him, just trip him and cut him down to size...
Interesting you mention Germany and Japan. More interesting may be their pay back -- when it occurs.
orange dave
08-05-2009, 07:02 PM
Iran is a different question. US policy debates tend to mention them in the same breath, but I'm not convinced they themselves think of themselves of having anything to do with each other.
The US, both privately and publicly, could justify taking this path with North Korea, and a different path with Iran, because North Korea off the bat has a better outlook for success, according to the 'Asian Tiger' model. Nevertheless, this strategy has already been applied in Iran, under the Clinton administration, but not North Korea, rendering that point irrelevant anyway. What I'm thinking of here is a historical apology for the Korean War, based on more effective ways the US could have won the Cold War.
Letting the Communists take control of all of Korea would not have been less effective, as long as the US demonstrated the strength and will to take over the country if it wanted to. Perhaps it could have made a landing with its troops, and then immediately negotiated a deal aimed at breaking this united Korea off from the Soviet Union, akin to the Sino-Soviet split. The fact that this kind of political sophistication, not to mention the necessary foresight, didn't exist at the time is irrelevant. And of course a lot of problems would also have been solved if the US simply fought the war more effectively and defeated the North, but we can't exactly say that.
Interesting you mention Germany and Japan. More interesting may be their pay back -- when it occurs. Umm, what kind of time scale are you thinking of here? Tens, or hundreds, of years?
George, I understand what you're saying about how much China hasn't yet opened up. But would you not say that Nixon's diplomacy was an overall success - particularly compared to the expectations at the time?
Ken White
08-05-2009, 07:44 PM
Iran is a different question. US policy debates tend to mention them in the same breath, but I'm not convinced they themselves think of themselves of having anything to do with each other.Agree; the only similarity is in the quest for international respect and a perverse and probably incorrect sense that US 'acceptance' is tantamount to such respect.
The US, both privately and publicly, could justify taking this path with North Korea, and a different path with Iran, because North Korea off the bat has a better outlook for success, according to the 'Asian Tiger' model.Having spent four years in Korea, including a couple as the tiger was developing and after it was pretty well grown plus a couple in Iran prior to the '79 revolution, I disagree -- the 'Middle East Lion' could be Iran; it has a better chance at that than any other in the region to include Iraq even with our help (which isn't likely to be forthcoming).
Nevertheless, this strategy has already been applied in Iran, under the Clinton administration...Clinton visited Iran? I missed that totally... :D
Overtures were made by Clinton and flummoxed by Congress as had occurred with overtures by Reagan, the difficulty in relations with Iran (as with Cuba and North Korea) is in the Congress, WH overtures to fix that even under George W. Bush (his Father didn't even really try), were routinely deflected by Congressional hard liners -- as were possible overtures to China by Johnson before Nixon. Dick and Henry just pulled an end run. Good for them. Most Administrations aren't that ballsy.
...but not North Korea, rendering that point irrelevant anyway.Few points are irrelevant in international relations; too many variables to summarily dismiss anything.
What I'm thinking of here is a historical apology for the Korean War, based on more effective ways the US could have won the Cold War.Heh, you're correct about derailing the thread, I suspect. I'll let that go for now but will agree with you that there were far more effective ways for the US to have handled the Cold War. I do not agree with use of the word 'win' in that respect as I'm not at all convinced it's over. No bodies have been buried...
...And of course a lot of problems would also have been solved if the US simply fought the war more effectively and defeated the North, but we can't exactly say that.Having been there at the time, I can agree that the war could have been fought far more effectively -- we tried to fight a land war in northern Europe while in Asia (a bad habit of ours...) -- I will also point out that defeat of the 'North' would have entailed a lengthy irregular postwar cleanup problem that would easily have rivaled Viet Nam. Oh -- and that you seem to, as MacArthur tried to, ignore the Chinese...:wry:
Umm, what kind of time scale are you thinking of here? Tens, or hundreds, of years?A few score for Germany, whatever it takes for the far more patient Japan to include "hundreds." Both with the caveat that time will cure some of that as the world modifies and anger fades, thus the desire and thus the capability will diminish over time but either would take advantage of any opportunity or weakness to achieve to offset their known population decline which will adversely affect their ability for payback which a good many in both nations think is deserved. :cool:
orange dave
08-06-2009, 03:17 AM
Having spent four years in Korea, including a couple as the tiger was developing and after it was pretty well grown plus a couple in Iran prior to the '79 revolution, I disagree -- the 'Middle East Lion' could be Iran; it has a better chance at that than any other in the region to include Iraq even with our help (which isn't likely to be forthcoming).
Clinton visited Iran? I missed that totally... :D
I'm talking specifically about historical apologies. The presidential visit is nice pomp, but it only comes on top of some kind of major policy change.
I believe Madeleine Albright apologized to Iran for overthrowing the Shaw in 1953(?) or so. Apologies have a particular resonance in North Korea, where as you will remember we managed to get away with apologizing for the intrusion of the USS Pueblo on paper while simultaneously denouncing that same agreement verbally. Apologies have greased many diplomatic wheels here, unlike with Iran, as far as I know.
Ken White
08-06-2009, 04:23 AM
I'm talking specifically about historical apologies. The presidential visit is nice pomp, but it only comes on top of some kind of major policy change.Or it could be in itself the announcement of a policy change...
However, I believe there is a problem with your solution.
It is not that I and my generation who fought in Korea strongly doubt that we have anything -- that's a specific AND an all inclusive we plus a very inclusive anything -- to apologize for; we're old, departing this mortal coil on a daily basis and have no political clout so our opinion is basically immaterial. So forget us. :cool:
The US Congress is another matter entirely.
Regardless of which party the President who broached the idea of an apology might belong to, the other party would have a field day with the concept. :rolleyes:
I believe Madeleine Albright apologized to Iran for overthrowing the Shaw in 1953(?) or so. Apologies have a particular resonance in North Korea, where as you will remember we managed to get away with apologizing for the intrusion of the USS Pueblo on paper while simultaneously denouncing that same agreement verbally. Apologies have greased many diplomatic wheels here, unlike with Iran, as far as I know.Since I remember drawing cold weather gear in preparation for deployment from Fort Bragg to Korea, yes, I recall the Pueblo 'apology' quite well.
I suspect however, that an apology for a war gets into far shakier ideological and legal territory. If one apologizes, does one then owe reparations? If, so in what amount? Regardless of the legalities, what of world opinion (which I don't give a fig about but which worries some)? Do many in Congress subscribe to a belief that we owe North Korea an apology given the practical fact that they invaded the South weighed against the unprovable assertion that if only we'd done the Cold War differently, it might not have happened?
So, I see your point, don't disagree it might work. Might. Barely might. The problems with it would, I believe, be US domestic and would be legal-type practical as well as ideological. So I suspect a Presidential risk analysis would come to the same conclusion and the idea would be rejected unless there were very positive signs that the potential benefit to the US would out weigh the costs. I doubt such signs will appear anytime soon.
Note also that doesn't even address Chinese (They had more people killed in Korea than did the North Korean Army) concerns. Will they alos want /get an apology? Nor South Korean and Japanese concerns. Or the UN, who underwrote that war -- or the Brits and Australians and other who fought there...
As for Madeline apologizing to Iran, she did indeed -- and I acknowledge that as you note, Iran and North Korea are different. Your idea of the President doing it would resonate with North Korea -- as would an apology from Clinton instead of his female SecState have resonated with Iran, in the event it was a meaningless gesture form one of the worst secretaries of state seen in my long life. She ties with Alexander Haig for loser of the 20th Century.
My personal belief is that both nations would take a Presidential apology, use it to their benefit in various ways and modify their behavior very little if at all -- probably for the worse if at all. Those currently in power in both nations are not about to give that up. Another generation; perhaps. Maybe a Gorbachev-like person and economic dire straits may align. Until then, I expect little change from either nation. Both are really similar only in two things: wanting 'respect' -- and to keep their quite different power structures in place.
orange dave
08-06-2009, 06:17 AM
Since I remember drawing cold weather gear in preparation for deployment from Fort Bragg to Korea, yes, I recall the Pueblo 'apology' quite well.
I suspect however, that an apology for a war gets into far shakier ideological and legal territory. If one apologizes, does one then owe reparations? If, so in what amount? Regardless of the legalities, what of world opinion (which I don't give a fig about but which worries some)?
That's the thing. The apology is that the Korean War was a strategic, rather than a moral, mistake. The only costs this would impose on the US would be what it has already had to put up with. However, as a practical matter, if the US did want the North Korean economy to start growing, it would have to provide the seed aid, which really wouldn't be that big of an economic obstacle, as much as a political obstacle.
Also, this isn't really an apology to anyone, but rather to ourselves. So maybe a better way to think of this would be a congressional panel convened to investigate how well containment schemes work or something - there are others going on in Somalia and Eastern Europe, for instance. A kind of strange topic, but its real purpose wouldn't have to be kept too secret (in fact, that would kind of defy the point.) This question might then lead wherever the commission takes it. Something mundane like that could then be engineered to 'serendipitously' spin out of control (perhaps through leaks,) culminating in an apology after North Korea (and maybe China) after they (obstinately on their own volition) ask for it.
That would take even more careful engineering on the domestic than the international end, and it admittedly contains a lot of unknowns. What would be the impetus for a congressional panel on the use of containment? I would think if Somalia collapsed or did something spectacular in the next couple of years, that could provide an opportunity. Whatever happened, it would require a lot of creativity on the part of a lot of people to dilute the political risk to acceptable levels.
George L. Singleton
08-06-2009, 01:47 PM
The people of North Korea are simply too close to the reality of democracy and a free enterprise system that enriches the consumerism driven economy model down to the grassroots level as they see being daily enjoyed by their blood kin in South Korea.
North Koreans want food, clothing, fuel, and much, much more. Free TV programming, abundant, modernized housing, cars, affordable fuel to drive the cars with, in short, the hugely successful way of life now found in South Korea, Japan and even in China today.
I'd stay focused on the wants and needs of the masses and look for a change, which should be soon, in the top civil and military leadership of N. Korea in the hope and with the goal that the new leadership group, too, might like to become titans of a then newly growing economy and system at least of the mainland China model.
China could and would surely help promote and fund, for interest back on their money of course, such a change over in North Korea's economy.
No, this doesn't happen overnight, but it has to start sooner vs. later or never. It is inevitable but we can help speed up it's start up via China. My two cents.
Ken White
08-06-2009, 04:59 PM
...The only costs this would impose on the US would be what it has already had to put up with.I doubt that would be true. I think there are many hidden costs there -- and I'm not talking solely fiscal...
Also, this isn't really an apology to anyone, but rather to ourselves. So maybe a better way to think of this would be a congressional panel convened to investigate how well containment schemes work or something...Congress is a monumental waste of time and taxpayer money. They are venal and more concerned with their party than they are with the good of the nation. Every commission they have created in the memory of living man has been a farce and done more harm than good. The political infighting that would go on in a commission as you suggest would make the US a bigger laughing stock worldwide than we already are thanks to too many such schemes.
Whatever happened, it would require a lot of creativity on the part of a lot of people to dilute the political risk to acceptable levels.Exactly -- and that is in shorty supply; critically short -- that's why it is not a viable idea.
That and the hidden costs.
orange dave
08-06-2009, 06:15 PM
George: a couple of thoughts. North Korea has been opening up to the world in recent years, exposing people to this kind of material lifestyle. At the same time, its leadership has been becoming more corrupt. With some skill (which we can assume they posses,) they can just play this off as the outside world causing the corruption, thus justifying their continuing with an independent approach. (After all, it's only the elite that are afforded the luxury of international contact.) We're opening up because we're being forced to, they can say, and look at the consequences. We can handle interacting with other cultures if we must, but in general it's best to avoid it whenever possible.
Also, a change in leadership does not signify a change in foreign policy. The closest historical precedent to what you seem to be thinking of is Deng Xiaoping taking control of China. He was probably more pro-market all along, but that position was made viable by Nixon's deal with regards to Taiwan - under Mao. Without such a deal, China never would have split with Russia, and so its ability to open up its markets would be constrained. While domestic policy could benefit from new leadership, it's foreign policy that we're more concerned with, and no North Korean leader is going to give up the position that the country has worked so long and hard to attain, which gives them the possibility of nuclear coercion of the US, without something in return.
George L. Singleton
08-06-2009, 07:03 PM
I am not so pessimistic as you, and think practical human needs and potential consumer demands will infatuate whoever next group of leaders in N. Korea will be.
Even the existing N. Korean leadership understand they are too dependant on missles and A-bomb technology to generate foreign exchange for their impoverished nation.
We will soon see what comes next in N. Korea but my bet is on change, economically driven, over some mumbo-jumbo Congressional Committee mess that they, and I, will laugh at should it happen.
Understand everyone is entitled to their point of view, and that is mine...factoring in my few years when young as an International Banker, Asia Section, old Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. in NYC, now merged into JP Morgan Chase Bank and some time as a Congressional staffer under the late House Democratic Whip Armistead Selden, D-AL, who was later Principal Under Secretary of Defense under President Nixon then President Carter's US Ambassador to New Zealand.
Cheers and let's wait and see.
Dayuhan
08-08-2009, 12:22 PM
Addressing the original post...
Confucian culture is all about respect to one's superiors. All Confucian cultures are more centralized than their respective Western Communist or capitalist counterparts. Sometimes, Confucian societies can be pushed to defer to foreign rule: for instance, Japan and South Korea have adopted capitalist and democratic systems. Neither of these cases were really homegrown, the result of indigenous protest, but rather come from deliberate US policies.
Not precisely homegrown, though certainly evolved in a uniquely indigenous fashion... and certainly not, in either case, constituting "foreign rule".
One might debate the extent to which North Korea can be described as a "Confucian culture".
Nixon's rapprochement to China may not have been meant as a signal for them to keep their political system, but it did give them 'face' enough to open up to the world and start down the path to development. It may be unclear if that made China more or less of a threat down the road, today, but it was clearly the moral approach to take, as it brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
Are you implying that Nixon's move was the sole cause of China's "start down the path of development"? I think you might find on examination that there was a good more to it than that.
Every Confucian society of geopolitical importance which has developed has done so as a result of American interference of some sort. (Taiwan, the only one which didn't originate from American designs, is kind of the exception that proves the rule, as their influence in the region has steadily been declining for practically as long as it's existed.) The only question is, how? There's no Taiwan here - selling South Korea to them would be crazy. So how do you make the first diplomatic overtures?
Japan was a developed industrial power well before the US got involved, and I think the case for claiming that "American interference" caused Chinese development is sketchy at best. I don't see any real historical evidence to support the idea that US interference is a necessary element to produce development in an East Asian state.
Surferbeetle
08-08-2009, 03:21 PM
Interesting you mention Germany and Japan. More interesting may be their pay back -- when it occurs.
A few score for Germany, whatever it takes for the far more patient Japan to include "hundreds." Both with the caveat that time will cure some of that as the world modifies and anger fades, thus the desire and thus the capability will diminish over time but either would take advantage of any opportunity or weakness to achieve to offset their known population decline which will adversely affect their ability for payback which a good many in both nations think is deserved.
The capabilities of the human animal are constant irrespective of place of origin however culture, as I have argued elsewhere, is very tough to change. You pose some sharp questions Ken which are interesting to think about. Having spent over a decade in Europe, and being a firm believer in the positive effects of the US melting pot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot), I will say up front that IMHO this scenario is very, very unlikely at this point in history.
For the sake of thinking about it however, and with respect to Germany in particular, I would in turn ask you a Slapout & JMM based question: does Motive, Means, and Opportunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity) exist for this to occur?
With respect to an important aspect of motive, will, this mornings english news was interesting and is starting to pick up on a theme that has been running in the german news for a few weeks now. From the BBC: Germans question Afghan war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8183803.stm)
German military involvement abroad is extremely unpopular back home - and becoming more disliked all the time.
According to the most recent polls, almost 70% of Germans now want their troops to pull out of Afghanistan.
But why are Germans so reluctant to send their troops into foreign combat?
"You have to go back a bit in German history, to the obvious place: the Second World War," said Mr Posener.
"We didn't only lose the war, in no uncertain terms. We were told it was our fault, and we were paying."
After half a century being told by the international community to be a non-threatening pacifist nation, Germany is now under pressure to become an effective military partner.
"Germans have had a hard time adjusting to all these mind-set changes that they are supposed to go through," said Mr Posener.
"Now we're supposed to flick a switch and suddenly be proud of our military heroes again."
Trade-wise what could be lost? US trade with Germany is reported as 3.7 billion USD per month by Wolfram Alpha (http://www24.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=germany%27s+trade+with+the+us).
If we assume, inaccurately, that expenditures alone determine the quality and capability of a fighting force Germany's military (http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd443DnQHSYGZASH6kT CxoJRUfW99X4_83FT9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQCsXOUq/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82X0NfM1JF) expenditures are reported as 41.8 billion USD per year (http://www24.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=germany%27s+military) while US military expenditures are reported as 503.4 billion USD per year (http://www24.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+military+expenditures). The potential military age population counts are 30.96 million vs 118.6 million (Germany:US) data again by Wolfram Alpha.
Orange Dave, I am not an Asia expert however, North Korea has been in the news of late:
From the BBC: In pictures: Burma's tunnel network (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8120752.stm)
From the Sydney Morning Herald: Burma’s nuclear secrets (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/burma8217s-nuclear-secrets/2009/07/31/1248977197670.html)
Ken White
08-08-2009, 03:40 PM
...You pose some sharp questions Ken which are interesting to think about. Having spent over a decade in Europe, and being a firm believer in the positive effects of the... I will say up front that IMHO this scenario is very, very unlikely at this point in history.Somehow, you frequently miss my conditional statements...
"... Both with the caveat that time will cure some of that as the world modifies and anger fades, thus the desire and thus the capability will diminish over time but either would take advantage of any opportunity or weakness to achieve (payback) to offset their known population decline which will adversely affect their ability for (the) payback which a good many in both nations think is deserved." (emphasis, strikeout and 'payback' and 'the' added / kw) :o
Note also the time periods I stated; Germany is more likely to drop the idea of getting even before Japan. Ergo, given no major stumbles on our part, you may be right. You could be right with major stumbles on our part... :D
We'll see.
P.S.
Sorry for all the errors -- old fingers...:(
George L. Singleton
08-08-2009, 03:44 PM
The educated youth of both Germany and Japan are several generations deep now and all is well indeed.
orange dave
08-08-2009, 05:56 PM
Are you implying that Nixon's move was the sole cause of China's "start down the path of development"? I think you might find on examination that there was a good more to it than that.
Necessary but not sufficient. That put them in a position to open up; they still needed a competent leader who could understand their situation and take advantage of it, which didn't happen until Deng.
Japan was a developed industrial power well before the US got involved...
If you go back further, the precursor to Japanese development was the 'black ships' incident - which was taken as no less than a full US invasion.
On a political - not to mention personal - level, interactions between Eastern and Western cultures often involve the Western party putting themselves in a position high on the social hierarchy, without even realizing it. I see these crossed expectations all the time in my interactions with various Asians. The Asian side thinks that the Westerners were going to be more responsible with their power, while the Westerners think the Asians really were that enthusiastic about whatever.
Dayuhan
08-09-2009, 04:34 AM
I'm not at all sure that the inevitable US recognition of China's existence qualifies as a precondition for Chinese development.
I think we can certainly agree that NE Asian nations have in the last century had increasing contact with the US and the West in general, and that they have subsequently made substantial economic progress. I'm not at all sure that one can legitimately deduce from this that American action is necessary to bring North Korea back into the community of nations.
30 years in Asia have left me very wary of statements that begin with "The Asian side thinks...", and 50 years on the planet have left me wary of anything that purports to be "a permanent solution" to any problem.
orange dave
08-09-2009, 05:54 AM
China wasn't going to split with Russia publicly unless it got something for its troubles. The US was Taiwan's main source of legitimacy, and Taiwan was China's biggest foreign policy objective. So without some movement on that issue, there never would have been a Sino-Soviet split. And without capitalism, there never would have been economic development. So the only way I can see for economic development without movement on Taiwan would have been if China somehow developed a capitalist system without splitting with the Soviet Union - which makes for an interesting counterfactual history exercise.
So I'm still not willing to concede this point on China. However, in the analogy to North Korea, the Soviet Union isn't forcing them to do anything, so the point is potentially moot anyway.
Dayuhan
08-09-2009, 06:28 AM
China wasn't going to split with Russia publicly unless it got something for its troubles. The US was Taiwan's main source of legitimacy, and Taiwan was China's biggest foreign policy objective. So without some movement on that issue, there never would have been a Sino-Soviet split.
Are you suggesting that Nixon's visit enabled the Chinese to split with the Soviets? Given that the Sino-Soviet split occurred well before the visit, this hardly seems a defensible proposition.
I would think that China's move toward capitalism had more to do with the gradual dying off of the Mao-era communist hardliners and the rise of a more pragmatic generation looking for a more viable economic model than it did with Nixon's visit. The Nixon encounter was one step on China's road to emergence, but to call it the cause of that emergence is a major stretch and would need a good deal of support.
Backwards Observer
08-09-2009, 07:39 AM
Somewhat related to the Confucian theme, Fareed Zakaria interview with Senior Minister (and Hakka Godfather), Lee Kuan Yew.
Let me be frank; if we did not have the good points of the West to guide us, we wouldn't have got out of our backwardness. We would have been a backward economy with a backward society. But we do not want all of the West.
Culture Is Destiny (1994) (http://www.lee-kuan-yew.com/leekuanyew-freedzakaria.html) from the Lee Kuan Yew Website.
His pick for one of the West's crowning achievements: The Air-Conditioner.
TimeAsia Mini-Profile (1999) (http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/lee1.html)
Majulah Singapura! (and thanks for all the aircons, lah)
Dayuhan
08-09-2009, 07:53 AM
I'd certainly agree that the Western example and direct exposure to Western ways were critical elements in Asia's emergence... but to jump from there to the conclusion that direct Western interference is necessary for an Asian nation to emerge seems to me a difficult proposition to support, and potentially a recipe for trouble.
Backwards Observer
08-09-2009, 08:18 AM
...but to jump from there to the conclusion that direct Western interference is necessary for an Asian nation to emerge seems to me a difficult proposition to support, and potentially a recipe for trouble.
Okay, but can we still keep the air-conditioners?
Dayuhan
08-09-2009, 10:06 AM
Okay, but can we still keep the air-conditioners?
If you're in Asia you probably make the air conditioners, and then lend America the money to buy 'em with...
Backwards Observer
08-09-2009, 10:36 AM
The system works! Don't spend it all in one place.:)
orange dave
08-13-2009, 06:27 AM
Well, so I got that timeline wrong. The Sino-Soviet split was in the '60's, Nixon's diplomacy in the '70's. He he, nobody look at me. :-|
However, restricting this argument to Japan, rather than all of Asia, there is still one more data point which I haven't mentioned (and I double checked the timeline on this.) Their 'lost decade' - not just a decade, but heralding a long-term decline in their power - was preceded by an international currency intervention, the Plaza accord. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord) While this wasn't necessarily against Japan's will, it was led by the US, and thus still follows this theme of foreign events dictating Japan's internal political situation.
So, in short, Japanese colonial ambitions can be traced back to the unequal "Treaty of Amity and Commerce" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amity_and_Commerce_%28United_States-Japan%29) from 1858, which was an American attempt at colonialism (even if feeble by European standards.) After their defeat in WWII, Japan put their economy into overdrive - at the bequest of the US. Finally, when outside economies (led by the US) expressed discomfort at how hot Japan's economy was, Japan figured they had done all they needed to in terms of war reparations, and they've kind of let things drift since then.
So this explains Japan; however without China this theory isn't be consistent enough to generalize to North Korea. Assuming Japan is unique as an Asian country can at least help explain why Japanese re-armament is such a potent issue in the region though. We can threaten to encourage them to rearm in order to keep other countries in the region in line (particularly China, to use against North Korea, because North Korea themselves won't respond rationally.) Sort of like our relations with Israel, our relations with Japan can set the tone for our dealings with everyone else in the (respective) regions. In fact, in my view, it's possible to draw some strong parallels between these two parts of the world: Japan is equivalent to Israel; North Korea is equivalent to al-Qaeda, and the rest of East Asia is equivalent to moderate Islam. The connection between these two parts of the world, as I see it, is the US, which sees both Japan and Israel as its post-WWII responsibilities.
Having made this connection that US policy in the Middle East and East Asia is colonialism, some interesting ideas present themselves. These regions are too divided to mount an effective resistance a la India to Britain, so there is no vulnerability there. So we could keep the status quo; on the other hand we could also make this argument in order to withdraw from the Middle East process. (This perceived responsibility could potentially be a vulnerability, because there will never be a settlement which will satisfy the Palestinian side, and being in charge of the process simply moves the bulls-eye from Israel to us.) If China can manage the North Korean situation responsibly, then the US can be proactive about Japan not re-arming; and by the same token if the parties in the Middle East expect the US to find a solution, they will never learn to solve problems on their own. The term 'colonialism' is enough of an anathema to everyone that its use will stir immediate opposition, if a coherent argument can be made for its use. Solutions for the Middle East conflict and the problems on the Korean peninsula don't necessarily have to be made piecemeal. With some creative historical reinterpretations, it's possible not only to kill two birds with one stone, but make each individual solution stronger as well. Getting both of these international sub-systems to govern themselves without American help would allow us more flexibility to prepare for new kinds of threats; and also reduce the chances of us screwing things up and being held politically viable.
Really I'm just throwing some thoughts around - I don't know if this is any more viable than any of the other ideas I've had. If this methodology can produce ten bad ideas and one good one, it's still a useful exercise.
Dayuhan
08-14-2009, 12:13 AM
However, restricting this argument to Japan, rather than all of Asia, there is still one more data point which I haven't mentioned (and I double checked the timeline on this.) Their 'lost decade' - not just a decade, but heralding a long-term decline in their power - was preceded by an international currency intervention, the Plaza accord. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord) While this wasn't necessarily against Japan's will, it was led by the US, and thus still follows this theme of foreign events dictating Japan's internal political situation.
I still think you're overestimating the impact of external influence on Japan's internal politics. The Plaza Accord was an international intervention in support of the US economy (trying to deflate an overvalued dollar that was contributing to an unsustainable balance of payments deficit), and while the subsequent increase in the value of the yen was arguably one of the causes of the later Japanese asset bubble, it was certainly not the only or the primary cause. Japan's asset bubble and subsequent economic troubles did not take place in a vacuum - nothing does, these days - but it cannot be attributed to external intervention, certainly not to intentional action from an external source.
After their defeat in WWII, Japan put their economy into overdrive - at the bequest of the US. Finally, when outside economies (led by the US) expressed discomfort at how hot Japan's economy was, Japan figured they had done all they needed to in terms of war reparations, and they've kind of let things drift since then.
So this explains Japan...
Again, I don't think it does fully "explain Japan". Certainly the US wanted to see Japan succeed economically, but the Japanese of course wanted the same thing, for their own reasons. The US may have helped Japan get started, but the Japanese economic boom was ultimately a product of Japanese action, much assisted by a culture that stresses hard work and discipline. As we've all seen elsewhere, US action or desire alone cannot produce economic development.
China this theory isn't be consistent enough to generalize to North Korea. Assuming Japan is unique as an Asian country can at least help explain why Japanese re-armament is such a potent issue in the region though. We can threaten to encourage them to rearm in order to keep other countries in the region in line (particularly China, to use against North Korea, because North Korea themselves won't respond rationally.)
I'm not sure that would work. The Japanese make their own decisions for their own reasons, and if there was ever a time when the US could "use Japan" as a leverage point, that time is long past.
In fact, in my view, it's possible to draw some strong parallels between these two parts of the world: Japan is equivalent to Israel; North Korea is equivalent to al-Qaeda, and the rest of East Asia is equivalent to moderate Islam. The connection between these two parts of the world, as I see it, is the US, which sees both Japan and Israel as its post-WWII responsibilities.
The comparison is IMO a bit strained... Japan may have been a US responsibility at the close of WW2, but that ended decades ago.
Having made this connection that US policy in the Middle East and East Asia is colonialism
Is US policy in the Middle East and East Asia colonialism? How so? I'm not sure the connection is supportable.
Getting both of these international sub-systems to govern themselves without American help would allow us more flexibility to prepare for new kinds of threats; and also reduce the chances of us screwing things up and being held politically viable.
Really I'm just throwing some thoughts around - I don't know if this is any more viable than any of the other ideas I've had. If this methodology can produce ten bad ideas and one good one, it's still a useful exercise.
With this I agree... but America is no more able to get these areas to "govern themselves without American help" than it is able to govern these areas itself. As far as North Korea goes, I think the 6-party format, cumbersome as it is, is probably the only viable approach. China has more leverage than anyone, but they will use that leverage as they see fit, and the ability of the US to influence those decisions is very limited. Fortunately China's trade-driven prosperity has moved them into the position of a status quo power with little interest in rocking any regional boats.
I don't think North Korea is controllable. I do think the situation is manageable, though the management will not be entirely satisfactory. Their nuclear capacity is subject to deterrence, and their perennial shortages of food and fuel are a point of vulnerability that can be exploited. Internal political change will come, but it will be internally driven and it could take a long time (or it may not; we don't know). I don't see any external action that is likely to accelerate the process.
George L. Singleton
08-14-2009, 02:41 AM
I don't think North Korea is controllable. I do think the situation is manageable, though the management will not be entirely satisfactory. Their nuclear capacity is subject to deterrence, and their perennial shortages of food and fuel are a point of vulnerability that can be exploited. Internal political change will come, but it will be internally driven and it could take a long time (or it may not; we don't know). I don't see any external action that is likely to accelerate the process.
I worked in the Japan Section of the Asia Dept., old Manufactuers Hanover Trust Co. in NYC, while doing my night school MBA at NYU at bank expense, while doing 2 lunch seminars on both domestic and international credit every week, being aide de camp to the then President of MHTCo. to the World Bank/IMF Annual Conference in 1969 held in D.C.
This self serving b. s. is said to say that I think, as I have written here before, than mainland China, still being politically a communist governance system, is the most akin model for N. Korea to follows.
N. Korea could start by setting up a free trade zone with S. Korea on one side, and another such free trade zone on the China side, and offer to set up a third N. Korean free trade zone, if welcomed to do so, in Japan!
You need to think outside the box, and stop trying to reinvent the classical Japan and German post WW II models which can't work for N. Korea, ever, my view.
orange dave
08-14-2009, 02:54 AM
I still think you're overestimating the impact of external influence on Japan's internal politics. The Plaza Accord was an international intervention in support of the US economy (trying to deflate an overvalued dollar that was contributing to an unsustainable balance of payments deficit), and while the subsequent increase in the value of the yen was arguably one of the causes of the later Japanese asset bubble, it was certainly not the only or the primary cause. Japan's asset bubble and subsequent economic troubles did not take place in a vacuum - nothing does, these days - but it cannot be attributed to external intervention, certainly not to intentional action from an external source.
But you have to see things in their broader context here. For instance, if we're talking about the current financial crisis, one could certainly point to internal faults in America's financial regulatory system, and various sorts of internal economic imbalances. Any analysis that left out America's trade balance with China, and their threatening America's hegemonic status, though, would be lacking. My view, in both cases, is that while the external may not be a trigger for anything, it provides the context, or the backdrop, for everything else.
I don't think North Korea is controllable. I do think the situation is manageable, though the management will not be entirely satisfactory. Their nuclear capacity is subject to deterrence,
If we're talking about the North nuking Seoul, yeah. However, the scenario the North Koreans are talking about is giving the nuclear technology away to terrorists, who could then use it against the US at a time of their convenience. Now, one strategy might be to declare to the North Koreans that if anybody nukes the US, we will hold them accountable if we think it originally came from them. Even without judicial hurdles, I don't see this strategy as being particularly effective, though, because our intelligence would still never be good enough. Oh, and if they hadn't yet nuked Souel, then they would then just as retribution. So deterrence isn't going to be nearly as effective as it was during the Cold War.
and their perennial shortages of food and fuel are a point of vulnerability that can be exploited.
Again, not really. For the US to do so would open it up to charges of using food to gain political favor. More practically, the US can never prevent other countries from stepping into the gap - particularly China.
As to the question of what degree of control the US still has over Japan - they are still a pacifist country, and the US is committed to defending them against foreign threats. The US obviously can't just give them orders, but it can work more subtly for or against their interests, in order to influence how much they trust us in general.
And for Israel, my argument is just an extension of the notion the the US is always protecting Western Europe - very popular at certain points in the political cycle. Just include Israel in the grouping of 'Europe,' and substitute another term for 'protecting,' and you've got yourself a new perspective.
Dayuhan
08-14-2009, 07:16 AM
This self serving b. s. is said to say that I think, as I have written here before, than mainland China, still being politically a communist governance system, is the most akin model for N. Korea to follows.
N. Korea could start by setting up a free trade zone with S. Korea on one side, and another such free trade zone on the China side, and offer to set up a third N. Korean free trade zone, if welcomed to do so, in Japan!
North Korea certainly could follow this model, if they chose to... but they don't choose to, and there's not a lot we can do to change that. It will change, when there is change in the North Korean government, and I personally think that can only come from inside.
Dayuhan
08-14-2009, 08:19 AM
But you have to see things in their broader context here. For instance, if we're talking about the current financial crisis, one could certainly point to internal faults in America's financial regulatory system, and various sorts of internal economic imbalances. Any analysis that left out America's trade balance with China, and their threatening America's hegemonic status, though, would be lacking. My view, in both cases, is that while the external may not be a trigger for anything, it provides the context, or the backdrop, for everything else.
I'm not convinced that China "threatening America's hegemonic status" is a major issue here. It looks to me that China's emergence as a trading power of increasing prosperity is moving China's national interest closer to, rather than farther from, that of the US, especially where issues like North Korea are concerned. To put it simply, regional instability is bad for business, and China needs to do business. They've little interest in rocking the boat; the status quo is running rather nicely for them.
I'm not trying to say that external events have no impact on North Korea, I'm trying to say that the impact of any given event is likely to be extremely unpredictable, and that any external effort to influence North Korea is likely to be ineffectual and filled with possibilities for unintended consequences. I don't see any action that the US could take - especially unilaterally - that would be likely to have much positive impact.
For the US to do so would open it up to charges of using food to gain political favor. More practically, the US can never prevent other countries from stepping into the gap - particularly China.
I didn't say that the US could unilaterally exploit North Korea's perennial shortages of food and fuel. That would have to take place in the context of a regional sanctions package emerging from the 6-party format. It's clumsy, but it's necessary: it's a regional issue and requires a regional strategy.
As to the question of what degree of control the US still has over Japan - they are still a pacifist country, and the US is committed to defending them against foreign threats. The US obviously can't just give them orders, but it can work more subtly for or against their interests, in order to influence how much they trust us in general.
The US works for US interests, Japan works for Japanese interests. Where North Korea is concerned, those interests coincide to a large degree, as do those of other regional powers. That's why the 6-party format exists. The parties may have numerous areas of disagreement elsewhere, but none of them want to see conflict in the Korean peninsula.
And for Israel, my argument is just an extension of the notion the the US is always protecting Western Europe - very popular at certain points in the political cycle. Just include Israel in the grouping of 'Europe,' and substitute another term for 'protecting,' and you've got yourself a new perspective.
Against whom does the US protect Europe these days?
A new perspective, possibly... but I'm not sure how well supported that perspective is, or what practical solutions it produces.
George L. Singleton
08-14-2009, 11:38 AM
Dayuhan:
1. North Korea can't be left to make it's foreign exchange by sales of atomic bomb technology and missles to dangerous third world nations in this time of our war on terrorism.
2. Change change as you refer to it even in mainland China has not come even in it's Communist form of government, with problems today in Tibete and other far side of China areas which are majority Muslim Chinese population.
3. The raw ideas I have pushed including with this follow up note three times now can begin with:
a) China offering to finance and help N. Korea set up it's free trade zone on the Chinese border, in which items to be manufacturered (future tense) would come out of plants China would finance for N. Korea to build and opeate, "start up bridge money" to jump start an entprenaural zone between N. Korea, China, and other nations from that same free zone.
b) South Korea could offer the same thing, to bridge loan N. Korea the funds to set up a free trade zone, same model.
c) Japan could off ther same thin, to bridge loan N. Korea the funds to set up a free trade zone model.
Or, China, South Korea, and Japan, even perhaps the US, might form a loan consortium whose loan terms and conditions would create the "will and the plan" that would get "whoever the top decision makers are" now or in the near term future with personality changes allegedly around the corner if the top leader of N. Korea is terminally ill as some alledge, but if not terminally ill, there is no reason why such a consortium package should not be appealing to him and his top miliary folks, who, after all, would become as are the top Chinese government and military officials, fairly soon "economic haves" while still running as Communist government, as China still does.
Change is driven economically, not in a raw military or dictatorial sense.
They key out in the open in what I am suggesting here is to have clean cut, straight forward, no hidden agendas, a business plan the consortium lenders would require of any nation, anywhere, as has been the case currently, for instance, in Vietnam.
Let's talk about this...I have noticed some writing here recently who probably know more ecnomics and finance than I do...so I happily yield the floor for them to take this further, refine it as they see fit, whatever.
Thanks for your acknowledgement of my rough idea which I hope is better spelled out now. You might also look at today's Libya since they renounced nuclear weapons and what and how their business model is and how it came about...while we hear little about Libya it is a model of a different nature in and of itself now.
orange dave
08-15-2009, 02:09 AM
I'm not convinced that China "threatening America's hegemonic status" is a major issue here. It looks to me that China's emergence as a trading power of increasing prosperity is moving China's national interest closer to, rather than farther from, that of the US, especially where issues like North Korea are concerned. To put it simply, regional instability is bad for business, and China needs to do business. They've little interest in rocking the boat; the status quo is running rather nicely for them.
This is a tangent, but I just want to say that I didn't say they were "rocking the boat." Just that their sheer weight, and what people project it to be in the future, has caused some creaks and groans as the system has struggled to cope.
I'm not trying to say that external events have no impact on North Korea, I'm trying to say that the impact of any given event is likely to be extremely unpredictable, and that any external effort to influence North Korea is likely to be ineffectual and filled with possibilities for unintended consequences. I don't see any action that the US could take - especially unilaterally - that would be likely to have much positive impact.
That's why we need to be thinking in terms of 'dual use.' Policies that would be good in their own right, but could also shape things in this part of the world to our benefit. This, incidentally, would take care of the unilateral part, as we can advertise the first use to our allies.
I didn't say that the US could unilaterally exploit North Korea's perennial shortages of food and fuel. That would have to take place in the context of a regional sanctions package emerging from the 6-party format. It's clumsy, but it's necessary: it's a regional issue and requires a regional strategy.
Are you (or the 6 parties) really going to be willing or able to stop anyone from donating food? NGO's? Anyone else who wants to cultivate their 'good guy, anti-American' image?
George Singleton: You've basically delineated the Chinese approach, applied to North Korea. That's probably the closest historical precedent; however it can't be applied exactly. North Korea is probably near rock-bottom at the moment, with its agricultural problems. China's free trade didn't start until decades after their Great Leap Forward disaster. The first step for North Korea, therefore, would be to fix these agricultural problems. I don't know too much about their source, but letting in foreign experts to survey the problem, and heeding their recommendations - however politically incorrect - may be a good start. These advisors could also confirm that any aid we decide to give them actually makes it to the proper places. NK can't be expected to produce goods for foreign trade when their traditional systems of domestic production are dysfunctional. (Incidentally, this sentiment coincides with their 'juche' philosophy of extreme self-reliance, and thus may be more saleable to a North Korean audience.)
But that's what the N Koreans can do, and what they will decide on their own time. The bigger question is what we can do, now.
Dayuhan
08-15-2009, 07:07 AM
Change is driven economically, not in a raw military or dictatorial sense.
This is true... the problem is that North Korea's government is terrified of change and will do anything in its power to prevent change. I have no problem with offering to fund free zones, but the probability of any such offer being accepted under the current regime is close to nil. The inner circle would see it as the thin end of a wedge designed to ultimately force them out of power, and respond accordingly.
Dayuhan
08-15-2009, 07:18 AM
That's why we need to be thinking in terms of 'dual use.' Policies that would be good in their own right, but could also shape things in this part of the world to our benefit. This, incidentally, would take care of the unilateral part, as we can advertise the first use to our allies.
I don't think advertising policies to our allies is going to accomplish much. They don't listen to the advertising, they observe the policies and reach their own conclusions. Policies that are "good in their own right" will be those aimed at promoting interests that we have in common with both regional allies and regional rivals. Fortunately, where North Korea is concerned there is a considerable overlap between US interests and those of the immediate region.
Are you (or the 6 parties) really going to be willing or able to stop anyone from donating food? NGO's? Anyone else who wants to cultivate their 'good guy, anti-American' image?
Not many parties have shown much interest, and an NGO couldn't accomplish much more than a token gesture. The key leverage point is likely to be fuel, which is not likely to be provided in sufficient quantity by a "spoiler" power.
The first step for North Korea, therefore, would be to fix these agricultural problems. I don't know too much about their source, but letting in foreign experts to survey the problem, and heeding their recommendations - however politically incorrect - may be a good start. These advisors could also confirm that any aid we decide to give them actually makes it to the proper places. NK can't be expected to produce goods for foreign trade when their traditional systems of domestic production are dysfunctional.
Their primary agricultural problem is very similar to that of the south: not much arable land and a short growing season. The south of course compensates with an industrial economy that is profitable enough to let them buy food from abroad.
Certainly advisers could be offered, and they could probably offer some good ideas... but again, what makes you think, given the attitude of the current regime, that the offer would be accepted?
But that's what the N Koreans can do, and what they will decide on their own time. The bigger question is what we can do, now.
The answer is not much beyond what we are already doing. It's not a question with any easy answers.
George L. Singleton
08-15-2009, 01:17 PM
The answer is not much beyond what we are already doing. It's not a question with any easy answers.
I have decied now as age 70 approaches in a few weeks that almost anything is possible if we work at it hard enough, long enough. History and world events were unimaginable which have come to be, both negative but more importantly positively in my lifetime.
Hydroponics for farming in N. Korea could help make up for the lack of land there, there is plenty of plain old water last time I looked.
Being a simplistic person myself, the old "beans and bullets" economics courses many of us studied in undergraduate college still is the order of the day for most every nation on the face of our tired globe...which of course includes North Korea.
Aside, if backward Libya can move as it has away from nukes and terrorism into the mainstream of the world's free enterprise system, then this is proof broadly speaking that "anything" is possible.
It will take a pragmatic mix of all points of view from all the free world's nation's political parties and leadership, but something better sooner vs. later for North Korea can be done.
NOTE: I have a "prejudice" to admit here for wanting to see a better way for both Koreas. My late older brother was drafted into the Army and served in the Korean War during the early 1950s. A Second Cousin, a West Pointer who chose the Air Force to become a pilot when we had no Air Force Academy, was shot down and killed by a Russian pilot flying a N. Korean MIG in 1950 over North Korea. My late first cousin was wounded as an Army Company Commander in North Korea in the Korean War.
We can put no more restrains on N. Korea than we have been able to do on Mainland China...and remember that Mainland China is "the bank" for US foreign debt today, no small matter. There is no more room for "if we control this, then we can safely agree to do that" thinking, in my humble view, using the China model.
Of course N. Korea will never be a China, but given a strong wind at their backs, N. Korea could be someday at least an economic model or "cousin" of S. Korea.
Dayuhan
08-16-2009, 01:35 AM
George,
I completely agree that North Korea could and should adopt the course you outline, or something like it. Whether or not they will is another question altogether. Certainly I don't think it likely that the US or any other outside influence can persuade or compel them to change their economic policy.
It is slightly deceptive, I think, to view North Korea as a communist state. To me it looks more like a dynastic absolute monarchy in the old l'etat, c'est moi mold, dressed up in a thin veneer of communist ideology. I do believe there will come a breaking point, most likely triggered by internal events. This could happen in a number of ways: a dynastic successor could be more open to reform, or could be overturned by other internal parties (most likely the military), or the current leader could be incapacitated or overthrown. I don't know nearly enough about the internal politics to say which of these is most likely. In the meantime, I don't see what we can do but deter, contain, manage, and wait for an opening.
I suspect that when an opening comes it would be most effectively exploited by action from the South or from China: there's just too much historical baggage for the US or Japan to play a leading role.
George L. Singleton
08-16-2009, 02:18 AM
Your summery overview thoughts and observations are of course darn good.
I worked the "Korea Scenario" as a chief of J4 computerized wargamming (as a reservist doing only IDTs and ADTs, some TDYs) for first old US Readiness Command, which morphed into US Special Operations Command. We used Star Wars funding as there was so much of it out there at that time with few knowing how to use it all!!!Thus, I have some 1980s into the 1990s focused Korean "awareness."
My take is that China is the key, always has been, as it was China which drove the Korean War, my view, as much as Russia. *Russia and China competed heavily to be "the one" to guide/control old N. Korea...today a modernizing China is the item, my view at least.
WHERE I DISAGREE is that I think China can or could form a consortium with the same folks involved in the "talks" with N. Korea, and that group can be added to by any all nations who want to in effect "invest" in to be developed or to expand on and improve existing N. Korean industries...TV sets comes to mind.
I am a stubborn Irishman and am convinced that no matter who is in charge that the chance to have a more diversified manufacturing economy, with help to train up workers to do technology related production, and compounded by helping them with on the ground and hydrophonic agriculture is something that "has" to appeal to N. Korean from the top down as well as from the bottom up.
Attention creates "fondness" a lot more than just waitng to see what comes next. Business is still the best and most creative vehicle to find a better way for them and us all, my stubborn free enterprise system view.
GREED has damn near wrecked the entire free world with crooked securitized mortgage derivatives and this sort of b.s. has to really be stopped...as the same crooks under new "banners" are already trying to jump start such cheap criminal rip offs again as fast as they can.
This remark comes from me with over 14 current, consecutive years as a real estate broker, one who never did a dirty deal, but who certainly "felt", which was proved by our damned near total banking/financial sector collapse, we just couldn't be doing so well as the phoney, trumped up securitized mortgage paperwork told us we were doing. Wordy, I admit!
Dayuhan
08-16-2009, 05:11 AM
WHERE I DISAGREE is that I think China can or could form a consortium with the same folks involved in the "talks" with N. Korea, and that group can be added to by any all nations who want to in effect "invest" in to be developed or to expand on and improve existing N. Korean industries...TV sets comes to mind.
I am a stubborn Irishman and am convinced that no matter who is in charge that the chance to have a more diversified manufacturing economy, with help to train up workers to do technology related production, and compounded by helping them with on the ground and hydrophonic agriculture is something that "has" to appeal to N. Korean from the top down as well as from the bottom up.
Attention creates "fondness" a lot more than just waitng to see what comes next. Business is still the best and most creative vehicle to find a better way for them and us all, my stubborn free enterprise system view.
I agree that business is the ideal vehicle and China the most practical conduit.
I also agree that there has to be some inherent appeal to the idea of a more functional economy, both industrial and agricultural. So far, though, this appeal has been canceled out by an obsession with self-reliance and an hyper-exaggerated fear of external influence. Up to now the fear seems stronger than the desire.
There might be some advantage to be gained in making initiatives in this direction, even knowing that they would be rejected: there is at least a chance that at some level somebody might begin to ask (very privately) why such advantageous moves are so frightening. Even if that starts at a fairly junior level, this has to be seen as a long term initiative, and junior will someday be senior. The mid-level military and government bureaucracy has to be aware of the success that South Korea and China have achieved without compromising their independence. Thought control cannot be total, and the older generation will die off.
GREED has damn near wrecked the entire free world with crooked securitized mortgage derivatives and this sort of b.s. has to really be stopped...as the same crooks under new "banners" are already trying to jump start such cheap criminal rip offs again as fast as they can.
This remark comes from me with over 14 current, consecutive years as a real estate broker, one who never did a dirty deal, but who certainly "felt", which was proved by our damned near total banking/financial sector collapse, we just couldn't be doing so well as the phoney, trumped up securitized mortgage paperwork told us we were doing. Wordy, I admit!
Having spent some years in the financial writing and editing world, I've a thought or two myself on the evolution of the risk-intensive mentality and the various consequences thereof. I wouldn't by any means exonerate the financial speculators, but I think far too little attention is paid to the role that bad government policies piled on top of other bad government policies had in creating an incentive structure that actively promoted excessive risk. Blaming the traders exclusively for what happened is in my view a lot like leaving a few kilos of ground sirloin in your dog kennel and then spanking the bad doggies for eating it...
But this was about North Korea, and I digress (not for the first time).
orange dave
08-16-2009, 08:23 PM
This Chinese model is undoubtedly a viable way for NK to get out of their current mess. I would just caution though that just because China is right next door, and has some cultural heritage in common with them (which both countries' Communists of course reject) not to assume that this is the most obvious thing for them. When I was in North Korea, my guides couldn't care less that the Olympics were going on only several hundred miles away - they didn't find any ideological validation from that, the way China did so enthusiastically.
Another model for resisting a more powerful foe, which I think the North Koreans will see as equally valid, would be the Islamist one. Create roadblocks for everyone, and let yourself be guided by a moderately coherent set of demands which will never come to pass. Though Islam isn't universalist like Soviet Communism, Chinese Communism isn't either, so the two are on equal ground on this point.
Korean culture seems to take very well to religion, compared to other East Asian cultures - at least South Korean culture is that way, and I would assume there's something universally Korean about that. I've been reading recently about how prone North Koreans are, on a personal level, to infighting over nothing. (This is the sort of basic intelligence which is crucial to understanding a country, and Western culture in general tends to focus too much on the government, without understanding its total role in society.) Perhaps the North Korean authorities might see fit to address this problem, linking it to official corruption, under the guise of political reform. This could be through some sort of Confucian revival. Political Islam shows them how they can do this without taking the edge off of their anti-Americanism. So while they might appear to lose their Communist ideology, the only change in their foreign policy might be some degree of economic power to use behind their threats. China recently has been thinking about returning to its Confucian roots (for instance, Confucius institutes overseas) so this may turn into fad. This wouldn't necessarily put the US in any better of a position.
I think it therefore is important not to appear to be giving too much attention to problems in the Middle East, in order to make that model of politics look less viable - these things are all connected as parts of the same system. From this perspective, it's not so important that there be a peace settlement, just that the US not have its hands on whatever happens. I suspect that giving the various ME actors more ownership over the peace process will actually be beneficial in the long run. More practically, the anti-American and anti-Israeli sectors of political Islam aren't necessarily one and the same, and I think it is possible to talk about splitting the two. This is what I mean by a dual-use policy: it's not duplicity, just putting a higher priority on something that should have been done anyway.
George L. Singleton
08-17-2009, 01:01 PM
Has anyone noticed in today's world news that South Korea's Hyuandai has reopened talks for plant/production inside N. Korea?
I was formerly unaware that Hyuandai already had a foothold inside N. Korea.
Interesting!
Jedburgh
05-20-2010, 11:24 AM
The Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group, 20 May 10: Investigation Result on the Sinking of ROKS "Cheonan" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_05_10jigreport.pdf)
......Based on all such relevant facts (http://photo.chosun.com/chosun/rel_photo.html?wid=2010052001760&pid=2010052001339) and classified analysis, we have reached the clear conclusion that ROKS "Cheonan" was sunk as the result of an external underwater explosion caused by a torpedo made in North Korea. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation.
William F. Owen
05-26-2010, 04:06 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10160204.stm
Only of interest and relevance if one wants to believe that Regular Warfare is a thing of the past.
Tukhachevskii
05-27-2010, 09:22 AM
...The Atlantic (Online) (http://www.theatlantic.com/)conducted a war-game, Pentagon style, in 2005 investigating and testing various hypotheses over how to deal militarily (and diplomatically) with the DPRK;
North Korea: The War Game (http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/prod_images/pdfs/KayDavid.NorthKoreaTheWarGame.07.05.pdf)
AdamG
05-27-2010, 07:00 PM
How might a shooting war start? Defense analysts and military sources in Seoul and Washington agree that an outright, all-out attack by either side is unlikely. Even a nuclear armed North, a Seoul-based defense analyst says, "would not risk an all-out war because it would be the end of the regime. Period, full stop." But there are ways in which smaller skirmishes could break out, and if they aren't contained, they could conceivably lead to disaster. Here are three that are uppermost in defense planners' minds:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100526/wl_time/08599199192800
William F. Owen
05-28-2010, 06:23 AM
Even a nuclear armed North, a Seoul-based defense analyst says, "would not risk an all-out war because it would be the end of the regime. Period, full stop."
Someone can tell the future and see into the mind of of North Korean Leadership! Wow...
Telling people what they want to hear is not useful in this case.
Tukhachevskii
06-17-2010, 06:57 PM
...reveals shifts in the DPRK's intelligence activities and organisation in
A New Emphasis on Operations Against South Korea (http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/38north_SR_Bermudez2.pdf)
and
Jeffrey Lewis askes whether North Korea can actually build a H-Bomb (http://38north.org/2010/06/can-north-korea-build-the-h-bomb/)
These and more at the informative 38 North (http://38north.org/) website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10160204.stm
Only of interest and relevance if one wants to believe that Regular Warfare is a thing of the past.
Maybe the North is crying out for a war so as to have something to blame/excuse their situation on. Want to go out in a blaze of glory rather than die of starvation? It time for Uncle Sam to do the right thing... where will the wind blow the fallout?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10160204.stm
Only of interest and relevance if one wants to believe that Regular Warfare is a thing of the past.
I welcome comment from someone who understands the (North) Korean mind/psyche. (Yes I say this is a novel concept for the like pf the Brit Foreign Office and the US State department.)
Rex Brynen
06-17-2010, 11:19 PM
Yes I say this is a novel concept for the like of the Brit Foreign Office and the US State department.
Which means what, exactly?
Tukhachevskii
06-18-2010, 02:46 PM
It time for Uncle Sam to do the right thing... where will the wind blow the fallout?
Sir, apart from the amazing flippant (bordering on offensive) tone of many of your posts I shall address myself to the above comment alone.
Yes. Uncle Sam should indeed do the right thing......sign a peace treaty ending the state of war between the North and the South/US (UN). It takes two to tango.
For a good summary of the issues up to 2004 see; U.S-North Korean Relations (www.asianperspective.org/articles/v28n4-b.pdf), Asian Perspectives, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2004
Which means what, exactly?
I suggest for background you read this article 10 lessons on empire (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/13/ten_lessons_on_empire) before moving on to the big one The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997 (http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-British-Empire/dp/0224062220) and then for the gluttons for punishment this one Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Demise-British-Lessons-Global/dp/0465023290/ref=pd_sim_b_2)
Certainly Brendon's book should be required reading for all British officers if only to balance the input indoctrination and propaganda over their lifetime.
Surely it can be understood that the use of the "end justifies the means" can work both ways? One can't really be taken seriously when with a shocking record of skulduggery one cries fouls when the boot is on the other foot?
There is no longer any guarantee that the Brit nation will blindly follow their government nor believe without question what it tells them... and not a moment too soon.
The British people must live with the consequences of their voting in democratic elections but the permanent thread running through British foreign policy is an unelected clique of foreign office staff of very dubious ethical and moral character. Time for a clean out?
Rex Brynen
06-19-2010, 05:13 AM
Surely it can be understood that the use of the "end justifies the means" can work both ways? One can't really be taken seriously when with a shocking record of skulduggery one cries fouls when the boot is on the other foot?
I remain at a bit of a loss how any of this relates to understanding of the North Korean mind/psyche (the subject of your original post)...
Kevin23
07-21-2010, 08:39 PM
According to an article by the Telegraph, The reclusive leader of the DPRK is coming close to death and that Kim is increasingly becoming detached from daily governance in the North. Also due to this, actions by the North Korean government and speculation from outside the DPRK has lead many to believe that a successor to Kim will be announced sometime in September.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/7901818/New-statue-of-Kim-Jong-Il-sparks-rumours-he-is-close-to-death.html
CloseDanger
07-22-2010, 03:39 AM
What I saw in the sinking was a rogue Military General making a cry for help to the US for assistance in a coup (or at least acknowledgement that we knew that they wanted to take control of the government)
I pair it with MAO and Fidel original wanting a democracy and America being tone deaf.
Remember the lack of bravado before and after the sinking. Kim would have made this HIS personal victory. The order would have to come from Kim, yet he was involved with trains to china and appearances as well. Kim is a very "controlling guy".
Shortly after the sinking of the SKOR vessel, a very high ranking general was fired and a purge shortly followed. The regime is very weakened.
China has been bribing guards all along the border and yes, sending in modern technology so the people see what is going on in the rest of the world. The GULAG is about to end there.
Markets are to become legal again as such dire consequence the state their economy finds.
It has never been this bad in NORK. It has already collapsed IMHO.
The troops are getting edgy and the rice and grain sheds have been emptied to the population.
Last step is lash out.
What I saw in the sinking was a rogue Military General making a cry for help to the US for assistance in a coup (or at least acknowledgement that we knew that they wanted to take control of the government)
I pair it with MAO and Fidel original wanting a democracy and America being tone deaf.
Remember the lack of bravado before and after the sinking. Kim would have made this HIS personal victory. The order would have to come from Kim, yet he was involved with trains to china and appearances as well. Kim is a very "controlling guy".
Shortly after the sinking of the SKOR vessel, a very high ranking general was fired and a purge shortly followed. The regime is very weakened.
China has been bribing guards all along the border and yes, sending in modern technology so the people see what is going on in the rest of the world. The GULAG is about to end there.
Markets are to become legal again as such dire consequence the state their economy finds.
It has never been this bad in NORK. It has already collapsed IMHO.
The troops are getting edgy and the rice and grain sheds have been emptied to the population.
Last step is lash out.
Interesting take on the situation there.
Can't see China letting things get out of their control there though. The last thing they want is a legitimate reason for the US Navy to hang out in the Yellow sea and the East China Sea as this would be too close for comfort.
Cliff
07-22-2010, 01:19 PM
Can't see China letting things get out of their control there though. The last thing they want is a legitimate reason for the US Navy to hang out in the Yellow sea and the East China Sea as this would be too close for comfort.
Even more importantly, China doesn't want to have to deal with the flood of refugees and cost of dealing with a truly failed PDRK. Not to mention the fact that they would lose the use of the PDRK as a distraction to the US and ROK... think of all the money and military power that would be rolled right up to the PRC border if the Koreas were to re-unite...
In truth I don't think the ROK really wants to deal with a failed PDRK either, they're doing too good economically and the track record (reference E/W Germany) isn't the best...
-Cliff
CloseDanger
07-22-2010, 03:32 PM
After the sinking, kim took another slow train ride to Beijing. THEN he cleaned the ranks.
Even more importantly, China doesn't want to have to deal with the flood of refugees and cost of dealing with a truly failed PDRK. Not to mention the fact that they would lose the use of the PDRK as a distraction to the US and ROK... think of all the money and military power that would be rolled right up to the PRC border if the Koreas were to re-unite...
In truth I don't think the ROK really wants to deal with a failed PDRK either, they're doing too good economically and the track record (reference E/W Germany) isn't the best...
-Cliff
If one follows the news it appears that the location of the naval exercise seems to be drifting eastwards (in other words away from the Chinese coast). Lets see to what extent the US will fold to the demands of the Chinese.
If one follows the news it appears that the location of the naval exercise seems to be drifting eastwards (in other words away from the Chinese coast). Lets see to what extent the US will fold to the demands of the Chinese.
Predictably after Uncle Hong insisted that his principal debtor not play war games in the Yellow Sea the naval exercise was moved to the Sea of Japan and away from the Chinese coast.
US-South Korea naval exercise completed amid Pyongyang tension (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100730_1_n.shtml)
So who was it who said the US would ignore China on this matter?
Dayuhan
09-12-2010, 07:03 AM
Predictably after Uncle Hong insisted that his principal debtor not play war games in the Yellow Sea the naval exercise was moved to the Sea of Japan and away from the Chinese coast.
The US and South Korea need Chinese (and Russian) help to manage North Korea. There will be the occasional quid pro quo, naturally. Why would you go out of your way to needlessly provoke somebody whose cooperation you want? What would be gained by it?
The US and South Korea need Chinese (and Russian) help to manage North Korea. There will be the occasional quid pro quo, naturally. Why would you go out of your way to needlessly provoke somebody whose cooperation you want? What would be gained by it?
Was there a quid pro quo with China on this issue? Don't think so... it was more that China told the US to take their naval exercise to the other side of the peninsula and the response was sir, yes, sir!
Dayuhan
09-12-2010, 09:57 AM
Was there a quid pro quo with China on this issue? Don't think so... it was more that China told the US to take their naval exercise to the other side of the peninsula and the response was sir, yes, sir!
See it as you will... since neither of us knows what happened or what the deal was, our conclusions will simply reflect our preconceived assumptions. How do you know that the exercise wasn't proposed in the first place as a bargaining chip to be negotiated away?
The Chinese are neither allies not enemies; they look after their interests; we look after ours. They don't control us; we don't control them. There's a good deal of jockeying and a bit of push and shove now and then, as there always is among nations. Sometimes you give up ground you don't need, as you do in any bit of wrestling. Sometimes you're trying to gain something by it. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. This isn't defeat or surrender, it's simply international relations in a multipolar world, something we'd all better get used to, as it's what we live in.
See it as you will... since neither of us knows what happened or what the deal was, our conclusions will simply reflect our preconceived assumptions. How do you know that the exercise wasn't proposed in the first place as a bargaining chip to be negotiated away?
The Chinese are neither allies not enemies; they look after their interests; we look after ours. They don't control us; we don't control them. There's a good deal of jockeying and a bit of push and shove now and then, as there always is among nations. Sometimes you give up ground you don't need, as you do in any bit of wrestling. Sometimes you're trying to gain something by it. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. This isn't defeat or surrender, it's simply international relations in a multipolar world, something we'd all better get used to, as it's what we live in.
It was straightforward foreign policy incompetence. Why did the US need to announce the exercise in the Yellow Sea when they knew they would move it to the eastern side of the peninsula if the Chinese so demanded?
Does the US want to look weak in the face of the world?
Now the US/ROK promise that there will be naval exercises in the Yellow Sea in September. Lets see if Uncle Hong will throw them a bone and allow them this consolation prize.
You can be assured that 99% of the world has read this as a US climb down. See that as you will...
Dayuhan
09-12-2010, 12:42 PM
You can be assured that less than .1% of the world noticed or cared, and since neither of us knows the full story of what happened or why, a conclusion of incompetence seems premature... though of course if you're predisposed to reach such conclusions, you will.
Of course one might want to stick with the point of the exercises, and of the thread, and try to assess the impact on North Korea. Probably the impact is minimal, but that's to be expected. It's not an environment in which anything we do is likely to produce rapid change, or in which we want to produce rapid change.
Rex Brynen
09-12-2010, 04:58 PM
Given that China has far more influence over NK than does the US, and given that securing Chinese cooperation is therefore rather important, wouldn't it be the height of stupidity to gratuitously annoy the Chinese in their own backyard?
Given that China has far more influence over NK than does the US, and given that securing Chinese cooperation is therefore rather important, wouldn't it be the height of stupidity to gratuitously annoy the Chinese in their own backyard?
Exactly. So who were the clowns that planned, announced and authorised the the naval exercises to take place in the Yellow sea which led to a humiliating climb down by the US?
You can be assured that less than .1% of the world noticed or cared, and since neither of us knows the full story of what happened or why, a conclusion of incompetence seems premature... though of course if you're predisposed to reach such conclusions, you will.
Of course one might want to stick with the point of the exercises, and of the thread, and try to assess the impact on North Korea. Probably the impact is minimal, but that's to be expected. It's not an environment in which anything we do is likely to produce rapid change, or in which we want to produce rapid change.
I can guarantee you that 100% of national leaderships across the world noticed and took the point. That matters.
Rex Brynen
09-12-2010, 05:52 PM
Exactly. So who were the clowns that planned, announced and authorised the the naval exercises to take place in the Yellow sea which led to a humiliating climb down by the US?
Doing something more sensible than your initial plan is neither a "humiliating climb down," nor is it typically perceived as such by the international community (present company excepted).
Ken White
09-12-2010, 06:05 PM
I can guarantee you that 100% of national leaderships across the world noticed and took the point. That matters.a guarantee. That too matters. Even if you were anywhere near correct, most of them are smart enough not to make a standing broad jump at what could very likely be an erroneous conclusion...
Adding to the wise words from Rex Brynen, he's totally correct -- but then, no one in this case knows what the original plan really was. All most of us know is what was publicly announced. That often, even for the US, is not what's really intended. Does suck in the unthinking quite often...;)
Neat thing about being old is that I've seen dozens if not hundreds of would be prognosticators and pundidiots state categorically what the US did or did not do -- and they've most always been proven wrong. I've also read about the decline and fall of the US so many times that now I just smile. As Humphrey Bogart said, "Here's laughing at you, Kid..." :D
Bob's World
09-12-2010, 07:23 PM
I suspect that is we could get a cagy observer such as Ken a 2-week pass to inspect the North Korean military, snoop around their motor pools, walk their lines to look at artillery and tanks that have been sitting static for 60 years, etc that he would come down off the mountain and announce: "stand down, these guys are all rep and no action."
Perhaps not, but we need to get Ken that pass and find out...
Dayuhan
09-13-2010, 06:44 AM
Doing something more sensible than your initial plan is neither a "humiliating climb down," nor is it typically perceived as such by the international community (present company excepted).
Very true. I had a crawl through the regional English language press just to see what's being said. Nobody seemed to sense a humiliating US retreat, though there's a good deal of comment on what's perceived as an unusually sensitive reaction from Beijing (similar exercises were held not long ago without much fuss). The general consensus is that Beijing's focus is on the domestic audience, which is a good deal more restive than most Westerners realize. Playing the nationalist card and trying to whip up anger at an outside power is of course a long-standing tactic for distracting attention from domestic issues.
I don't see any point in playing into this strategy by upping the ante and giving them something to rant about, and the move that was taken seems - and seems regionally perceived as - a fairly nonchalant shrugoff - it's about North Korea, not about China, and if it's going to be an issue we'll take it elsewhere, no big deal. Given the desire to maintain a focus on North Korea, there's nothing to be gained by creating issues with China, and it really doesn't warrant a hysterical response.
Doing something more sensible than your initial plan is neither a "humiliating climb down," nor is it typically perceived as such by the international community (present company excepted).
Not being involved in matters relating to the China Desk i must say that the first thought that crossed my mind when I heard that join US/ROK naval exercises were to be carried out in the Yellow Sea was "I wonder what China will have to say about that?"
The end result was that the naval exercise was moved right around the peninsula and away from the Chinese coastline. The climb down was predictable... but the question that should be asked was why was it necessary? Which "smart" guy or guys put the US in the position that it had to carryout a humiliating climb down?
Time to purge incompetent idiots in the White House/State Department/Pentagon? I believe so.
a guarantee. That too matters. Even if you were anywhere near correct, most of them are smart enough not to make a standing broad jump at what could very likely be an erroneous conclusion...
Adding to the wise words from Rex Brynen, he's totally correct -- but then, no one in this case knows what the original plan really was. All most of us know is what was publicly announced. That often, even for the US, is not what's really intended. Does suck in the unthinking quite often...;)
Neat thing about being old is that I've seen dozens if not hundreds of would be prognosticators and pundidiots state categorically what the US did or did not do -- and they've most always been proven wrong. I've also read about the decline and fall of the US so many times that now I just smile. As Humphrey Bogart said, "Here's laughing at you, Kid..." :D
Yes Ken I understand that no one wants to see their country humiliated internationally... but don't let that blind you from the truth.
The problem is that the cause of the humiliation was gross incompetence. So don't go after the messenger... go after the idiots who thought China (which does not have an aircraft carrier yet) is going to allow the US sail one of theirs right into the Yellow Sea and thumb its nose at China.
I am (for what it is worth) a stalwart supporter of the US, Israel and the UK but out here in the colonies the list of supporters is growing shorter by the day... through this sort of thing from the US and the blockade cock-up of the Israelis win you no friends out here.
In these cases it is not the US and Israeli policies that are so repugnant but the incompetence as mentioned.
While knee jerk reaction is often "we don't care what anyone thinks" it is obvious that the American people do care what the world thinks of them. The answer is quite simple don't make it so hard for people to be a friend of the US.
Very true. I had a crawl through the regional English language press just to see what's being said. Nobody seemed to sense a humiliating US retreat, though there's a good deal of comment on what's perceived as an unusually sensitive reaction from Beijing (similar exercises were held not long ago without much fuss). The general consensus is that Beijing's focus is on the domestic audience, which is a good deal more restive than most Westerners realize. Playing the nationalist card and trying to whip up anger at an outside power is of course a long-standing tactic for distracting attention from domestic issues.
I don't see any point in playing into this strategy by upping the ante and giving them something to rant about, and the move that was taken seems - and seems regionally perceived as - a fairly nonchalant shrugoff - it's about North Korea, not about China, and if it's going to be an issue we'll take it elsewhere, no big deal. Given the desire to maintain a focus on North Korea, there's nothing to be gained by creating issues with China, and it really doesn't warrant a hysterical response.
10 out of 10 for refusing to see it was nothing short of a humiliating climb down by the US/ROK.
Entropy
09-13-2010, 01:48 PM
JMA,
Please define "humilitating climb down." If this minor accomodation constitutes a "humiliation" then it seems to me virtually any accomodation (whether real or perceived) is a "humiliation" which would seem to render the term useless.
Personally, I tend to put the bar pretty high where humiliation is concerned and I think this country has a lot more self-esteem than an insecure teenager. Calling small slights or accomodations "humiliations" is not a sign of strength - quite the opposite.
Ken White
09-13-2010, 03:19 PM
Yes Ken I understand that no one wants to see their country humiliated internationally... but don't let that blind you from the truth.In reverse order, never has. The US constantly and quite deliberately humiliates itself internationally in a futile attempt to show the World we're the good guys. We aren't, really but we're fairly decent and generally do more good than harm. The humility act really does us few favors but we continually do it; it gets misunderstood and people think we're even dumber than we are. Not a big thing, as I said, I've watched it for a good many years.
The problem is that the cause of the humiliation was gross incompetence. So don't go after the messenger... go after the idiots who thought China (which does not have an aircraft carrier yet) is going to allow the US sail one of theirs right into the Yellow Sea and thumb its nose at China.Let me count the ways...:rolleyes:
In order, you do not know if it was gross incompetence or a deliberate ploy, you do not know if the initial plan was announced by 'A' and then 'B' overruled him or her -- in short, your allegation is, yet again, ill informed and an assumption that since it was not done as you like to think you'd do it, it was incompetent or incorrect. Sorry, no prize for that leap.
I'm not "going after the messenger" -- presuming you consider yourself the messenger -- merely pointing out the message, as are so many, is short sighted and possibly erroneous. Nor do I believe the rest of that paragraph is correct, though I certainly don't know, anymore than do you, so there's no sense in either of us even acting like we're 'going after' anyone.
Lastly, as Entropy said above, we've got said bit more pizazz than to worry about diplomatic turnarounds -- if indeed that's what it was; we'll see. I'd have used self confidence rather than self esteem but the principle is the same. Nations are not people and one should IMO avoid trying to talk about them as if they were human but they do have national attributes and one of ours is trying to not offend just to be offensive. You might consider that... ;)
In these cases it is not the US and Israeli policies that are so repugnant but the incompetence as mentioned.Ah, yes. Being a gentleman (on occasion) I'll forego asking about events of the last 30 plus years in your neck of the woods; I'll merely point out that no one, no nation, is error free.
While knee jerk reaction is often "we don't care what anyone thinks" it is obvious that the American people do care what the world thinks of them. The answer is quite simple don't make it so hard for people to be a friend of the US.Oh, you got one right!!! Yep, thus my comment above that we often humiliate ourselves in efforts to win friends and influence people. Doesn't usually work; the big clumsy and seemingly inartful guy is always going to be a target for the gibes of the smaller and more apparently agile. The big guy just has to take it and keep smiling or he gets labeled a bully. That works until one the gibers gets stupid and carried away, overdoes it and then gets smacked. Since the big guy is clumsy , his smack may go awry, they often do but the last thing you want to do is get him really upset and let him catch you in one of these (http://www.yourdictionary.com/bearhug). :D
Nope, most Americans do care. Having been around the world in both directions a few times and having learned that most others do not care, I tend to not worry about it either way. I do smile when those others scream about American ineptitude and greed out of one side of their mouth, totally fail to understand Americans (or the domestic political dynamic that impacts what said Americans do) in their brains and scream "What are the Americans going to do to fix this?" from the other side of their mouth... :cool:
JMA,
Please define "humilitating climb down." If this minor accomodation constitutes a "humiliation" then it seems to me virtually any accomodation (whether real or perceived) is a "humiliation" which would seem to render the term useless.
Personally, I tend to put the bar pretty high where humiliation is concerned and I think this country has a lot more self-esteem than an insecure teenager. Calling small slights or accomodations "humiliations" is not a sign of strength - quite the opposite.
I suggest it is important to face the truth. I saw this coming as did many people from Mickey Mouse countries, strange that so few from the US did.
It started here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/24/us-south-korea-naval-exercises):
The US will conduct joint naval exercises with South Korea in the Yellow Sea, the Pentagon announced tonight as the two countries revealed measures to increase pressure on North Korea over a torpedo attack which sank a Southern warship.
Note: It is clearly stated it will take place in the Yellow Sea.
Then this happened (http://www.peopleforum.cn/viewthread.php?tid=29523):
China expressed its opposition to US-South Korean military drills at the Yellow Sea, which is a sea stripe between China and the Korean Peninsula, and expressed "deep concern" over the war games starting on Sunday.
"We sternly oppose activities that affect China's security by foreign military vessels or aircraft at the Yellow Sea or in China's offshore waters," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said Wednesday in a statement.
As a result it ended like this (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100730_1_n.shtml):
Code-named 'Invincible Spirit', the military drill took place over five days off Ullengdo Island, in the Sea of Japan (East Sea), and was completed on 28 July.
Note: the exercise was moved to the other side of the peninsula into the Sea of Japan as demanded by China.
That is a humiliating climb down if there ever was one.
Dayuhan
09-14-2010, 12:20 PM
That is a humiliating climb down if there ever was one.
Why?
Rex Brynen
09-14-2010, 04:13 PM
Why?
Ah, you just say that because you're one of those humiliatingclimbdownists... :D
Ken White
09-14-2010, 05:16 PM
humiliatingclimbdownistas...
"Ah, I kill me...":D
The number of people who do not understand that hyperbole, posturing and backtrack are Diplomacy in the current era never cease to surprise me...
Rex Brynen
09-14-2010, 05:23 PM
humiliatingclimbdownistas...
"Ah, I kill me...":D.
I almost lost a mouthful of coffee over that. :D I bow to the master ;)
Entropy
09-14-2010, 05:43 PM
I guess I'm a "humiliatingclimbdowntra" then :)
reed11b
09-14-2010, 07:07 PM
humiliatingclimbdownistas...
"Ah, I kill me...":D
The number of people who do not understand that hyperbole, posturing and backtrack are Diplomacy in the current era never cease to surprise me...
You sir, owe me a new keyboard.
Reed
Ken White
09-14-2010, 08:04 PM
I guess I'm a "humiliatingclimbdowntra" then :)'Humiliatingclimbdowntro' is the masculine -- so that's more appropriate. Though you can of course use the appellation of your choice. :D
Avoid extraneous letters; a humiliatingclimbdowntroll is, of course, a tiny, fat, red faced gnome like creature with funny ears and a scraggly beard who busily searches the internet for humiliatingclimbdownists or istas / istos of any sex, sexuality, ethnicity, religious persuasion, trade, profession, service, grade or rank. :eek:
Replacement Keyboards will be cheerfully issued at 1505 S (UTC-06) today only at this facility. The facility will close promptly at 1507 S. If you have two, draw one, if you have one, turn one in... :cool:
Kiwigrunt
09-14-2010, 08:41 PM
I have just busily searched the Internet and I think I may have found me some.
Dayuhan
09-15-2010, 01:02 AM
go after the idiots who thought China (which does not have an aircraft carrier yet) is going to allow the US sail one of theirs right into the Yellow Sea and thumb its nose at China.
It's worth noting, I think, that the George Washington was operating in the Yellow Sea as recently as late 2009 without any major Chinese objection, which suggests that the reaction was less predictable than some would have us believe.
Also worth noting that the purpose of the exercise was to deliver a message to North Korea (not that I think this would accomplish much, but that's another issue). Turning it into a saber-rattling showdown with China would only dilute that purpose, and in fact the only gainer from US-China tension in the area is North Korea. If you're keeping your eye on the purpose of the exercise, what was done makes sense... and I suspect that most of those observing (at least those whose observations matter) are sufficiently mature to see the difference between playground posturing and trying to hold focus on the issue of the moment.
It's worth noting, I think, that the George Washington was operating in the Yellow Sea as recently as late 2009 without any major Chinese objection, which suggests that the reaction was less predictable than some would have us believe.
You mean you didn't detect the sea change?
Also worth noting that the purpose of the exercise was to deliver a message to North Korea (not that I think this would accomplish much, but that's another issue). Turning it into a saber-rattling showdown with China would only dilute that purpose, and in fact the only gainer from US-China tension in the area is North Korea. If you're keeping your eye on the purpose of the exercise, what was done makes sense... and I suspect that most of those observing (at least those whose observations matter) are sufficiently mature to see the difference between playground posturing and trying to hold focus on the issue of the moment.
Yes exactly, the purpose was to rattle the North Korean cage. However, due to the lack of intelligent foresight it turned out to be a potential head butting with China. And of course sanity prevailed in the end and the US/ROK took off into the Sea of Japan to play there.
I believe North Korea sent a note of thanks to uncle Hong.
Ron Humphrey
09-16-2010, 03:49 AM
You make it sounds so ominous, all (you guys done lost your mojo-ish):D
Don't seem that hard to understand to me, then again I'm kinda a simple guy.
Since you seem to like to present things in more human to human vs state v state context try this one on for size.
If someone in the family is havin problems with their neighbor and you of course offer to walk over to the neighbors with them to "talk it out";) Just cause the old guy in the house on one side of them ask you not to step on his new grass, and you comply and go the other direction doesn't mean you -
1- Were scared of nor deterred by the old man (i mean we all know how hard it is the get new grass to grow)
2- Didn't make it to the door to have the "heart to heart" :D
Dayuhan
09-18-2010, 01:37 AM
You mean you didn't detect the sea change?
If by "sea change" you mean somethinmg fundamental, there isn't one... just the usual cycle of occasional spasms of saber-rattling interspersed with business as usual. At the end of the day business generally prevails over saber-rattling; it makes more money.
I believe North Korea sent a note of thanks to uncle Hong.
Why? Which side of the peninsula the exercise occurred on makes little difference to the north. In fact the entire exercise makes little difference to the north, just the expected step in a ritual dance. The North Koreans would have been desperately hoping for a US-China confrontation, which would only benefit them, but they didn't get it.
Mountains out of molehills, soon to be forgotten and of no lasting relevance.
You make it sounds so ominous, all (you guys done lost your mojo-ish):D
Don't seem that hard to understand to me, then again I'm kinda a simple guy.
Since you seem to like to present things in more human to human vs state v state context try this one on for size.
If someone in the family is havin problems with their neighbor and you of course offer to walk over to the neighbors with them to "talk it out";) Just cause the old guy in the house on one side of them ask you not to step on his new grass, and you comply and go the other direction doesn't mean you -
1- Were scared of nor deterred by the old man (i mean we all know how hard it is the get new grass to grow)
2- Didn't make it to the door to have the "heart to heart" :D
That analogy does not relate to what is being discussed. You care to try again?
If by "sea change" you mean somethinmg fundamental, there isn't one... just the usual cycle of occasional spasms of saber-rattling interspersed with business as usual. At the end of the day business generally prevails over saber-rattling; it makes more money.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The fundamental change happened on two fronts. One, China crossed the line where it now felt strong enough to instruct the US to stay out of the Yellow Sea, and two, that the US position has weakened to the extent that it complied. That is a sea change when viewed in terms of the international pecking order.
Why? Which side of the peninsula the exercise occurred on makes little difference to the north. In fact the entire exercise makes little difference to the north, just the expected step in a ritual dance. The North Koreans would have been desperately hoping for a US-China confrontation, which would only benefit them, but they didn't get it.
LOL... it reinforces the belief in North Korea that China has assertited itself and as a result the US has accepted a subordinate role to China (certainly in that region) which will have a material effect on what happens in North Korea, Taiwan and ultimately Japan.
Did you really miss this or are you just arguing for the sake of the fun of the argument?
Ron Humphrey
09-18-2010, 06:51 PM
That analogy does not relate to what is being discussed. You care to try again?
This one must be beyond me.
Perhaps you'd care to point out a more accurate one;)
Dayuhan
09-19-2010, 12:42 AM
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The fundamental change happened on two fronts. One, China crossed the line where it now felt strong enough to instruct the US to stay out of the Yellow Sea, and two, that the US position has weakened to the extent that it complied. That is a sea change when viewed in terms of the international pecking order.
There are those even blinder... those who can only see what they want to see.
In a more realistic world, not committed to cataclysmic interpretation, we have the Chinese Government deciding that they need to rattle a bit of saber for domestic consumption (if you follow China's internal political/economic situation you'll know why), and the US deciding that making an issue of it would be too much hassle - and too much distraction from the issue at hand - to be worth the effort.
it reinforces the belief in North Korea that China has assertited itself and as a result the US has accepted a subordinate role to China (certainly in that region) which will have a material effect on what happens in North Korea, Taiwan and ultimately Japan.
Nothing has really changed much. The US role in managing North Korea is exactly what it was before: we provide the military guarantee (necessary but most unlikely to be used, as the North Koreans know a full scale confrontation would be fatal for them), and we provide the vocal opposition. The economic pressure - a much greater factor in terms of actual influence - comes from China and South Korea. The Japanese and Russians are at the table because they have to be, but have less of an actual role.
It is not a binary US-North Korea standoff, with others looking on.
Of course all of these powers use what influence they have in accordance with their own perception of their own interests, not according to a US script. This has not changed and is not likely to. The interests involved are not entirely consistent, but they do have a lot of common ground: nobody wants to see open conflict.
The North Koreans would, of course, have preferred to see a US-China confrontation. Such a confrontation would not have been military, at least beyond the level of posturing: too much to lose on both sides. It would turn into one of those diplomatic ###-for-tat dances, and the first ### the Chinese would pull out of their kit would be to reduce pressure on and increase assistance to North Korea. That would not help us at all.
All in all the entire incident is a wrinkle, and nothing to get upset about... unless of course getting upset is what you want to do.
Dayuhan
09-19-2010, 05:12 AM
Does the US really need military dominance in NE Asia?
Is a major US military presence in NE Asia really justified?
If so, why?
I'm, inclined to think the answer to both questions is "no". Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are fully industrialized countries at a high level of development. Their combined GDP is fairly close to that of China; their per capita GDPs far higher. North Korea isn't even remotely comparable.
How do we justify the application of major resources to defend those who are clearly capable of defending themselves?
Not suggesting that we should take no role at all, but given the capabilities of our regional allies and the combination of our limited resources and our commitments elsewhere, I see no reason why we should seek a dominant role.
This one must be beyond me.
Perhaps you'd care to point out a more accurate one;)
May I suggest that before we get hung-up on analogies you return to the original story and try to understand the dynamics of what is happening there.
Simply put the big guy on the street has told the kids to take their squabble to the back alley... and they have.
Now look towards a flex of Chinese muscle over this incident (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b6f3174-be7a-11df-a755-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss) with Japan supposedly over fishing rights but really over their respective East China Sea exclusive economic zones. Any guess who is going to back down?
Does the US really need military dominance in NE Asia?
Is a major US military presence in NE Asia really justified?
If so, why?
I'm, inclined to think the answer to both questions is "no". Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are fully industrialized countries at a high level of development. Their combined GDP is fairly close to that of China; their per capita GDPs far higher. North Korea isn't even remotely comparable.
How do we justify the application of major resources to defend those who are clearly capable of defending themselves?
Not suggesting that we should take no role at all, but given the capabilities of our regional allies and the combination of our limited resources and our commitments elsewhere, I see no reason why we should seek a dominant role.
You propose that the US should hunker down on mainland North America and be prepared to beg others to allow oil imports safe passage? Didn't work then won't work now. Unless... the US can feed its oil addiction through Arctic exploration.
While the Chinese are not the most intelligent of diplomatic operators but they still believe that they can dispense with the US on the basis of "death by a thousand cuts". Why they even have a growing number of US citizens believing that public humiliation of their country by China is in reality good solid acceptable diplomacy. You go figure.
Now if one wanted to get rid of the US from the area then China should consider removing the threat from North Korea to the South which in turn would leave the US with no reason/justification to keep troops in Korea. That would be the first domino. The next will be the pressure on the US to reduce its forces on Japan, who will willingly comply using the "fall" of North Korea and the associated threat reduction as an excuse.
Dayuhan
09-19-2010, 08:36 AM
You propose that the US should hunker down on mainland North America and be prepared to beg others to allow oil imports safe passage?
What percentage of US oil imports pass through NE Asia?
Obviously we need to protect and defend our key economic interests. That's precisely why we can't afford to be draining our resources protecting the interests of others, especially when those others are quite capable of doing it themselves.
Of couirse a great deal of US merchandise trade passes through NE Asia, but China isn't likely to interfere with that. They're the ones selling, and with the balance of trade in their favor by some margin, why would they want to rock that boat?
Why they even have a growing number of US citizens believing that public humiliation of their country by China is in reality good solid acceptable diplomacy. You go figure.
I went and figured... and concluded that since the alleged humiliation exists only in the imaginations of those desperate to see it, it's not something I need to worry about.
The next will be the pressure on the US to reduce its forces on Japan, who will willingly comply using the "fall" of North Korea and the associated threat reduction as an excuse.
Why would the US need an excuse to want to ramp down deployments in Japan and South Korea? Those deployments are expensive, we have need of the forces elsewhere... and what do they do for us?
America's fully developed and prosperous allies - not only ion NE Asia - need to understand that they can no longer huddle under the protective umbrella of Big Brother. Security arrangements have to be made between equals, and they have to understand that while we will help them if they get in trouble, we are not in a position to be their first line of defense. Time to step up and carry their share.
What percentage of US oil imports pass through NE Asia?
If the US pulls back then all its trade routes and foreign interests become vulnerable. Now with all US forces at home and the navy inside the coastal waters how will the US protect its foreign interests? Does it have any foreign interests in your opinion?
Obviously we need to protect and defend our key economic interests. That's precisely why we can't afford to be draining our resources protecting the interests of others, especially when those others are quite capable of doing it themselves.
Would you be so kind as to have a stab at what these US "key economic interests" are?
Of couirse a great deal of US merchandise trade passes through NE Asia, but China isn't likely to interfere with that. They're the ones selling, and with the balance of trade in their favor by some margin, why would they want to rock that boat?
If you had not been aware the South China Sea is the busiest maritime trade route. And you may also have been asleep when Beijing claims 'indisputable sovereignty' over South China Sea (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073005664.html).
And you are going to tell me why the US has no strategic interest in this area?
I went and figured... and concluded that since the alleged humiliation exists only in the imaginations of those desperate to see it, it's not something I need to worry about.
That response works both ways.
Why would the US need an excuse to want to ramp down deployments in Japan and South Korea? Those deployments are expensive, we have need of the forces elsewhere... and what do they do for us?
May I suggest that you desist from using words like 'we' and 'us' thereby giving the impression that you speak on behalf of the American people. Clearly you represent a minority view and would be better served by using the likes of 'I believe', 'in my opinion' and 'IMHO'.
You think for a moment why the US would not unilaterally withdraw from South Korea and Japan right now. Phone the State Department, I image they may be able to give you a half intelligible answer.
America's fully developed and prosperous allies - not only ion NE Asia - need to understand that they can no longer huddle under the protective umbrella of Big Brother. Security arrangements have to be made between equals, and they have to understand that while we will help them if they get in trouble, we are not in a position to be their first line of defense. Time to step up and carry their share.
Who has decided this? ... LOL
Yes I tend to agree that the US should withdraw from Europe as well. Can you figure out why they don't?
Dayuhan
09-19-2010, 11:28 AM
If the US pulls back then all its trade routes and foreign interests become vulnerable. Now with all US forces at home and the navy inside the coastal waters how will the US protect its foreign interests?
I referred, quite specifically, to NE Asia, not to the world. The US should protect foreign interests where it has foreign iterests to protect. I questioned what the US interest was in maintaining large force deployments in NE Asia.
If you had not been aware the South China Sea is the busiest maritime trade route. And you may also have been asleep when Beijing claims 'indisputable sovereignty' over South China Sea (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073005664.html).
And you are going to tell me why the US has no strategic interest in this area?
Yes, I'm well aware of that; it's neighborhood business. How much of that trade involves the US? And since when was the South China Sea part of NE Asia? Which area are you talking about?
May I suggest that you desist from using words like 'we' and 'us' thereby giving the impression that you speak on behalf of the American people. Clearly you represent a minority view and would be better served by using the likes of 'I believe', 'in my opinion' and 'IMHO'.
When you affix 'I believe', 'in my opinion' and 'IMHO' to your sweeping statements about humiliation, incompetence, stupidity, etc, I shall gladly do the same.
You've yet to give a good reason why the US should not be looking to ramp down its presence in NE Asia and ask Japan and Korea to take more responsibility for their own defense.
I referred, quite specifically, to NE Asia, not to the world. The US should protect foreign interests where it has foreign iterests to protect. I questioned what the US interest was in maintaining large force deployments in NE Asia.
An you don't think the US has a strategic interest as the worlds largest economy in the busiest trade route in the world? Or didn't you know this before you suggested the US just pack up and go home?
Yes, I'm well aware of that; it's neighborhood business. How much of that trade involves the US? And since when was the South China Sea part of NE Asia? Which area are you talking about?
Have a look at a map, google a bit and then work out the importance for yourself.
When you affix 'I believe', 'in my opinion' and 'IMHO' to your sweeping statements about humiliation, incompetence, stupidity, etc, I shall gladly do the same.
I never make the pretense that I speak for anyone other than myself. Please do the same.
You've yet to give a good reason why the US should not be looking to ramp down its presence in NE Asia and ask Japan and Korea to take more responsibility for their own defense.
One reason is the U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._and_Japan_Mutual_Defense_Assistance_Agreement ). How does the US get out of this?
Then there is the unfinished business around the 38th Parallel, then a little down to the South West we have Taiwan. What to do about that?
I have some money on that the US is going to walk away from Taiwan. Please tell me when that is going to happen I could do with the bucks right now.
Entropy
09-19-2010, 04:18 PM
Dayuhan,
Here's one reason restraining our ramp-down from NE asia: our allies. Our forces are there as much to deter them as to deter potential enemies IMO. A withdraw by the US could precipitate an arms race and even cause Japan and South Korea to consider developing their own nuclear deterrent.
That's not to say that more disengagement can't be done, but I think it needs to happen slowly and incrementally. Indeed, that's been happening for some time now, but I wouldn't expect big changes while the status quo remains on the Korean peninsula.
Dayuhan
09-21-2010, 09:56 AM
Here's one reason restraining our ramp-down from NE asia: our allies. Our forces are there as much to deter them as to deter potential enemies IMO. A withdraw by the US could precipitate an arms race and even cause Japan and South Korea to consider developing their own nuclear deterrent.
That's not to say that more disengagement can't be done, but I think it needs to happen slowly and incrementally. Indeed, that's been happening for some time now, but I wouldn't expect big changes while the status quo remains on the Korean peninsula.
This is true... and if you look back to what I originally said, I didn't suggest a complete withdrawal. I asked whether we needed to dominate the region, and whether we needed a major force presence there. I'm not convinced that our actual needs require us to do either, though certainly some presence will continue to be needed. We need to balance objectives: we want to convince our allies that they don't need to go nuclear, but we also don't want them thinking that they can rely on us to take care of all regional security issues.
Of course some here might think that anything less than dominance is cringing humiliation, and that China must above all be feared... I don't think those are exactly self-evident truths.
Tukhachevskii
09-21-2010, 11:06 AM
we want to convince our allies that they don't need to go nuclear, but we also don't want them thinking that they can rely on us to take care of all regional security issues.
That'll be one hell of a circle to square, IMO you can have one or tthe other, not both. US presence in N.E. Asia provides a security umbrella. Withrdrawing or downplaying that security garuntee (which is essentially what it is) is going to increase pressure for regional players to resort to "self help", i.e. aqcuire nuclear weapons. Remember, that the DPRK/North Korea did'nt begin developing a nuclear weapons programme until after the Soviet Security garuntee (never can spell that word:D) was withdrawn in 1991 even though the South's SSM development (1950s-60s) provided ample provocation (the US stepped in to halt it). Japan already has a "virtual" nuclear deterrent. IMO it would be better to leave Japan and China in a bipolar regional relationship with Russia and a unified Korea left to balance things out (classic sea power vs. landpower). IMO America's back garden/yard needs more attention from the householder and, funnily enough, all the experience the US Army has gained with COIN in the Middle East will more than likely soon be put to good use south (and north) of the border.
Dayuhan
09-21-2010, 12:05 PM
That'll be one hell of a circle to square, IMO you can have one or tthe other, not both.
I'm not sure that's true. We'd need enough of a presence to assure that a nuclear attack on South Korea or Japan would be credibly viewed as an attack on the US. That does not necessarily have to be enough to engage in a conventional battle, which, despite the occasional posturing from the North, is hardly a likely eventuality given the constraints (lack of fuel, for one) that North Korea faces.
US presence in N.E. Asia provides a security umbrella. Withrdrawing or downplaying that security garuntee (which is essentially what it is) is going to increase pressure for regional players to resort to "self help", i.e. aqcuire nuclear weapons.
Again, we can extend a WMD deterrent without a major conventional presence or a commitment that we will resolve all conventional disputes.
IMO it would be better to leave Japan and China in a bipolar regional relationship with Russia and a unified Korea left to balance things out (classic sea power vs. landpower).
I don't disagree, though a unified Korea is easier to postulate than to achieve. I don't doubt that it will happen, but very hard to say when.
I'd also suggest starting a low-key effort to persuade Korea and ASEAN that WW2 was a long time ago, an armed Japan is no longer a threat, and that an ASEAN/NE Asian alliance aimed at keeping trade routes open and resolving regional conflict might not be a bad goal.
In general, the regional powers have the maturity and the capacity to manage their own affairs... with our participation and engagement, but without our dominance.
IMO America's back garden/yard needs more attention from the householder and, funnily enough, all the experience the US Army has gained with COIN in the Middle East will more than likely soon be put to good use south (and north) of the border.
I've a doubt or two there; but that's for another thread...
Tukhachevskii
09-21-2010, 12:25 PM
We'd need enough of a presence to assure that a nuclear attack on South Korea or Japan would be credibly viewed as an attack on the US. That does not necessarily have to be enough to engage in a conventional battle, which, despite the occasional posturing from the North, is hardly a likely eventuality given the constraints (lack of fuel, for one) that North Korea faces.
Sure, but the problem is "how much is enough" and how do you manage enemy perceptions sothat a withdrawal of ground troops/lessening of a commitment isn't seen as a sign of weakness. The siutation is roughly analogous to that of the US and NATO in Europe. Sure, there was a WMD security guarnetee (damn it!) but the presence of ground troops signalled intent, in N.E Asia the US forces signla the same intnet. With a lessening of US direct presence she runs the risk of signalling weakness. As to WMD security when, where and what does the US consider the trigger line that is not only inviolable but visible as such to an oppponent? IMO The US would be better off grooming a replacement (or a Jap-Korean alliance aimed at China) to replace its own position and retreat back into speldid isolation (of the Monroe variety:rolleyes:).
Re: the DPRK I agree that a conventional attack is not on the cards (I doubt even the KPA is well-fed enough to march across the border); what people fear more is the collapse of the regime and the resultant mess.
Dayuhan
09-21-2010, 11:45 PM
Sure, but the problem is "how much is enough" and how do you manage enemy perceptions sothat a withdrawal of ground troops/lessening of a commitment isn't seen as a sign of weakness... IMO The US would be better off grooming a replacement (or a Jap-Korean alliance aimed at China) to replace its own position and retreat back into speldid isolation (of the Monroe variety).
Re: the DPRK I agree that a conventional attack is not on the cards (I doubt even the KPA is well-fed enough to march across the border); what people fear more is the collapse of the regime and the resultant mess.
If the DPRK hasn't the capacity to mount a conventional attack, to whom are we showing strength by keeping all of those ground forces in place?
China may not be an ally or a friend, but I think it's long past time to stop seeing them as an enemy. Just one more state pursuing their own perceived interests, as states are wont to do. China has huge internal vulnerabilities and has immense pressure to keep trade flowing and the economy growing, war would carry far more risk than gain for them... at least under the status quo. Instead of trying to build an alliance "aimed at China", why not look toward an East Asian security arrangement aimed at peaceful resolution of disputes and keeping trade routes secure... one that would include China?
Certainly there are grounds for conflict between China and the US and/or other Asian countries, but there are many common interests as well.
That'll be one hell of a circle to square, IMO you can have one or tthe other, not both. US presence in N.E. Asia provides a security umbrella. Withrdrawing or downplaying that security garuntee (which is essentially what it is) is going to increase pressure for regional players to resort to "self help", i.e. aqcuire nuclear weapons.
Not even squaring the circle, more like the impossible dream.
I can't understand what the concern is about Japan or South Korea or even Taiwan developing a nuclear weapon is when there is little concern about Iran doing just that. Why do the same deterrent arguments not hold true in this neck of the woods?
Not only NE Asian states but also ASEAN states and all other Asian states are watching what is happening in the Middle East apropos the supposed US security commitments to Israel. If it appears the US is wavering then I would support and agree that the Asian states that feel threatened by China should post haste start to look for alternatives.
China clearly feels it is strong enough to take on Japan over what was probably a contrived incident. Asia is watching this one very carefully. Will the US show some leadership or just sit on its hands?
Dayuhan
09-22-2010, 09:50 AM
Not only NE Asian states but also ASEAN states and all other Asian states are watching what is happening in the Middle East apropos the supposed US security commitments to Israel. If it appears the US is wavering then I would support and agree that the Asian states that feel threatened by China should post haste start to look for alternatives.
Is the US wavering in its commitment to Israel? How so?
China clearly feels it is strong enough to take on Japan over what was probably a contrived incident. Asia is watching this one very carefully. Will the US show some leadership or just sit on its hands?
Why would the US need to show leadership in a dispute between Japan and China?
Tukhachevskii
09-22-2010, 01:08 PM
when there is little concern about Iran doing just that.
Er, not from what I've heard and read. Iran's nuclear programme is hardly "accepted".
Tukhachevskii
09-22-2010, 01:14 PM
China may not be an ally or a friend, but I think it's long past time to stop seeing them as an enemy. Just one more state pursuing their own perceived interests, as states are wont to do. China has huge internal vulnerabilities and has immense pressure to keep trade flowing and the economy growing, war would carry far more risk than gain for them... at least under the status quo. Instead of trying to build an alliance "aimed at China", why not look toward an East Asian security arrangement aimed at peaceful resolution of disputes and keeping trade routes secure... one that would include China?
I have to say I agree with you in spirit but multilateral international organisations very often need a central core state/hegemon to keep them going (as per US in NATO) or need each state to be relatively equal in terms of size, power and interests (the EU's decision maing process and the "weighting" of votes relative to population is a case in point). Ultimately, the states of N.E. Asia do have a common interest in peace and prosperity in the region but national interests can only be harmonised on the basis of some kind of equality between members, otherwise its just an alliance or a bandwagoning syatem. Would China really feel happ to be one among equals or would she simply interpret that according to her "victim" thesis/narrative (colonialism, Imperialism, etc.: and Japan takes centre stage followed by the US when it comes to Beijing's/ChiCom victimology) and see it as an attempt to restrict her emergence into weltmacht status? I think the latter, she would rather be primus inter pares than simply pares...IMO (that's a lovely cavet isn't it, absolves all sins;))
Dayuhan
09-23-2010, 07:42 AM
Ultimately, the states of N.E. Asia do have a common interest in peace and prosperity in the region but national interests can only be harmonised on the basis of some kind of equality between members, otherwise its just an alliance or a bandwagoning syatem. Would China really feel happ to be one among equals or would she simply interpret that according to her "victim" thesis/narrative (colonialism, Imperialism, etc.: and Japan takes centre stage followed by the US when it comes to Beijing's/ChiCom victimology) and see it as an attempt to restrict her emergence into weltmacht status? I think the latter, she would rather be primus inter pares than simply pares...
The US has sought and achieved primus inter pares status in enough organizations that it might be just a wee bit hypocritical to object to anyone else holding it! Of course such an organization wouldn't solve all problems; it might be of use... which is all one expects of such organizations in any event.
The Chinese "victim thesis" has some substance to it, which is why it remains a potent narrative. Of course the series of catastrophes that China endured from the Opium Wars to the Cultural Revolution cannot reasonably be blamed entirely on foreign intervention, but it will inevitably be noted that they did coincide with the period of weak central government and extensive foreign intervention.
I think where some people go off the rails in observing Asia is in trying to impose a cold-war-europe paradigm, with China as the focal evil empire villain enemy that must be contained and deterred. I don't think the comparison is at all valid. For one thing, China (unlike the Soviet Union of yore) is a trade-dependent power, deeply engaged with the regional and global economies and deeply reliant on imports and exports. It's also a very successful power under the current order, with a great deal to risk from rocking the boat. The Chinese know (as those who observe China should) that the main (only, really) threat to their security is internal, and they are deeply concerned with that threat... but the assumption that China is about to boil over into an attack on Taiwan and/or an attempt to conquer the South China Sea seems quite wildly overstated to me (and I live on the perimeter of the South China Sea).
Of course those who feel bereft without someone to fear will tend to focus on China, but I see no reason to obsess over it. Relations with China will have to be managed and there will be some complexities in the management; it's not an apocalyptic scenario.
Backwards Observer
09-23-2010, 01:54 PM
or would she simply interpret that according to her "victim" thesis/narrative (colonialism, Imperialism, etc.: and Japan takes centre stage...IMO (that's a lovely caveat isn't it, absolves all sins;))
Perhaps you are aware that Imperial Japan is generally considered the "more successful" aggressor in the Second Sino-Japanese War, perhaps not. An estimated 17 million Chinese civilians were killed. It is not inconceivable that a goodly percentage of these were "victims" of a "foreign invader", regardless of your worthy opinion of the chicoms and the central government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
Tukhachevskii
09-24-2010, 12:00 PM
Perhaps you are aware that Imperial Japan is generally considered the "more successful" aggressor in the Second Sino-Japanese War, perhaps not. An estimated 17 million Chinese civilians were killed. It is not inconceivable that a goodly percentage of these were "victims" of a "foreign invader", regardless of your worthy opinion of the chicoms and the central government.
I agree. I was only implying, and perhaps it should have been explicit, that China's self-image as a "victim" isn't just about Japan but also covers "Western" imperialism but Japan's status, as the most recent agressor, along with its alliance with the U.S. would hinder the formation of a regional security architecture in which all participants stand on an equal footing. I think maybe there was some misunderstand but I hope I've cleared it up.
Backwards Observer
09-24-2010, 02:46 PM
Tukhachevskii, thanks for your reply.
self-image as a "victim"
I guess what I'm trying to say is that a society that experiences massive trauma is not just dealing with questions of self-image, but processing a profound spiritual and humanly physical dislocation. I would imagine that in what style a given society processes mass trauma may be related to self-image. I dunno, it's just an inexpert opinion.
As far as China's "victim" issue you mention. You know China is a big place, right? With many many peoples. Having grown up around Chinese peoples, my impression is that the default response to any observable feelings of self-pity is ridicule, for a start. Maybe you mean Chinese Communist government, I dunno, perhaps my understanding of these things lacks "sophistication".
Now look towards a flex of Chinese muscle over this incident (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b6f3174-be7a-11df-a755-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss) with Japan supposedly over fishing rights but really over their respective East China Sea exclusive economic zones. Any guess who is going to back down?
Sad but pretty predictable.
Japan backs down, will release Chinese fisherman (http://sify.com/news/japan-backs-down-will-release-chinese-fisherman-news-international-kjyo4cbjdbg.html)
I just hope that the people who laughed when I predicted this are not in any significant decision making positions... anywhere.
Ken White
09-24-2010, 11:06 PM
Because it was totally predictable; stating the obvious, so to speak... :D
What else were they going to do to him in this day and age? It's diplomatic pushing and shoving; goes on constantly all over the world. :wry:
Fortunately, I am NOT in a decision making position, significant or otherwise. :D
Because it was totally predictable; stating the obvious, so to speak... :D
What else were they going to do to him in this day and age? It's diplomatic pushing and shoving; goes on constantly all over the world. :wry:
Fortunately, I am NOT in a decision making position, significant or otherwise. :D
I see a lot of Chinese pushing but not a lot of return shoving...
Dayuhan
09-25-2010, 11:01 AM
Sad but pretty predictable.
Japan backs down, will release Chinese fisherman (http://sify.com/news/japan-backs-down-will-release-chinese-fisherman-news-international-kjyo4cbjdbg.html)
I just hope that the people who laughed when I predicted this are not in any significant decision making positions... anywhere.
Predictable of course, I don't see how it's particularly sad. These fishing boat incidents happen all the time in East Asia, not only with Chinese boats, and they always end the same way. It's really not a big deal, never has been.
All I laughed at was the idea that the S would or should get involved, which is of course absurd.
Predictable of course, I don't see how it's particularly sad. These fishing boat incidents happen all the time in East Asia, not only with Chinese boats, and they always end the same way. It's really not a big deal, never has been.
All I laughed at was the idea that the S would or should get involved, which is of course absurd.
You did?
Dayuhan
09-25-2010, 01:57 PM
You did?
Yes, actually. When you wrote this:
China clearly feels it is strong enough to take on Japan over what was probably a contrived incident. Asia is watching this one very carefully. Will the US show some leadership or just sit on its hands?
All I wrote was this:
Why would the US need to show leadership in a dispute between Japan and China?
But I laughed a bit while writing it. Maybe I should have added a "LOL", though it wasn't that loud.
All I wrote was this:
[QUOTE]Why would the US need to show leadership in a dispute between Japan and China?
The first would be this: U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._and_Japan_Mutual_Defense_Assistance_Agreement )
And then this: China – Japan strife spotlights a strategic U.S. vulnerability (http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/24/5173051-china-japan-strife-spotlights-a-strategic-us-vulnerability)
Backwards Observer
09-25-2010, 08:17 PM
There was a crusty old Chinese cab driver in Penang who would shake his fist and shout, "You! Japanese! Very bad!", and then cackle loudly if he happened to drive by a group of Japanese tourists, especially outside nightclubs. Apparently, most of his family had been killed during the war or whatever. The decorously behaved non-Bushido, post-Atomic tourists would ignore him or smile inscrutably.
His explanation of history was that the Japanese were originally a very stodgy mainland Chinese tribe who were perpetually made fun of by other Chinese, which probably means they were cheated and killed if the opportunity presented itself. So, this stick-up-the butt tribe eventually resettled en masse in the now Japanese islands and have hated China and its people ever since. So goeth the wisdom of cab drivers.
Ken White
09-25-2010, 09:07 PM
Why would the US need to show leadership in a dispute between Japan and China? Straightforward. Operative word is 'leadership' to which JMA responded
The first would be this: U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._and_Japan_Mutual_Defense_Assistance_Agreement )Also straightforward. Operative word is "mutual."
If someone leads, someone else follows. Is it just me or does that not imply a potential override of the mutual aspect. It would seem that with an agreement of mutuality, neither the US or Japan should try any leading... :wry:
Further, does that agreement include response of any type in minor diplomatic quibbles with centuries old less than friends? I don't know but I suspect not... :D
Dayuhan asks a legitimate question which you did not answer but fobbed off with a not germane comment. You're quite good at that. ;)
Straightforward. Operative word is 'leadership' to which JMA respondedAlso straightforward. Operative word is "mutual."
If someone leads, someone else follows. Is it just me or does that not imply a potential override of the mutual aspect. It would seem that with an agreement of mutuality, neither the US or Japan should try any leading... :wry:
Further, does that agreement include response of any type in minor diplomatic quibbles with centuries old less than friends? I don't know but I suspect not... :D
Dayuhan asks a legitimate question which you did not answer but fobbed off with a not germane comment. You're quite good at that. ;)
As much as some around here would like to deny it the US does have commitments and interests in NE Asia and indeed right across the world.
It seems obvious that individually both the US and now Japan have been humiliated internationally by China so it seems logical that only together (and then only a maybe) if the US and Japan stand together do they stand a chance of seeing the bully off.
It is fun to exchange posts with someone so woefully ignorant of even the most basic issues relating to the area... I had thought you would know more though.
Maybe you would like to take a stab at explaining why it is in the US best interest that it shows some leadership to prevent the current tensions between China and Japan to escalate?
Backwards Observer
09-25-2010, 10:22 PM
Dang! Its seems so innocent nowadays, having since been superseded by the Smith and Wesson Method.
Dayuhan
09-26-2010, 12:34 AM
Dang! Its seems so innocent nowadays, having since been superseded by the Smith and Wesson Method.
Amusing... though of course Japan is historically no skinny 98 lb weakling, and if Japan shows any sign of pumping iron the rest of East Asia goes into immediate anxiety attacks. IMO it's time to let that go, but that's not the way it is.
[QUOTE=Dayuhan;107041]
The first would be this: U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._and_Japan_Mutual_Defense_Assistance_Agreement )
And then this: China – Japan strife spotlights a strategic U.S. vulnerability (http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/24/5173051-china-japan-strife-spotlights-a-strategic-us-vulnerability)
The mutual defense assistance agreement is irrelevant, because Japan isn't under attack and requires no defense assistance. It would only be appropriate for the US to get involved if Japan were to request it: for the US to barge in and try to assume a "leadership role" without a Japanese request would be far more humiliating to Japan than anything China could do.
Talking about "strife" is hugely overblown verbiage. There isn't any strife. A wee bit of tension, of a sort that's been going on periodically for decades. It's not a big deal and it would be a huge mistake to try and make a big deal of it.
As much as some around here would like to deny it the US does have commitments and interests in NE Asia and indeed right across the world.
It seems obvious that individually both the US and now Japan have been humiliated internationally by China so it seems logical that only together (and then only a maybe) if the US and Japan stand together do they stand a chance of seeing the bully off.
It is fun to exchange posts with someone so woefully ignorant of even the most basic issues relating to the area... I had thought you would know more though.
US commitments and interests in NE Asia have not been at all compromised, and there's no indication that they're likely to be, unless of course the US gets stupid and starts doing a bull-in-the-China-shop act.
Nobody's been humiliated, unless you take the schoolyard perspective and assume anything that isn't confrontation is humiliation.
I wouldn't want to start with accusations of woeful ignorance, which seem to be pushing to the edge of the TOU, but if you're going to lay the expression on Ken I suppose I can use it too: I've lived 30+ years in East Asia, and I pay attention... and as far as I can see the "woefully ignorant" shoes are sitting on your feet.
PS: This seems to be getting off the North Korea subject, possibly a new "China and East Asis" thread is appropriate. Might already be one; I haven't looked.
Backwards Observer
09-26-2010, 12:51 AM
Amusing...
You, Sir, have cut me to the quick. Need I remind you that satisfaction is but a stamp away?
Ken White
09-26-2010, 02:12 AM
As much as some around here would like to deny it the US does have commitments and interests in NE Asia and indeed right across the world.Really? Who knew. I thought all those trips I took to exotic places on five continents for forty plus years were just for fun, had no idea I was defending or furthering 'interests.'...:D
It seems obvious that individually both the US and now Japan have been humiliated internationally by China so it seems logical that only together (and then only a maybe) if the US and Japan stand together do they stand a chance of seeing the bully off."Obvious" to you -- no one else seems to be terribly concerned. ;)
It is fun to exchange posts with someone so woefully ignorant of even the most basic issues relating to the area... I had thought you would know more though.If you had directed that ''against the rules" personal attack at anyone else, I'd send you to the Penalty Box; since it's directed at me, this time I'll just consider the source and suggest the ignorance apparent here is not mine.:cool:
Maybe you would like to take a stab at explaining why it is in the US best interest that it shows some leadership to prevent the current tensions between China and Japan to escalate?Uh, no I would not -- you are the one who holds the position that we should do that, I agree with Dayuhan; no need for it -- so if anyone should do that, you'd seem to be just the lad who should take on the chore. Asking me to take your position is sort of a misallocation. Yet another simple oversight on your part, I'm sure, no worries.
We've been playing these games in northeast Asia since 1949 and with four tours in Korea, two war and two post war, I pay attention to what goes on there and have for years. :wry:
P.S.
Watch the personal stuff. That's a serious statement, generic and has nothing to do with this thread. This is the second time I've passed that suggestion to you.
The mutual defense assistance agreement is irrelevant, ...
Oh boy...
Talking about "strife" is hugely overblown verbiage.
Someone used the word "strife"?
US commitments and interests in NE Asia have not been at all compromised, and there's no indication that they're likely to be, unless of course the US gets stupid and starts doing a bull-in-the-China-shop act.
"Compromised"? Did someone use that word? More like... challenged... and in both cases the US and then Japan collapsed like a wet paper bag in the face of a Chinese challenge.
Nobody's been humiliated, unless you take the schoolyard perspective and assume anything that isn't confrontation is humiliation.
Denial works for some. It is obvious that if the new bully says "don't do that" or "give that back" and the two being addressed snap to attention and comply that there has been a brace of humiliating back-downs.
This is germane to North Korea because it clearly indicates that the US and ROK are merely posturing while Uncle Hong is really running the show.
Uh, no I would not -- you are the one who holds the position that we should do that, I agree with Dayuhan; no need for it -- so if anyone should do that, you'd seem to be just the lad who should take on the chore. Asking me to take your position is sort of a misallocation. Yet another simple oversight on your part, I'm sure, no worries.
The inability to articulate the US interests in the region could be construed that certain positions taken by some are not based on any credible intellectual basis, yes?
Do the Senkaku Islands mean anything to you by any chance?
Dayuhan
09-26-2010, 08:11 AM
Oh boy...
The mutual defense assistance agreement would be relevant if either party was under attack or otherwise required defense. No attack, no need for defense, no relevance to the treaty.
Someone used the word "strife"?
The blog post you cited used the word "strife".
"Compromised"? Did someone use that word? More like... challenged... and in both cases the US and then Japan collapsed like a wet paper bag in the face of a Chinese challenge.
US commitments and interests were neither challenged nor compromised. The US, as I said above, would not get involved in a Japan/China issue without a Japanese request, which did not happen. You're making Himalayas of molehills; nothing of any lasting (or even transient) significance happened and there's nothing to get all puffed up and blustery about, unless of course puffed up bluster is your preferred state.
Denial works for some. It is obvious that if the new bully says "don't do that" or "give that back" and the two being addressed snap to attention and comply that there has been a brace of humiliating back-downs.... This is germane to North Korea because it clearly indicates that the US and ROK are merely posturing while Uncle Hong is really running the show.
Fantasy, but if fear is your default state and you really need someone to be afraid of, I suppose China fills the need as well as anyone. The US really has no need indulge in chest-puffing confrontations over nothing; we know (and the Chinese know) exactly how vulnerable China is and what we could do in a real confrontation and there's no need whatsoever to play games over the meaningless. Posturing is for children.
The mutual defense assistance agreement would be relevant if either party was under attack or otherwise required defense. No attack, no need for defense, no relevance to the treaty.
The blog post you cited used the word "strife".
US commitments and interests were neither challenged nor compromised. The US, as I said above, would not get involved in a Japan/China issue without a Japanese request, which did not happen. You're making Himalayas of molehills; nothing of any lasting (or even transient) significance happened and there's nothing to get all puffed up and blustery about, unless of course puffed up bluster is your preferred state.
Fantasy, but if fear is your default state and you really need someone to be afraid of, I suppose China fills the need as well as anyone. The US really has no need indulge in chest-puffing confrontations over nothing; we know (and the Chinese know) exactly how vulnerable China is and what we could do in a real confrontation and there's no need whatsoever to play games over the meaningless. Posturing is for children.
Pass on this (see my separate post)
Tukhachevskii
09-26-2010, 12:04 PM
Maybe you mean Chinese Communist government, I dunno, perhaps my understanding of these things lacks "sophistication".
Indeed, I do. And I don't think "sophistication" is the right word, I'd favour "precision" and most of your queiries, clarifications and statement of fact seem to be right on target:D
Tukhachevskii
09-26-2010, 12:07 PM
Dang! Its seems so innocent nowadays, having since been superseded by the Smith and Wesson Method.
Thta's got to be the best pictoral representation of the "security dillema" I've ever seen. Nice post!
Tukhachevskii
09-26-2010, 12:09 PM
Pass on this (see my separate post)
Sir, I get the feeling you were one of those kids who "didn't play well with others". That was me too, once. I forget how rightously grumpy I could be, for a teen.:D
The following article from Al Jazeera has a similar take on the China-Japan stand-off as I do. I take no joy in the proof that my position is not a lone voice in the wilderness but continue to be saddened that so many people for one reason or the other were unable to accurately read the situation as it developed.
And the winner in the China-Japan feud is ... (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/asia/2010/09/25/and-winner-china-japan-feud)
I have used the term humiliating climb down for both the US/ROK move of the naval exercise and the Japanese release of the Chinese fishing boat captain but would now like to borrow the word capitulation from the Al Jazeera piece.
In summary then:
Not only did China get its way, everyone else saw it, and saw how it was done, too. You can't imagine Vietnam, with its own territorial dispute with China, feeling any safer. Or the rest of ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations). Or South Korea. Or the people of Japan, as they watch their leaders capitulate.
Now we wait for the little matter of the Chinese demand for an apology and compensation to be resolved.
Tukhachevskii
09-26-2010, 12:54 PM
I have used the term humiliating climb down for both the US/ROK move of the naval exercise and the Japanese release of the Chinese fishing boat captain but would now like to borrow the word capitulation from the Al Jazeera piece.
Now we wait for the little matter of the Chinese demand for an apology and compensation to be resolved.
Sir, I agree with your usage of words like "humiliating" but only in the sense that I understand the deep resonance things like "face" and "shame" have in the Orient. But I think, though this may be a "victory" for china in the short term (whatever "victory" may mean in this case that is) that actually in the medium term it is Japan that comes up smelling of roses. Japan was yesterday's foe and China is what people are more worried about (esp. in ASEAN which was an AntiChiCom org to begin with). Vietnam, amongst other countries, will be reassenign their strategey and will move, more likely than not, to bandwagon with Japan, having seen this as another example of Chinese revanchism (which, of course the Chinese don't see that way, the ChiCom gocvernment and the majority Han that is, nod to Backwards Observer there:D). Japan, already allied to America, looks an awful lot more attractive given her pacifist stance these last few decades than does Red China. However, I also suspect that recent events have also been blown out of proportion even thogh the general direction of Asian politics seems to tend toward what I've described avbove, IMO.
Ken White
09-26-2010, 02:10 PM
The inability to articulate the US interests in the region could be construed that certain positions taken by some are not based on any credible intellectual basis, yes?Equally, lack of desire to articulate them to someone who lives apparently only to refute disagreements on any pretext can be confused with inability... :rolleyes:
Most of us engage in discussions that have merit in our opinion and tend to avoid specious arguments. Most of us...:D
Do the Senkaku Islands mean anything to you by any chance?Yep, all those Chineses claims have been of interest since the Quemoy-Matsu discussions here in 1960. The Senkaku / Diaoyu were occupied by us, rightly or wrongly, as the Senkaku and part of Okinawa after WW II until the early 70s. We wisely divested ourselves when the potential for oil and / or gas was first publicly mentioned in 1969 and the 'who owns them' argument, shrouded in a tangled history and muddled perhaps by the Qings began to trickle out. The ongoing claim and counterclaim has been going on ever since then and I've followed it for over 50 years. How about you? ;)
Sir, I agree with your usage of words like "humiliating" but only in the sense that I understand the deep resonance things like "face" and "shame" have in the Orient.
Following on with the same train of thought you will then recognise the term death by a thousand cuts (which I have used before) as an ancient form of Chinese torture. This I submit is how China is flexing its muscles in the region and in the world. One "cut" at a time. Nothing to get worried about some will say but the progress will be sure... and by the time they wake up it will be too late.
But I think, though this may be a "victory" for china in the short term (whatever "victory" may mean in this case that is) that actually in the medium term it is Japan that comes up smelling of roses. Japan was yesterday's foe and China is what people are more worried about (esp. in ASEAN which was an AntiChiCom org to begin with). Vietnam, amongst other countries, will be reassenign their strategey and will move, more likely than not, to bandwagon with Japan, having seen this as another example of Chinese revanchism (which, of course the Chinese don't see that way, the ChiCom gocvernment and the majority Han that is, nod to Backwards Observer there:D). Japan, already allied to America, looks an awful lot more attractive given her pacifist stance these last few decades than does Red China. However, I also suspect that recent events have also been blown out of proportion even thogh the general direction of Asian politics seems to tend toward what I've described avbove, IMO.
Who will see it this way? I don't think it will be the people you count.
I suggest that it will be seen in the region as a shift in the balance of power. China rising, USA waning. The message could not be clearer IMHO.
Equally, lack of desire to articulate them to someone who lives apparently only to refute disagreements on any pretext can be confused with inability... :rolleyes:Most of us engage in discussions that have merit in our opinion and tend to avoid specious arguments. Most of us...:D
Ken, I'm not sure you are being forced to participate in this thread, are you?
Yep, all those Chineses claims have been of interest since the Quemoy-Matsu discussions here in 1960. The Senkaku / Diaoyu were occupied by us, rightly or wrongly, as the Senkaku and part of Okinawa after WW II until the early 70s. We wisely divested ourselves when the potential for oil and / or gas was first publicly mentioned in 1969 and the 'who owns them' argument, shrouded in a tangled history and muddled perhaps by the Qings began to trickle out. The ongoing claim and counterclaim has been going on ever since then and I've followed it for over 50 years. How about you? ;)
It doesn't matter what the history of the Islands is as since around 1969 when the gas and/or oil reserves were discovered China/Taiwan/Japan have been claiming the islands. Does anyone really think there will be a reasonable agreement made in this regard? There will be a winner and there will be a loser. Any guesses?
The US declaring neutrality over the status of the islands is by no means wise. As can be seen it has left the door wide open for China to exploit by the creation of a confrontation as is now happening. Not wise... but rather a demonstration of diplomatic ineptitude.
Ken White
09-26-2010, 09:09 PM
Ken, I'm not sure you are being forced to participate in this thread, are you?I merely chime in when the mood strikes. Egregiousness is its own reward. :D
There will be a winner and there will be a loser. Any guesses?The first sentence is possibly correct; the second certainly is, it would be a guess -- as you point out, the issue became an issue only in the 70s and its been back and forth ever since. Way too early to tell. ;)
Not wise... but rather a demonstration of diplomatic ineptitude.Your opinion is noted. Others vary. :eek:
Backwards Observer
09-27-2010, 02:31 AM
And I don't think "sophistication" is the right word, I'd favour "precision"
Precision...good word. You know I was just razzin' ya to clumsily make my point. Thanks for being a good sport.
Dayuhan
09-27-2010, 07:20 AM
The following article from Al Jazeera has a similar take on the China-Japan stand-off as I do. I take no joy in the proof that my position is not a lone voice in the wilderness but continue to be saddened that so many people for one reason or the other were unable to accurately read the situation as it developed.
Of course there will always be people who want to blow these things out of proportion and make more of them what we are. It’s a specialty among some quarters of the media. You’ll also find some voices of horror raised on the remote fringes of the American far right, where the demise of the reds has led a few to seek their fear fix from the yellow peril. You might even find a few singing the same tune in East Asia, where the China peril is periodically raised by those seeking to beat the nationalist drum or divert attention from their own ineptitude. None of this makes the incidents in question anything but what they are: one more passing round in an essentially meaningless long-running charade.
Following on with the same train of thought you will then recognise the term death by a thousand cuts (which I have used before) as an ancient form of Chinese torture. This I submit is how China is flexing its muscles in the region and in the world. One "cut" at a time. Nothing to get worried about some will say but the progress will be sure... and by the time they wake up it will be too late.
The problem with this formulation is that nobody’s been cut, even once. Nobody’s interests have been sacrificed, nobody’s lost anything. The incidents in question will be quickly forgotten and the status quo ante resumed. The worst anyone could have suffered would be a transient ego bruise, but nobody dies of those, even with a thousand or more of them.
It’s important to realize that these fishing boat intrusions happen al the time… as in every day. Most of the time they’re ignored. When someone feels it’s getting out of hand or they want to make a point, they round up a boat, threaten prosecution, everybody bristles a bit, and the crews and boats are released (nobody really wants to prosecute these guys, waste of time and money). The apprehending party lays down a marker by showing that they can and will apprehend, the other party lays down a counter marker by getting their boat and people back, everyone goes back to business as usual and by and by it happens again. Been that way for ages. At the end of the day nobody has won or lost anything and nobody’s been hurt in any material way.
The US declaring neutrality over the status of the islands is by no means wise. As can be seen it has left the door wide open for China to exploit by the creation of a confrontation as is now happening. Not wise... but rather a demonstration of diplomatic ineptitude.
How are these islands a concern to the US, and what would the US gain from trying to insert itself into that dispute? Silly, really, we’ve enough problems of our own without pushing ourselves into other people’s arguments.
The only real gainers from China/US tension are the North Koreans, who would love to see the two parties facing off with each other, over anything. Of course when the meaningless bluster bouts are done the US and China will generally line up on the same side on the North Korea issue, simply because their interests in that situation are quite close together. Strange bedfellows maybe, but politics is known to make ‘em.
[big snip]
I'm going to pass on responding to this but post, for your edification, the following:
Brookings's Lieberthal Interview on China's Diplomacy (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/63260542/)
Tukhachevskii
09-27-2010, 12:42 PM
I was just razzin' ya to clumsily make my point.
As was I!!!:D
Thanks for being a good sport.
ditto
Ken White
09-27-2010, 02:54 PM
Brookings's Lieberthal Interview on China's Diplomacy (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/63260542/)This from that link:
"Relations between China and Japan deteriorated to the lowest point in five years during the 17-day detention of a Chinese fishing boat captain before Japanese authorities last week decided to release him. China opposed U.S.-South Korea military exercises aimed at deterring North Korea, and dismissed regional efforts to mediate maritime territorial claims." (emphasis added / kw)
This is just the latest iteration in the NE Asia who's in charge game, it all -- say again, all -- has been going on cyclically for over 50 years, the fact that you are now paying attention to it doesn't move any of it to major crisis status... :D
The fact that China now has enough money to be more assertive is obvious and well known. Noting their capability -- accurately -- is wise. 'Predicting' what they will do is less so. Over 12 years in Asia and the ME taught me that attempts to predict intentions in those areas is borderline futile, the thing I did learn was to be alert. We're doing that and that's adequate. :wry:
Entropy
09-27-2010, 04:58 PM
The fact that China now has enough money to be more assertive is obvious and well known. Noting their capability -- accurately -- is wise. 'Predicting' what they will do is less so. Over 12 years in Asia and the ME taught me that attempts to predict intentions in those areas is borderline futile, the thing I did learn was to be alert. We're doing that and that's adequate.
This bears repeating, IMO. It's why we have a strategic warning system to begin with.
Dayuhan
09-28-2010, 10:26 PM
I was about to refer to cyclic sinophobia, but Ken beat me to the word "cyclic". Tension comes and goes, rises and falls, as it's been doing for decades. What's often forgotten is that while China's capacity to rock boats has grown exponentially with their economic success, that same economic success - and it's complete dependence on trade - has vastly increased the risk to China from serious boat-rocking and has given China an enormous investment in the status quo.
All too often we hear China spoken of as if it were the modern analogue of Germany in 1937 or the Soviet Union of the Cold War: the enemy, an evil empire bent on conquest that must be contained, checked, opposed at every turn. A satisfying position for those who feel bereft without an enemy, but not one based on a great deal of substance.
Jimmy Carter was interviewed on the Charlie Rose show of 28 September 2010 and had some interesting comment on the North Korean situation.
Jimmy Carter, Former President of the United States (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11221)
Segment from 3.20 minutes to approx 9.40 minutes.
All too often we hear China spoken of as if it were the modern analogue of Germany in 1937 or the Soviet Union of the Cold War: the enemy, an evil empire bent on conquest that must be contained, checked, opposed at every turn. A satisfying position for those who feel bereft without an enemy, but not one based on a great deal of substance.
OK so that's what you think THEY believe... what do YOU believe?
Dayuhan
10-04-2010, 10:42 PM
... what do YOU believe?
I believe that too many people look at the transition from Chicoms to Chicaps and see only part of the picture. Yes, the Chinese have enjoyed some economic success: monumental by some metrics, modest by others. This econoc success allows them to develop some military capacity, and because it is supported by (completely dependent on, actually) export and important, it creates interests outside China that concern the Chinese.
While China's newfound capacit to rock boats may horrify some, it also has to be recalled that China is now in the boat: a status quo power with an enormous, indeed critical, interest in maintaining the boat in clam order. China actually has numerous interests in common with the US and with the rest of the trading and oil consuming world: stable oil prices and freedom of navigation, for example.
Casual observers also vastly underestimate, and often ignore, China's very tenuous domestic situation. They can keep the lid on as long as they keep the economy growing at a vertiginous rate, but they can't do that forever and any stutter in the economy - even more so the recession that China will eventually have - could have major domestic consequences.
Where all that goes is that China is locked into and utterly dependent on global trade, and while they may flex a bit and try to expand the space available to them (as all rising powers do), they will not and can not do anything that would put their trading position at risk. The risks wouldn't be worth the benefits.
ou hear a bit of nonsense passed around now and then ("China owns the US") but at a certain point it gets too ridiculous to even bother responding to. In theory China has certain leverage over the US, but in practice they can't use it without hurting themselves more than they'd hurt anyone else. Interdependence has its virtues.
China will rise. So will India, and so will others. They will look after their interests, as all powers do. They will push a bit and demand to be treated with respect, as all rising powers (including the US in its day) do. That's the reality of a multipolar world, which is what we live in. That's not going to change, it's something we have to adjust to, not try to resist.
I don't believe for a minute that China has any real intention of moving on Taiwan. Taiwan serves for China the function that Israel serves for Iran: gives the government something to roll out whenever they want to rally the public behind an issue that doesn't involve them. In both cases, an actual military move would have to involve a sober calculation of cost, benefit, and risk, and the output of the calculation is not going to be pretty.
The US has high-value cards in this game, but they aren't the sort of cards you lay on the table in every minor head-bump... laying them down actually devalues them. We know they're there, so do the Chinese; that's enough.
Of course if the current Chinese government were to fall, say as a consequence of some economic collapse, and an extreme nationalist government were to take power, all this would change... and that's possible. It's not something we can do much about, so I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
I recall a comment from a senior manager at a major Taiwanese Compay... we were talking about China, and his observation was that the status quo is acceptable, and in a few decades when "the olds" all die off we can talk a bit of sense. We don't solve these issues, we manage them, and this is by no means unmanageable.
I believe I'll decline to fear.
H. Nelson
11-23-2010, 02:36 AM
I think the recent procurement of centrifuges by NK posses the largest proliferation in the world right now. With everyone focused on Russia, the START treaty, and how to secure 'loose' nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, we may allow uranium to slip out of NK and into hostile regional state actors (or worse, terrorists). Yet we cannot ignore the threat of direct nuclear attack by NK.
When countries do not hold their population as valuable, and the leadership has proven that they have an erratic decision calculus, our form of deterrence fails. Since our national nuclear defense strategy depends on nuclear retaliation against anyone who initiates a nuclear attack, and we can’t guarantee North Korea won’t become a first strike nation, we cannot allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons. If we did, the US may find itself in a situation where it is forced to use nuclear weapons against an inferior country or absorb a nuclear attack without retaliating. Both outcomes would significantly impact our national security objectives. We must declare to the international community that a nuclear North Korea is unacceptable, and commence diplomatic actions immediately FOLLOWING a low impact strike to destroy the centrifuges.
http://onparadox.blogspot.com/
Ken White
11-23-2010, 03:21 AM
How's things on the bridge? :D
I'm sure that your bellicosity is matched by your ardor and at the time of that "low impact strike" (I'm still pondering the dichotomy in that phrase...) you'll present yourself for accession into the Armed forces in some capacity to go help save South Korea. However, your post raises a couple of questions.
Question 1. Our assistance to South Korea 1950-53 (plus the ongoing continuation), our assistance to South Viet Nam, our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were all low impact efforts. How did they work out for us?
Question 2. Assume we announce our non acceptance of a nuclear North Korea. In the event no one else joins us and supports that position, how do we enforce our 'non acceptance?'
Entropy
11-23-2010, 04:16 AM
When countries do not hold their population as valuable, and the leadership has proven that they have an erratic decision calculus, our form of deterrence fails.
So stationing troops in South Korea for the last 50+ years and stationing nukes on South Korean soil for most of that time was all for nothing?
we cannot allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons.
Since NK already possesses nuclear weapons how exactly are we accomplish that?
Dayuhan
11-23-2010, 09:33 AM
This just showed up in my inbox, from Stratfor...
North Korea and South Korea have reportedly traded artillery fire Nov. 23 across the disputed Northern Limit Line (NLL) in the Yellow Sea to the west of the peninsula. Though details are still sketchy and unconfirmed, South Korean news reports indicate that around 2:30 p.m. local time, North Korean artillery shells began landing in the waters around Yongpyeongdo, one of the South Korean-controlled islands just south of the NLL. North Korea has reportedly fired as many as 200 rounds, some of which struck the island, injuring at least 10 South Korean soldiers, damaging buildings, and setting fire to a mountainside. South Korea responded by firing some 80 shells of its own toward North Korea, dispatching F-16 fighter jets to the area, and raising the military alert to its highest level.
Too early to say much. We'll see...
Take it easy guys... I remember words like deterent, containment and the like... nothing to worry about... and remember a short time ago a ship got sunk taking 46 lives with it... did nothing to deter them then... now? Its all a bit of a boring joke. Must be a slow news day. I believe things will be more lively when Iran has some nukes. Can't wait.
Dayuhan
11-23-2010, 11:41 AM
Obviously if deterrence and containment are in the picture, there's something to worry about. You deter and contain that which you are worried about, what would be the point otherwise?
North Korea exists... we all wish it didn't, but it does. So does Iran. The extent to which the US - or anyone else - can tell them what they may or may not do inside their borders is very limited: the US is not in a position to tell them what they are or are not allowed to do. Action outside their borders can be contained and deterred. It's liable to be messy around the edges at times, as these things generally are.
What's the alternative to deterrence and containment? Do we want to "do regime change" in North Korea, or Iran?
Bob's World
11-23-2010, 01:42 PM
Obviously if deterrence and containment are in the picture, there's something to worry about. You deter and contain that which you are worried about, what would be the point otherwise?
North Korea exists... we all wish it didn't, but it does. So does Iran. The extent to which the US - or anyone else - can tell them what they may or may not do inside their borders is very limited: the US is not in a position to tell them what they are or are not allowed to do. Action outside their borders can be contained and deterred. It's liable to be messy around the edges at times, as these things generally are.
What's the alternative to deterrence and containment? Do we want to "do regime change" in North Korea, or Iran?
Concur.
While I believe that containment needs to be retired as the centerpiece to US foreign policy, it certainly has a place for specific situations that are real, containable and tied to US national interests. North Korea is a containable problem.
As to deterrence, that needs to focus on the few big things we absolutely will not stand for (major missile attacks on Japan, Invasion of South Korea, etc) and can actually do something about. Small things can and will happen and are not a failure of deterrence. Internal actions will occur that we do not like but that are outside of any duty or right of ours to influence. Overreacting in response to the small things within the larger red lines is not particularly productive; nor is the implementation of measures that punish the populace while giving the government a great IO opportunity to shift blame for all their failures onto implementer of those measures.
There may be opportunities from such incidents. There is no reason why China, Russia, the US, Japan and South Korea cannot come up with clear red lines that all can agree upon in regards to North Korean deterrence, and perhaps this gets people to sit down and sort it out.
Ron Humphrey
11-23-2010, 08:04 PM
Concur.
There may be opportunities from such incidents. There is no reason why China, Russia, the US, Japan and South Korea cannot come up with clear red lines that all can agree upon in regards to North Korean deterrence, and perhaps this gets people to sit down and sort it out.
Would require that particular meeting also laying exact what if's as to response to anything outside those "red lines"
Who and how?
And in the end will it still leave incidents such as this outside of the "defined" parameters?
Tukhachevskii
11-23-2010, 08:32 PM
This just showed up in my inbox, from Stratfor...
Too early to say much. We'll see...
Wasn't there an incident back in february(?) where the KPA carried out an artillery live firing exercise with the target zones located out to sea and said it was an exercise? IIRC the ROK responded with artillrey fire of their own. Could this be the same thing gone awry?
KenWats
11-23-2010, 09:34 PM
I'm no expert, but 2 fatalities seems awfully light casualties for an artillery duel lasting an hour and 200 rounds (according to Stratfor anyway). It seems to me that either there wasn't much where they were shooting at or they didn't hit what they were aiming for.
Ron Humphrey
11-23-2010, 10:31 PM
I'm no expert, but 2 fatalities seems awfully light casualties for an artillery duel lasting an hour and 200 rounds (according to Stratfor anyway). It seems to me that either there wasn't much where they were shooting at or they didn't hit what they were aiming for.
Guess if theres any comfort in this whole deal it knowing that somewhere in NK some arty bubbas having to face the music about suckage, considering that whichever they were aiming at (water or land) quite a few didn't hit what they were aiming for.
Guess if theres any comfort in this whole deal it knowing that somewhere in NK some arty bubbas having to face the music about suckage, considering that whichever they were aiming at (water or land) quite a few didn't hit what they were aiming for.
NK told SK to stop the live firing exercise in the disputed border area. SK ignored them. NK fired 200 rounds to make a point. SK fired off 60 in some direction? and then ran to grab hold of Uncle Sam's skirts. This round to NK.
As to red lines. If torpedoing a naval vessel killing the crew of 46 is not crossing a red line then what is?
This is the kind of problem the world faces when these rogue regimes obtain/develop nukes.
Dayuhan
11-24-2010, 07:03 AM
This is the kind of problem the world faces when these rogue regimes obtain/develop nukes.
This problem existed long before the North Koreans got nukes. It's been going on for decades.
"This round" doesn't really go to the north, or the south, or to anyone. What has changed? The south is still rich and the north is still poor. The north is still nasty and the south is still nice. Everybody still wishes the regime in the north will collapse but nobody's willing to start a war to make it happen. When the winter comes the north will try to bargain off part of the nuclear program for food and fuel. They may or may not get it. The Chinese will continue to give the north just enough aid to keep them existing and useful but not enough to let them be really viable.
I don't see it changing until the regime in the north falls from the inside, which could take a while.
This problem existed long before the North Koreans got nukes. It's been going on for decades.
"This round" doesn't really go to the north, or the south, or to anyone. What has changed? The south is still rich and the north is still poor. The north is still nasty and the south is still nice. Everybody still wishes the regime in the north will collapse but nobody's willing to start a war to make it happen. When the winter comes the north will try to bargain off part of the nuclear program for food and fuel. They may or may not get it. The Chinese will continue to give the north just enough aid to keep them existing and useful but not enough to let them be really viable.
I don't see it changing until the regime in the north falls from the inside, which could take a while.
Indeed. The weaker North does play his games of aggression thinking and hoping that he can rely on the understandable unwillingness of the stronger South to go to war.
Over the last thirty years the power disadvantages of the North have only grown, possibly with one exception, nuclear power. Their desperate attempts to get functional nuclear missiles shows just how weak they are in pretty much all the other areas.
This problem existed long before the North Koreans got nukes. It's been going on for decades.
Only that the stakes are now higher.
Indeed. The weaker North does play his games of aggression thinking and hoping that he can rely on the understandable unwillingness of the stronger South to go to war.
Over the last thirty years the power disadvantages of the North have only grown, possibly with one exception, nuclear power. Their desperate attempts to get functional nuclear missiles shows just how weak they are in pretty much all the other areas.
The North has less to lose. The South has everything to lose. The US stands to lose thousands of troops and no matter what China won't allow the US to use nukes.
This is probably another cry for attention from the Hermit Kingdom.
Ron Humphrey
11-25-2010, 12:19 AM
The North has less to lose. The South has everything to lose.
lets just say they (NK) started it and it gets finished the Chinese would do exactly , ?what?
:confused:
Especially considering as you so notably pointed out-
The US stands to lose thousands of troops
as to
This is probably another cry for attention from the Hermit Kingdom
Although its not new does it necessarily change the underlying approaches necessary to deal with it?
These are honest questions, just trying to understand your overarching, things suck so just accept it premise
(or am I misrepresenting your position?)
lets just say they (NK) started it and it gets finished the Chinese would do exactly , ?what?
:confused:
Especially considering as you so notably pointed out-
as to
Although its not new does it necessarily change the underlying approaches necessary to deal with it?
These are honest questions, just trying to understand your overarching, things suck so just accept it premise
(or am I misrepresenting your position?)
I'm sure the Chinese have given NK clear parameters within to work when it comes to such "incidents".
Suddenly this incident (with a handful of dead) becomes the biggest incident since the ceasefire. So what was the sinking of a naval ship with all hands?
So where is the red line? Is there a red line? Or is it a matter of (as I suspect) that whenever an incident happens the call will be for "restraint" and not to do anything that could lead to an escalation.
This situation is only manageable if the US/SK do nothing.
Ron Humphrey
11-25-2010, 01:02 AM
is not so much about red lines and escalation so much as about retribution or lack there of.
Have any ideas on exactly where the Chinese whom you give such great importance in the what if's see the "too far" bar in relation to their reckless child to the souths hissy fits?
Seems like important information when determining how best to avoid "accidental" escalations which seems like everyone agrees wouldn't be good for all involved.
Ken White
11-25-2010, 02:26 AM
Suddenly this incident (with a handful of dead) becomes the biggest incident since the ceasefire. So what was the sinking of a naval ship with all hands?Not even. Several have been far more significant. This one gets extra traction because a lot of people have digital cameras or phone that will do video today and the news media is on 24/7 and hungry for any 'bad' news' and goes looking for said pics and videos. We just communicate better (well, with more facility... :rolleyes: )and more rapidly than we used to.
The Tunnels of the 80s were far more significant, the Song-O sub in 1986 was far more significant, the Axe murder in 1976 was more significant. Here's a partlal list of the larger incidents [(LINK) (http://news.scotsman.com/northkorea/Timeline-Flashpoints-across-the-generations.6637536.jp) all of which exceeded this one in scope (thus far). Can't believe The Scotsman neglected the tunnels. You are of course correct that the sinking of the Cheonan last May was a greater provocation -- and thus more important...
There were others that occurred in the 50s and earlier in the 60s. Here's the Wiki with an even longer less including lesser incidents (LINK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone). This is just business as usual over the last 56 years
This one is most likely all about nothing more than Kim Jong Un nominally giving the order to establish his credibility as the Supreme Leader designee. :rolleyes:
Global Scout
11-25-2010, 07:32 AM
Ken,
I agree with you, especially since the facts support your argument. There have been many larger incidents over the years to include political assassination attempts, major north Korean SOF infiltrations resulting in more casualties, and state sponsored terrorism by nK, but this was a direct attack on civilians (different) in a democratic ROK (hasn't always been the case), where the government's legitimacy can now be called into play. It is also part III of a "recent" series of events starting with the sinking of the ROK Naval vessel, then the unveiling of their "new" nuclear facility, and now a very overt attack (no denying it like they denied sinking the ship). In the end this may simply pass over, or this could be indictative of significant problems related to the transition of power in the North. We're in a situation where it will be easy for any one side to miscalculate and escalate this into something no one really wants. Every actor thinks he rational, but not all of them are. We're dealing with a nation of wackos to the north who may very well push the ROK to react, and then be forced to react themselves in order to remain their legitimacy. Interesting and dangerous times. I hope next year this is just another minor event in the history of North South relations, but for one I'm going to wait until next year to exhale on this one.
is not so much about red lines and escalation so much as about retribution or lack there of.
Have any ideas on exactly where the Chinese whom you give such great importance in the what if's see the "too far" bar in relation to their reckless child to the souths hissy fits?
Seems like important information when determining how best to avoid "accidental" escalations which seems like everyone agrees wouldn't be good for all involved.
First off the risk from NK is much higher because of their nuclear capability. So there is the first mistake from the weakness of the past.
Given the survival of the NK regime under the current sanctions China remains their source of all sanctions busting imports and probably finance as well. The power is total, "do as we say or we close the border."
China holds the key.
... oh yes, and tell the kids in SK to stop doing silly things unless they are will to step up to the plate and not just threaten to take action next time.
Not even. Several have been far more significant. This one gets extra traction because a lot of people have digital cameras or phone that will do video today and the news media is on 24/7 and hungry for any 'bad' news' and goes looking for said pics and videos. We just communicate better (well, with more facility... :rolleyes: )and more rapidly than we used to.
The Tunnels of the 80s were far more significant, the Song-O sub in 1986 was far more significant, the Axe murder in 1976 was more significant. Here's a partlal list of the larger incidents [(LINK) (http://news.scotsman.com/northkorea/Timeline-Flashpoints-across-the-generations.6637536.jp) all of which exceeded this one in scope (thus far). Can't believe The Scotsman neglected the tunnels. You are of course correct that the sinking of the Cheonan last May was a greater provocation -- and thus more important...
There were others that occurred in the 50s and earlier in the 60s. Here's the Wiki with an even longer less including lesser incidents (LINK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone). This is just business as usual over the last 56 years
This one is most likely all about nothing more than Kim Jong Un nominally giving the order to establish his credibility as the Supreme Leader designee. :rolleyes:
I need some help here. 200 artillery shells kill 5 (2 soldiers and 3 civvies) and wound 18 when fired into a civilian residential area.
Exaggerated number of shells fired, crap ammo, wild shooting, no one at home or what?
Maeda Toshiie
11-25-2010, 01:37 PM
I need some help here. 200 artillery shells kill 5 (2 soldiers and 3 civvies) and wound 18 when fired into a civilian residential area.
Exaggerated number of shells fired, crap ammo, wild shooting, no one at home or what?
Supposedly there were two waves. The first had shells landing all over the place, apparently including water. The second more or less landed on the base itself. The island also has bunkers which the military and civilians took cover in. That probably explains the widespread damage (also partly thanks to the fires started by the shelling) and low casualties.
Supposedly there were two waves. The first had shells landing all over the place, apparently including water. The second more or less landed on the base itself. The island also has bunkers which the military and civilians took cover in. That probably explains the widespread damage (also partly thanks to the fires started by the shelling) and low casualties.
You know this or are you speculating?
Rex Brynen
11-25-2010, 05:38 PM
Have any ideas on exactly where the Chinese whom you give such great importance in the what if's see the "too far" bar in relation to their reckless child to the souths hissy fits?
I would also add that we should be careful not to assume that the Chinese always see these incidents in exactly the same way we do.
It isn't clear to me, for example, that Beijing is convinced that the ROKS Cheonan was necessarily sunk by a North Korean torpedo. Beijing may also agree with Pyongyang that ROK live-fire naval exercises just outside a disputed maritime boundary were provocative, and may even lend some credence to North Korean claims that the incident started when South Korean shells landed in Northern territory.
Ron Humphrey
11-25-2010, 06:25 PM
I would also add that we should be careful not to assume that the Chinese always see these incidents in exactly the same way we do.
It isn't clear to me, for example, that Beijing is convinced that the ROKS Cheonan was necessarily sunk by a North Korean torpedo. Beijing may also agree with Pyongyang that ROK live-fire naval exercises just outside a disputed maritime boundary were provocative, and may even lend some credence to North Korean claims that the incident started when South Korean shells landed in Northern territory.
Exactly how does firing on civilian targets actually in South Korean territory fit within Chinese parameters of acceptability.
May just be me, but if they believed as you say wouldn't it seem like this particular action puts them in a rather tough position to say that the North was being unduly accused on the Cheonan.
And lets not forget that its the North who decided to walk someone through to get a look at their new toys just a little bit ago. Somehow the narrative here doesn't seem to help much with the Chinese pushing back against accusations of undue provocations by Kim and company.
:confused:
Ken White
11-25-2010, 06:57 PM
Exactly how does firing on civilian targets actually in South Korean territory fit within Chinese parameters of acceptability.The demarcation line known informally as the '38th Parallel" or the De Militarized Zone doe not extend into the coastal waters on wither side of the Peninsula, both Notrt and South Korea -- for different reasons -- did not want that to occur at the time of the Truce.
The South did not want it because they effectively occupied many of the islands off both North Korean coasts; the North wanted them to fight over in the future...
The South has moved off many of those islands but still occupy those where the sinking of the Corvette and this artillery duel took place. The North contends they are NK territory, the South disagrees and the South does deliberately provoke things in that area -- and have done so since 1954.
The Chinese -- and the Koreans (both) do indeed look at this far differently than do we. The Chinese also look at differently than does North Korea.
Ron Humphrey
11-25-2010, 07:15 PM
The Chinese -- and the Koreans (both) do indeed look at this far differently than do we. The Chinese also look at differently than does North Korea.
Seems awful undefined for such a heavily fortified and possibly explosive area.
Actually quite surprising in that it seems rather less predictable then the Chinese would usually prefer considering both their proximity and in larger terms the effects circumstances there can have on those countries close by. :confused:
Rex Brynen
11-25-2010, 07:37 PM
Exactly how does firing on civilian targets actually in South Korean territory fit within Chinese parameters of acceptability.
I doubt the Chinese thought it was helpful. Equally, however, North Korea does not accept the current post-war border demarcation (the Northern Limit Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Limit_Line)), a complicated issue (http://www.asianperspective.org/articles/v27n2-f.pdf) on which I'm not sure that China has a definitive position. The Chinese may well feel that South Korean live fire exercises in a disputed area (and the alleged shelling of North Korean waters, according to Pyongyang) were provocative, even if the subsequent North Korean response was disproportionate.
My point is that we should not assume that China's perception of the conflict is always the same as ours.
* * *
Since I started writing this, five students have knocked on my door, and Ken has written pretty much the same thing.
Dayuhan
11-25-2010, 09:11 PM
First off the risk from NK is much higher because of their nuclear capability. So there is the first mistake from the weakness of the past.
How, short of war, could the north have been prevented from acquiring a nuclear capability?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.