Since the initial division of the Korean Peninsula at the end of World War II, there has been a distant hope in diplomatic circles, as well as among many Koreans, that the split might one day be undone. American officials have supported Korean reunification for years, and even China, which benefits from the buffer North Korea provides between its border and the U.S.-allied South, has quietly favored the idea at times of heightened tensions. In preparation for a possible reunion, South Korea funds a Ministry of Unification that studies strategies for bringing the two states closer—and last month financed an $8 million humanitarian aid package for Pyongyang.
The goal of bringing the two Koreas together again has a certain historical appeal. It echoes the reunification of Germany, which healed a Cold War rift, reunited families and produced a powerhouse economy. Many hope that through shared history and culture, and pooled economic resources, the two countries could eventually be stronger together.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Since the founding of the Communist regime in North Korea, the long term goal of the Communist regime (like the North Vietnamese Communists when it came to South Vietnam) .... was to unify the Korean peninsula .... and by force if necessary. That was then .... today .... the impression that I am getting is that Pyongyang is accepting the fact that this is no longer militarily or politically possible, that it is in their interests to keep the peninsula divided, and having a nuclear arsenal will maintain this status quo. Where it gets complicated is that North Korea now wants a nuclear arsenal to threaten the U.S. directly .... even if it means upsetting the geopolitical balance in the region and changing the status quo where the North Korean state headed by the Kim family was acceptable by everyone .... albeit reluctantly. Why this shift in policy from North Korea .... which I would say started about 2 or 3 years ago .... is something that I do not understand. This new North Korean approach now introduces a new dimension to the Korean problem, because right now one can make the argument that regime change in North Korea (and the consequences that it may entail) may be the preferred option .... even if the outcome of regime change will mean war and conflict that will impact the Korean people for generations. Bottom line .... if North Korea was not hell-bent on developing a nuclear ICBM force .... I would be in agreement with Zach Montague's opinion that Korean unification is not going to happen for the foreseeable future. But North Korea is hell-bent on developing a nuclear ICBM force that will be capable of striking the U.S. mainland .... and this in turn has resulted in blow-back that directly threatens the stability of the North Korean state. Communist regimes .... when threatened in such a manner and without support .... cannot sustain themselves for too long. There is going to be a breaking point. An army rebellion there. A break-down in the internal security/intelligence services somewhere else. Strikes and open defiance. It does not take much .... but when it starts, nothing can stop it. When I think of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un I am always reminded of former Romanian strongman Nicolae Ceaușescu. Ceausescu .... like Kim Jong-Un .... had a brutal internal security service, and no one believed that he would be overthrown (myself included). But he was overthrown .... because in the end there was no one there to protect him. That is my prediction for Kim Jong-Un .... in the end .... when the people who are suppose to protect him .... they are the ones who are going to shoot him. And the one who will be the most surprised will be Kim Jong-Un .... just like Ceausescu was when he was put against the wall to be executed.
8 comments:
"Why this shift in policy from North Korea .... which I would say started about 2 or 3 years ago .... is something that I do not understand." Maybe because the US is really getting the NK collective face and what they do not is not much more that face saving?
I hope you're right!
My feeling is Trump administration is trying to make NoKo a big mistake... justifying a military response. Even everybody think that the war of words between Trump and KJU is stupid, that's not. In democracy you can lose face... you will keep it back later. In dictatorship that's the opposite. This means KJU can be dragged to make a mistake only for keeping face.
Nice job WNU. so sad to see that in 2017 with all our achievements humans are only getting more greedy and wanting more power with total disregard to the environment. they are the same people with torn families on both sides but all our leaders can think of is WAR. F**k me there has to be a better way to end this madness. Kim and trump are both evil pigs with our future in there greedy sweaty small hands. The fact that trump admits they are not negotiating at all with NK is just plain dumb and scary, there should be endless endless push for discussions. War does not work when are we ever going to get it!! my guess at this point is we never will and it's only getting worse ( isis etc ). let's be real here the only benefit of war is reducing the population on our overcrowded planet and creating jobs for our human money system. is this always the goal of our leaders?
At least Ceausesco died like a man. I have seen the movies from the trial and he was angry but never afraid. The lesson is that if you are going to die anyway, do it with dignity.
The most pathetic surrender ever was that of Himler in world war 2. He had talked about bravery and SS superior warrior spirit and that he would fight to the death. In the end he surrendered to the britts at first opportunity and was so delusional that he thought they would listen to him and conti ue to work with him. Biggest wimp of the German leadership.
"Maybe because the US is really getting the NK collective face and what they do not is not much more that face saving?
Please translate the above quote from "word salad" to English or some other language.
I agree Himmler was a wimp.
Himmler tried to avoid the British. I don't think he tried to surrender at first opportunity. He went tried to get to a rat line, but when it was unavoidable, he surrendered.
I'm glad you mentioned Ceausescu, a topic I'm familiar with. It's true his tyrannical regime & security arrangements resembled what we're seeing in NK today; in fact he was a great fan of NK, visited it in the 1980s and thought that was the perfect model to follow. Which is one reason why those around him started plotting his downfall.
But the other reason -- and this is where the comparison with NK today breaks down -- is that Ceausescu's regime fell in the context of a general collapse of Communism across Eastern Europe in the late 1980s.
You must also remember that all of that (the 1989 'Revolution') was an inside job; of course there were people in the streets, but they were allowed to go there by the security services which were already turning against the Leader. If they'd been serious about protecting the regime and crushing the opposition, that could've been done quite easily. The level of control over the population was absolute. No question.
And in fact there had been some disturbances/protests at various points in the preceding years -- a pretty serious affair in 1987, for example -- but because at that time Communism was still going strong all around Romania, there was no real attempt to overthrow the regime, and those protests were duly suppressed.
What does this mean for NK today? Firstly, it means that the only hope is some sort of internal coup against Kim. It won't be the people or even parts of the army in the lead on this one; has to be top Politburo figures. Secondly, I think the very fact that NK has been going strong for near quarter-century AFTER the fall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War shows that the regime has evolved into a qualitatively different beast than former East European communist countries, immune and indifferent to the outside world.
Taking a wider view, people often make the mistake to think that the fall of Communism in the late 80s/early 90s was inevitable -- but it wasn't. We got lucky because Gorbachev was too smart for his own good and very cocky too, and didn't realise what his reforms would do. Another Soviet leader could've quite easily chosen instead to turn the screws even more. And once you get past a certain point, once the first few rebellions are crushed and their leaders are made an example of, then you become more secure because people lose all hope. Look at Cuba and indeed North Korea.
Same with the Nazis, whose regime was only destroyed by physical occupation, but otherwise would have endured through the worst crises; it's well known the level of devotion to the Fuhrer right up to the very last moment.
So in the end...I agree with the WNU Editor that common sense and history offer grounds for the kind of scenario he describes in his comment -- a spark that will light the fuse and bring Kim down -- but at the same time I don't think any of us really understands just what a "special case" North Korea is. And I don't think we ever could, or will.
Post a Comment