The question is whether Kim and Co. can survive in a North Korea where people aren’t treated like, well, the way they are treated now. So much of the state is built on hardship, juche, and propaganda that to reverse that, and keep hold of power, seems like a mighty big leap.
I think that they will be happy with whatever happens as long as they get to remain in that class.
This all comes down to China backed Kim into a corner, their nuclear program reached its research peak, and because they have “legitimized” themselves as a nuclear world power, they now can sit at the big boys table in negotiating peace talks.
South Korea has wanted re-unification for decades. There are still families split from the war, and many families split from North-South right now. Any easing of tensions is good news here.
Kim just wants to maintain his rulership over his people, but also not lose everything to tough sanctions from China. He knows how rich and well off South Korea is. North Korea could be like them too, if they wanted.
Look at Saudi Arabia!!! A rich prince who gets to have WWE events held in his home country, hobnob with world leaders, and live a lavish rich lifestyle. This is the dictator’s dream. A semi-legitimate dictatorship that is just sane enough for the rest of the world to over-look their human rights abuses and work with them.
This is what Kim wants, he wants to be leader, but still able to buy Ferarris and fly plane-loads of falcons around
Of course, NK doesn’t have oil though… [but they do have some amazing mining natural resources which could make someone in charge VERY VERY RICH
In any discussion of NK’s future, it comes down to. What benefits Kim Jong Un most? I see a world power similar to Russia (in terms of relations to the US) with the ability to supply South Korea with minerals to produce cars, tablets etc, and join them as a rich nation, with Kim Jong Un at the helm, holding onto power through Chinese/Russian tactics (hacking/state media/secret police)
Is this great for the average North Korean? Not really, but it sure as hell is better than what they have.
I sincerely hope this goes well for Korea, as re-unification (including dismantling of the forced labor camps, weaking of Juche.
What this means for the ruling class? More access to world travel, foods, tech, etc. They already have the college education, good jobs and houses, they just can do more with what they have. This is a win for them (and really everyone).
I just wonder how much of a role Russia has played in all this, since, you know, they’re friends with Trump (and Kim to a degree) and maybe want to see both Trump and NK succeed. (At everyone else’s expense IMO.)
S. Korea wants demilitarization and peace, not necessarily re-unification.
In latest polls the younger generation see reunification as an economic disaster waiting to happen and is more than OK with not taking on that task. Over the past 20 years pretty much everyone who was emotionally vested is now either dead or will be soon.
Honestly. going full galaxy brain tinfoil hat on this.
But Chinese labor continues to get more expensive as the economy expands.
Where is the new cheap labor? North Koreans.
The books that I’ve read about North Korea written by high level defectors suggest there is a ton of palace intrigue in the place.
Giving up nuclear weapons is extraordinary risking for Kim.
Under the best of circumstance, the US support for dictators is situational. We tend to be happy to throw them under the bus at the first sign of trouble unless they have been unusually loyal like the Saudi’s.
Second, they are dealing with Trump, who has a long history of never sticking to deals.
If the people of North Korea, rebel against the ruling class in NK, I’ll be the first one arguing for the US to support the people deal or no deal.
If Kim is serious about giving up nuclear weapons, he faces a coup from the military. So he has a real tough task of convincing the US that is serious about giving up the weapons, while convincing his military and hawks that he is lying to the Americans.
Not if you purge the disloyal from the military
Of course everything you are saying is true as well, this is all very much unknown territory here. Who knows if “little rocket man” could be supported by Trump? If not him than who? Also, Ban Ki-Moon has had nothing but good things to say about the DPRK’s willingness to work towards peace. Could just be well wishing to help perception, but to hear Moon tell it, Un is all in on peace.
Yeah - I read a study that points out that West Germany is, in effect, still paying for reunification - and that was the merging of the (then) world’s 4th largest economy with the 17th by GDP. Currently, S Korea is 11th and N Korea is 113th… it’s actually hard to imagine how it could possibly work without S Korea going under.
I think that reunification would be sticky, but the majority of South Koreans support it, but even without reunification, a thaw in relations, opening of borders and sharing of technology could be a boon to both sides.
South Korea has technology, food, and vast wealth. North Korea is sitting on a largely untapped natural mineral resource, that due to the issues with technology and trade embargoes has been untapped.
Maybe I am being overly positive, but it really does feel like there is a chance for the lives of millions of North Koreans to get better.
Jon, you’re absolutely wrong here.
Reunification does not have the broad support it once did in the 90s and support is dropping every year as economic reality sets in. That said, you’ll probably find a much higher percentage of support in the Korean American community (or expats in general) since they don’t really need to deal with the economic side of potential unification.
This link does a decent job of explaining the generational change in thought.
The white House press conference today said they were unable to confirm reports that the people were released.
Two of these people were detained in 2017, so it’s unlikely that Obama was trying to get them released.
Your mistake is that you think facts matter.
There was an article, I think in the NYT (maybe CNN? can’t recall), that dealt with the facts thing. It argued that for Trump loyalists, all that matters is that what is said could have been true. For example, in this case, to these folks, if the people in NK custody had been there during Obama’s presidency, it could have been true that Obama failed to secure their release. Likewise, any other lie that Trump spouts could be true (or in his supporters’ eyes, should be true), and hence, it’s ok.
What does “could have been true” mean?
I mean, two of these guys were literally not in NK prior to Trump taking office. It’s literally impossible that Obama could have been trying, much less have failed, to secure their release.
https://twitter.com/ajmount/status/992223508087394304
(1/15): THREAD on Trump ordering “the Pentagon to prepare options for drawing down American troops in South Korea.” Americans need to know just how extreme and irresponsible this is. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/world/asia/trump-troops-south-korea.html
(2/15): 2. In 2015-16, I directed the @CFR_org Task Force on North Korea, a group of 17 leading experts. In a 101 page report, these sentences, one part of recommendation 1, were by far the most controversial: https://twitter.com/ajmount/status/992224471804243970/photo/1
(3/15): 3. At the end of the report, you’ll find a dissenting view on this point signed by five of those experts. The group was glad to have it. They warned that any discussion of troop withdrawal could “undermine U.S. and [ROK] interests.” https://twitter.com/ajmount/status/992224961182994433/photo/1
(4/15): 4. It is indicative of just how delicate this question is that the disagreement was over whether US diplomats could describe specific conditions in the future that the US-ROK alliance to reconsider force posture or whether slightly more general language was advisable.
(5/15): 5. In any case, all members agreed that the allies should jointly develop a position. “The United States,” the report read, “will not abrogate its alliance commitment in any event.” USFK will be necessary “for the foreseeable future.” https://www.cfr.org/report/sharper-choice-north-korea
(6/15): 6. After Trump’s election, many in DC will tell you how we were deluged by Korean friends and colleagues worried about the new president. Would Trump really withdraw US forces if Seoul didn’t pay up? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-interview.html My answer was: the Pentagon would never let that happen.
(7/15): 7. Trump has never understood the importance of any alliance, but has been outright insulting of Seoul. He has spent more time trying to extract fiscal benefits than he has presenting a strong front to Pyongyang. There is some strange mental block. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-06-28/how-put-us-south-korean-alliance-back-track
(8/15): 8. @NBCNews reported that Kelly had to talk Trump down from ordering withdrawal of US forces in February. That was the month of the Olympics, when there was only the faintest hints of a desire to talk. Trump knew he wanted US forces out before there was any hint of reciprocity. https://twitter.com/ajmount/status/992226268656652288/photo/1
(9/15): 9. Is this a joint position? Does South Korea approve? Two days ago, the Blue House said it wants the forces to stay, saying it’s an alliance issue. “It has nothing to do with signing peace treaties.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-southkorea-northkorea/south-korea-says-it-wants-u-s-troops-to-stay-regardless-of-any-treaty-with-north-korea-idUSKBN1I305J
(10/15): 10. Is it a cost issue? Currently, ROK pays $890 million, half the cost of US presence, and are engaged in negotiations about raising that percentage. USFK is consolidating at Camp Humphreys to save money. Withdrawal would cost more in the short term. https://www.stripes.com/news/us-south-korea-to-open-cost-sharing-negotiations-this-week-in-hawaii-1.515028
(11/15): 11. It’s hard to overstate just how radical this view is. Before Trump, the best KJU could hope for is that the alliance would modify force structure after major nuclear & conventional disarmament. Now, Trump is pushing his chips across the table before the cards are even dealt.
(12/15): 12. It is a virtual certainty that the Pentagon slow rolls or resists this request. They know South Korea depends on US forces for reconnaissance, battlespace management, missile defense, long range strike, and a host of other issues. It won’t happen.
(13/15): 13. But the effect on US negotiating leverage is catastrophic. Trump’s actions virtually ensure DPRK will demand withdrawal of US forces (probably in exchange for weak denuclearization guarantees). They have every reason to believe Trump wants to say yes.
(14/15): 14. Because this interpretation is supported by consistent Trump statements, issuing a denial unfortunately changes none of this for Seoul or Pyongyang. Damage is done. https://twitter.com/joshjonsmith/status/992222933815709696
(15/15): 15. There’s no reason to sugarcoat this: Trump does not understand the issues at stake here. He has no idea what he’s doing. A ICBM-for-USFK deal would abandon US allies to a nuclear DPRK and a more assertive China. Gerry explains: https://twitter.com/mgerrydoyle/status/992214988231032832
If Trump withdrew US forces from NK, based on mere words from Kim Jong Il, that would be the most insane thing ever.
At least Chamberlain could rest easy going forward.