Space conservation can save the nation...
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:
Quote:
"..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:
Quote:
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...
This geriatric abuse has got to stop...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hacksaw
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:
To be otherwise determined ...
No doubt, NK has breached Art. 62's clear language (for rational or irrational reasons):
Quote:
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 The Articles and Paragraphs of this Armistice Agreement shall remain in effect until expressly superseded either by mutually acceptable amendments and additions or by provision in an appropriate agreement for a peaceful settlement at a political level between both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):
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
A permanent solution for North Korea
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.
A few remarks about mainland China
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.
North Korea -- and Iran -- want respect
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.
Yes, no and not really...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
orange dave
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.
Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.
Quote:
...but not North Korea, rendering that point irrelevant anyway.
Few points are irrelevant in international relations; too many variables to summarily dismiss anything.
Quote:
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...
Quote:
...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:
Quote:
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:
Can't ever find a Mikhail when you need one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
orange dave
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:
Quote:
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.
Don't agree on Congressional panel
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.
That is a thing, no question...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
orange dave
...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...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
We simply disagree, pleasantly
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.
Hmmm...time for more coffee
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Interesting you mention Germany and Japan. More interesting may be their pay back -- when it occurs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
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, 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 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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
If we assume, inaccurately, that expenditures alone determine the quality and capability of a fighting force Germany's military expenditures are reported as 41.8 billion USD per year while US military expenditures are reported as 503.4 billion USD per year. 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
From the Sydney Morning Herald: Burma’s nuclear secrets
Sigh. I can still get more typos per pixel than most...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Surferbeetle
...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 [strike]thus[/strike] 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...:(
All is factually well in Germany and Japan today
The educated youth of both Germany and Japan are several generations deep now and all is well indeed.
Re: addressing the original post
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
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.
Quote:
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.
the guy who came in for the cold
Somewhat related to the Confucian theme, Fareed Zakaria interview with Senior Minister (and Hakka Godfather), Lee Kuan Yew.
Quote:
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) from the Lee Kuan Yew Website.
His pick for one of the West's crowning achievements: The Air-Conditioner.
TimeAsia Mini-Profile (1999)
Majulah Singapura! (and thanks for all the aircons, lah)
es irrt der mensch solang er strebt
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
...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?
N. Korea has to look to the Mainland China model
Quote:
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.