Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Voronin
RE #9

N. Korea does not bargain with good faith. That has been clear from the start. I do not favor the collpase of N. Korea as a nation but the current regime has shown no sign of pulling successful economic reform. So it may have to be replaced.

The problem with N. Korea is that it refuses to change its system in any meaningful way. At best, it will do a marginal change in glacial pace. In the meantime, N. Korea wanted to survive as northern steppe nomads used to do. Extorting tributes from well-off countries.

It all stems from the regime's fear of internal collapse once the change is under way. It wants an economic reform while still keeping its tight control on population, including the control of infomration flow and human contact from outside. That is what the reigme is afraid most, not American bombs. Even Chinese system is too dangerous for them, in their views. The regime caters to its oversized military, too. Unless their control is looasened and the military is reduced in its size, there will be no effective economic reform.

United Korea does not need N. Korean help for nukes. S. Korea has been trying to have one since '70's. Its nuke program was clandestinely alive until Kim Dae-Jung killed it. S. Korea, if she chooses to, can develop her missile and nuke programs to deter potential regional threats like China.

All S. Korea wants is for N. Korea to bait America in order to get tributes and negotiate away one bargaining chips(current missiles and nukes) while making better ones for future bargain as I stated. N. Koreans have already enough to destroy S. Korea, and other surrounding region with missiles, chemical and biological weapons. It also has huge conventional force.

The whole crisis comes from the fear that disastorous economic situation and gradual N. Korean general population's exposure to outside world will doom the regime from within, when you get down to the root cause.

Because of N. Korea backed themselves so hopelessly into a corner, there is no easy way out of it.

Finally, I am not one of those who see N. Korea as insane. Their action is all calculated, as you said. They have practiced it since 60's. But they are going for increasingly slimmer odds now. This act also entails a lot of risk to themselves and their neighoring countries. I always doubted that this N. Korean problem will end in some orderly fashion with minor bumps along the way. Whichever way N. Korean reigme plays it, it will give us a great scare even if there would be no shooting war. It is their style.

10 posted on 02/12/2003 3:01:43 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: TigerLikesRooster
It looks like we agree on quite a number of points. Regarding the 'negotiating in good faith', I think we have to recognize that it's not one sided. There was supposed to be a 'improvement' of relations. The promised reactors which were supposed to have gone online the beginning of this year are nowhere to be seen. N. Korea created the last crisis in '94 for the same reason. It's clear nothing substantial really happened on either side. The longer the issue was ignored, the more it became of critical importance to N. Korea (lack of rain/natural disasters) which grew weaker over time. Stringing the agreement along cost N. Korea dear, but cost nothing to the US, unless it was the intention to weaken N. Korea in such a way.

I've heard of the S. Korean nuke programme - the benefit of the North's nukes would not be techoological, but political as the North has more or less declared that it is a nuclear weapons state. Once the closet is opened it is much harder to close (the only sucess being South Africa & Ukraine (the 'stans don't really count as they never had the expertize))- by not taking action, a united Korea gets recognized in the nuke club an can claim it as self-protection. It's clear that having nukes pays dividents, I don't see a united Korea giving up such major political factor. What's your take one my point about future stregic threats (real or percieved), i.e. China much more of a threat than Japan?

VRN

11 posted on 02/12/2003 5:18:32 AM PST by Voronin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson