|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
You would be wrong the guy who let the Norks go nuclear is not there any more. He is painting pictures of dogs at his bunker in Texas.
The guy who killed Binladin is in the White house. You know the guy who has bulked up forces in ASia.
Hard to say what China will do. It is so complex. but a seizure of North Korea to ensure peace is surely being considered. Not likely but it certainly has some merit if you are Chinese. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
No way America, Japan, and South Korea would ever allow that kind of power grab. |
Goat asked me what my strategy would be, presumably if I were in charge of devising one for "Team America," so you can hardly object to it on grounds that "Team America" would not allow it. I agree the only "realistic" strategy is containment, but that us because modern America runs entirely on amoral "run out the clock" baby boomer philosophy: they do not care about leaving future generations a rogue nuclear power full of suffering citizens so long as the situation doesn't go to Hell until after they die. |
Ok, then Japan wouldn't allow it, and it would cause them to rearm, which they've already started doing, and trigger an arms race and potential conflict between the two countries, possibly made worse by some power grab over some uninhabited rock they both claim. |
So we can't let China seize and administer North Korea because it would cause Japan to rearm, something you just said they're already doing? Cogent.
| Leon wrote: |
| How many modern invasions intended to provide liberation have ever turned out for the better? |
Very few, and I've generally condemned them. The plan as I've described it, though, isn't to provide liberation; it doesn't "free" North Korea at all, but rather, replaces the current regime with a proven pre-existing one.
| Leon wrote: |
| I think the only sustainable situation has to come from within the country, rather than brought about by outside powers. |
Something I'd generally agree with which I no longer believe is possible in this specific instance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
No way America, Japan, and South Korea would ever allow that kind of power grab. |
Goat asked me what my strategy would be, presumably if I were in charge of devising one for "Team America," so you can hardly object to it on grounds that "Team America" would not allow it. I agree the only "realistic" strategy is containment, but that us because modern America runs entirely on amoral "run out the clock" baby boomer philosophy: they do not care about leaving future generations a rogue nuclear power full of suffering citizens so long as the situation doesn't go to Hell until after they die. |
Ok, then Japan wouldn't allow it, and it would cause them to rearm, which they've already started doing, and trigger an arms race and potential conflict between the two countries, possibly made worse by some power grab over some uninhabited rock they both claim. |
So we can't let China seize and administer North Korea because it would cause Japan to rearm, something you just said they're already doing? Cogent. |
They are doing so slowly now. After an aggressive move like that, Japan would react strongly as well, as would South Korea. Tensions between these countries are already pretty high, and they've spent most of their history fighting each other.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| How many modern invasions intended to provide liberation have ever turned out for the better? |
Very few, and I've generally condemned them. The plan as I've described it, though, isn't to provide liberation; it doesn't "free" North Korea at all, but rather, replaces the current regime with a proven pre-existing one.
|
You would take a country whose entire Juche philosophy, as ridiculouse as it is, is based upon getting rid of imperialists an imperil government int the form of the Chinese? Even if their situation improves in the short run it wouldn't be stable.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I think the only sustainable situation has to come from within the country, rather than brought about by outside powers. |
Something I'd generally agree with which I no longer believe is possible in this specific instance. |
I think as information starts get into the country at a greater rate things will change, maybe slowly, maybe overnight when no one expects it. Any regime overthrow will have a high amount of deaths and l |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
No way America, Japan, and South Korea would ever allow that kind of power grab. |
Goat asked me what my strategy would be, presumably if I were in charge of devising one for "Team America," so you can hardly object to it on grounds that "Team America" would not allow it. I agree the only "realistic" strategy is containment, but that us because modern America runs entirely on amoral "run out the clock" baby boomer philosophy: they do not care about leaving future generations a rogue nuclear power full of suffering citizens so long as the situation doesn't go to Hell until after they die. |
Ok, then Japan wouldn't allow it, and it would cause them to rearm, which they've already started doing, and trigger an arms race and potential conflict between the two countries, possibly made worse by some power grab over some uninhabited rock they both claim. |
So we can't let China seize and administer North Korea because it would cause Japan to rearm, something you just said they're already doing? Cogent. |
They are doing so slowly now. After an aggressive move like that, Japan would react strongly as well, as would South Korea. Tensions between these countries are already pretty high, and they've spent most of their history fighting each other.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| How many modern invasions intended to provide liberation have ever turned out for the better? |
Very few, and I've generally condemned them. The plan as I've described it, though, isn't to provide liberation; it doesn't "free" North Korea at all, but rather, replaces the current regime with a proven pre-existing one.
|
You would take a country whose entire Juche philosophy, as ridiculouse as it is, is based upon getting rid of imperialists an imperil government int the form of the Chinese? Even if their situation improves in the short run it wouldn't be stable.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I think the only sustainable situation has to come from within the country, rather than brought about by outside powers. |
Something I'd generally agree with which I no longer believe is possible in this specific instance. |
I think as information starts get into the country at a greater rate things will change, maybe slowly, maybe overnight when no one expects it. Any regime overthrow will have a high amount of deaths and likely not provide a stable solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think Chinese-supported regime change has to involve annexation or 'Chinese overlords' or even blatant Chinese pawns. You could see a transitional government put in place, largely un-democratic (perhaps allow direct democracy in the form of mayors and such), with a goal to transitioning its economy. South Koreans could serve in certain ministerial posts alongside Chinese ones. The Chinese would likely want to maintain party control of the military, which is fine, but I think they'd be willing to accept joint South Korean participation in handling and integrating the economy.
I think the only way China can get to largely run the show is if they make tangible concessions to South Korean participation and guarantees North Korea's independence and set a timetable for eventual unification.
Of course the key thing is how to handle the DMZ. China likely doesn't want an open DMZ because that would lead to an uncontrollable situation where they could be given the boot as part of a popular wave. Of course, S. Korea doesn't want an open border either due to the problems involved. At the same time a completely closed border would be unacceptable as well.
It would certainly be an interesting political wrangle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Chinese invasion with NATO support, with North Korea being subsumed as either a province or an autonomous region of China instead of unified with South Korea. |
That's a much better proposal than is normally championed (especially since it would save the South from being devastated... assuming they're willing to accept Chinese control over their long lost brethren), but I think it fails to take into consideration what Leon mentioned in his last post: Juche and the long history of Kim propaganda. Having any foreign power - even China - forcibly replace the leadership would only justify what the North has been taught for the last 50+ years. Throwing NATO into the mix, while making the Chinese-led invasion more palatable to the international community, would likely make the North even more resentful.
| Quote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Also, since the title has been bandied around these forums a bit, have you read B. R. Myers' The Cleanest Race, and, if so, how do you feel its ideas apply to this current round of rhetoric? |
It looks like it's worth reading based on a glance over it on Amazon, but I haven't read it. It seems to suggest containment as the proper path? |
More or less. It's focus is more on the North's propaganda apparatus and the corner that they've painted themselves into. He doesn't expend much effort arguing in favor of a particular strategy, but all the evidence he analyzes suggests that the North has to implode before anything meaningful can be done.
Whatever your thoughts are towards the North and how we should approach them, it's worth reading for the insight it gives on their actions, past and present.
| Quote: |
| I don't know which element of the containment strategy bothers me more: the fact that it's willing to let the people of North Korea suffer indefinitely in their current plight, or the fact that letting a nation with self-declared aspirations towards achieving a nuclear arsenal capable of striking other continents continue to work on that project is completely ridiculous. Moreover, these two problems are intertwined: the more you apply sanctions to stop the latter, the more you reinforce the former. |
I wouldn't say containment is a 'good' strategy, and you've outlined perfectly well why. But it definitely feels like the least 'bad' option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Of course the key thing is how to handle the DMZ. China likely doesn't want an open DMZ [...] |
What do you mean by "open"? China would definitely benefit by finally having an open rail service, both freight and passenger, through both Koreas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| but I think it fails to take into consideration what Leon mentioned in his last post: Juche and the long history of Kim propaganda. |
I suppose I would say that if the average South Korean can get over centuries of Korean monarchic tradition, the average North Korean can get over decades of Juche tradition. I don't think we ought to underestimate these people in this regard. I also think it's worth remembering that the Korean people have a long historic tradition of being the cultural clients of the Chinese. Reviving that tradition may well be possible. I'm sure there will be hold outs, and I'm sure there will be some dissatisfaction (Hell, monks in Tibet are still immolating themselves, despite the fact that Chinese rule has actually improved Tibetan standard of living, though I'm sure that's not something the average westerner wants to hear given "free Tibet" is orthodox), but we need to consider that there's a not inconsiderable amount of dissatisfaction right now in North Korea as well, evinced both by prison camps and by defections. Would the kickback against Chinese administration in the Joseon Autonomous Region be worse in the long term? I guess I don't know, but I do know that there are plenty of 조선족 living in China already. I have a feeling that two solid generations as a part of China would largely wash out the Juche sentiment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| but I think it fails to take into consideration what Leon mentioned in his last post: Juche and the long history of Kim propaganda. |
I suppose I would say that if the average South Korean can get over centuries of Korean monarchic tradition, the average North Korean can get over decades of Juche tradition. I don't think we ought to underestimate these people in this regard. I also think it's worth remembering that the Korean people have a long historic tradition of being the cultural clients of the Chinese. Reviving that tradition may well be possible. I'm sure there will be hold outs, and I'm sure there will be some dissatisfaction (Hell, monks in Tibet are still immolating themselves, despite the fact that Chinese rule has actually improved Tibetan standard of living, though I'm sure that's not something the average westerner wants to hear given "free Tibet" is orthodox), but we need to consider that there's a not inconsiderable amount of dissatisfaction right now in North Korea as well, evinced both by prison camps and by defections. Would the kickback against Chinese administration in the Joseon Autonomous Region be worse in the long term? I guess I don't know, but I do know that there are plenty of 조선족 living in China already. I have a feeling that two solid generations as a part of China would largely wash out the Juche sentiment. |
If there's one thing history has consistently shown, occupied people don't get over it. Palestinians in some cases have better standards of living, so do afghanis under both Russia and American occupation, then there are groups like the Kurds, etc. North Koreas founding myth was driving out Japan, Kim il Sung got his legitimacy from that conflict. I'm sure that there will be many dissidents, and China has a great record of dealing with that, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
If there's one thing history has consistently shown, occupied people don't get over it. |
The overwhelming majority of occupied people do in fact get over it. The average Tibetan is not immolating himself in the street, he's living his life, and probably living it more happily than he otherwise would have. You never hear about that fellow in the international news, though, and the anti-colonial agenda of your role models is not advanced by bringing him up, so I guess he must not exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
If there's one thing history has consistently shown, occupied people don't get over it. Palestinians in some cases ... |
They don't get over it if they have a religion or culture that keeps them perenially separate from the occupiers.
The UK is a mix of various cultures and invasions. many countries are the same. Given time, integration is the norm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Of course the key thing is how to handle the DMZ. China likely doesn't want an open DMZ [...] |
What do you mean by "open"? China would definitely benefit by finally having an open rail service, both freight and passenger, through both Koreas. |
I poorly chose those words.
I should clarify, a dismantled DMZ with free-flowing traffic.
China would certainly support a limited border, primarily for trade with strict controls on entry and exit. Basically, S. Koreans would be allowed in, but Norks would not be allowed out.
But a completely dismantled border would likely lead to a decrease in Chinese influence as things would probably spiral out of hand in terms of people movement and the push for unification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
If there's one thing history has consistently shown, occupied people don't get over it. Palestinians in some cases ... |
They don't get over it if they have a religion or culture that keeps them perenially separate from the occupiers.
The UK is a mix of various cultures and invasions. many countries are the same. Given time, integration is the norm. |
There is a difference between multi-culturalism and occupation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
If there's one thing history has consistently shown, occupied people don't get over it. |
The overwhelming majority of occupied people do in fact get over it. The average Tibetan is not immolating himself in the street, he's living his life, and probably living it more happily than he otherwise would have. You never hear about that fellow in the international news, though, and the anti-colonial agenda of your role models is not advanced by bringing him up, so I guess he must not exist. |
As opposed to what, your pro-colonial agenda? Of course this type of person exists, there are people who no matter what is going on outside of them will live their lives the same.I mean this is the Tibet with the massive riots and violence just four or years ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Tibetan_unrest
Also note, that out of all the available examples you choose the easiest one. Last time Korea was occupied it was by Japan, many South Koreans still haven't gotten over it and still don't like Japan. It's possible that China might be a more benevolent occupier than Japan was, and it's possible that Korean's might be more willing to be occupied, but that's a shaky proposition at best. China doesn't have a great record dealing with dissidents, or ethnic minorities, and the North Korean's entire governing philosophy revolves around anti-imperialism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Of course the key thing is how to handle the DMZ. China likely doesn't want an open DMZ [...] |
What do you mean by "open"? China would definitely benefit by finally having an open rail service, both freight and passenger, through both Koreas. |
I poorly chose those words.
I should clarify, a dismantled DMZ with free-flowing traffic.
China would certainly support a limited border, primarily for trade with strict controls on entry and exit. Basically, S. Koreans would be allowed in, but Norks would not be allowed out.
But a completely dismantled border would likely lead to a decrease in Chinese influence as things would probably spiral out of hand in terms of people movement and the push for unification. |
I think China would be more worried about their border, as in not wanting a massive flood of North Korean refugees coming into China. The idea that South Korea would tolerate China controlling the border is a non starter. You think Koreans are upset about Dokdo and Japan, imagine if China takes a whole country that they think should belong to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
