Spending a lot of time on North Korea issues this month has made me want to attempt to get my own thoughts about NK Policy better arranged in my head.

I have not been successful yet - but this post below is a part of that effort. It is slightly organized brainstorming… I am also wording it in such a way to keep some key points in mind in a way that I think they should be kept in mind…(particularly in “Option #2″ below)…

Key Policy Factor to Accept:

• North Korea will not reform under the current regime.
• We only handicap ourselves in the nuts-n-bolts dealing with the many complicated issues surrounding North Korea if we refuse to admit some basic facts. This is the key one. I might expand on why I think so later. Below is a short note on it -
• The only way to bring about needed reform is: make the regime fear for its immanent survival more than it fears death from reform, and we do not have the stomach to cause such fear (and risk war).

No reform means the perpetuation of the impossible environment.

• It is politically/socially unthinkable for the major industrial democracies to replace the multinational welfare system led by the Soviets that kept North Korea viable during the Cold War
• This last point is true for either economic or human rights reforms.
• The current regime believes it cannot survive fundamental reform in either area, but without reforms in Human Rights and basic economics, no nation or group of nations can partner up with them enough to stabilize it with significant confidence collapse will be avoided.
• Without a replacement of the Soviet (and China) welfare system, North Korea will remain perpetually on the brink of collapse.
• The fact that such a collapse will come in a nuclear armed North Korea is even more troubling.

Option #1: Aid the Tyranny

• Can the community of nations find a level of support that can keep the regime alive and far enough away from collapse to ease security concerns — and swallow giving North Korea that level of support — without choking on their own vomit?
• I really mean “can we” find such a level of support. There are so many factors at play in possible collapse scenarios, but the bottom line is, we don’t know if we can keep NK alive without major reform regardless of whether we want to or not.
• For example, one of the speakers at the American Enterprise Institute talked about who will succeed Kim Jong Il. He pointed out that the process of assuring the Kim Jong Il rise to the throne (in the only Communist dynastic handover ever) took decades to work, and we have not seen that level of committment to Jong Il’s replacement. So, even with our best effort at keeping hell on earth alive, we could see it all go up in smoke (literally) over something like a power struggle upon Kim’s death.
• The only sure fire way to maintain security, again, is replacing the missing Soviet welfare system (and that still doesn’t guarantee a wild card like the one mentioned above).
• Is there something short of the full welfare system that can give us confidence in the regimes survival without a level of guilt for helping oppress the North Korean people in hell making us hide our faces in shame?
• Can we find a way to balance that see-saw?
• I also mean here that I do not believe we have been providing that adequate level of support necessary to push regime survival into a fairly confident green zone, and what is keeping us from trying a higher level of support is the fact we have a soul (at least a tiny one)

Option #2: Take the Regime Out - One Way or Another

• What are the body counts of the different collapse scenarios?
• —- and how do they stack up to a rough estimate of the body count of North Korean victims of the regime?
• Or, are the 3,000,000 North Koreans who died of famine worth factoring into our thought processes - as well as the masses that could die in the coming decades?
• In other words, if the masses of dead are not South Koreans, Americans, Japanese, and/or Chinese, do they count?
• Or, perhaps put in a way I might like better, what is the body count for peace?

Option #3: Status Quo — Actually, the Death Watch Game

• Will we act horribly surprised when the regime finally collapses - however that collapse comes?
• Will we find our level of bullshit acceptable in hindsight? We’ll we pat each other on the back and say, “We gave it the old college try. We tried to make things better. Pity we were never able to get them to work with us. Now look at all those dead bodies.”
• We got by just fine with Pol Pot’s killing fields, didn’t we? Darfur doesn’t seem to be bothering us enough. Afghanistan didn’t until it struck at home (in a bigger way than it had previously struck).
• As I noted at the end of Option #1 - I do not believe we are currently witnessing a regime survival status quo. The regime proved in the 1990s it had established a level of control and insulation that allowed it to live on when most nations on earth would have already vanished. But, it should not be a surprise to anybody if North Korea collapsed next week (and I mean 7 days from today - or tomorrow even) - or - it kept going another 50 years (and perhaps millions more dead along the way).

I honestly can’t pick which option to support strongly.

I favor #2 the more I think about it, but I do have horrific images of the non-North Korean death toll that could (or could not) result from collapse either by subversion or direct military engagement.

But, I equally can’t swallow my own vomit.

And both option #1 & #2 tends to make me do that…

This is a great post. I agree with all you said.

But think I think based on this point alone:

Option 3 is the best. We can't accept blame for what's going on in North Korea. I believe Option 1 would assume that's what we're doing. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't in the slightest feel threatened by NK, and it's practically on my doorstep.
I think given all factors all we can do is wait.

You don't give the school bully lunch money so he'll stop stealing it from the kids.

__________________
You buy me juice?

I would have to say it is a coin toss at best whether or not - when the regime does collapse - it will strike out to take as many down with it as possible. This could come in a variety of ways - for example - the regime, military, or so on, could lay the blame for the deteriorating situation on "outsiders" and try to remain in power by going to war. It has been done before.

Some policy makers look too much for logical, rational thought in predicting what could happen - such as - "NK would never attack, because it would assure destruction of the regime." History's pages are filled with people and nations making mammoth mistakes or stupid acts.

In a "strike out" situation, it would only take a half and hour or so for NK to unleash horrible destruction on South Korea (and Japan) - if it let off its artillery pieces on Seoul and used its missiles and could effectively deploy WMDs on them.

So, waiting for NK to die to me is a potentially costly crap shoot...

In the mean time, we prop the regime up just enough but not enough and keep our fingers crossed.

And the worst part about this ------ not only do we not give much assurance that a cross-border bloodletting will not happen ----- the aid we give gives the regime minor strength while we watch millions live under a tyranny that is worse than we have witnessed in a long, long time...

I wonder what would happen if USA withdrew its troops from S. Korea. Why are USA so concerned about Korea? Shouldn´t the neigbouring countries be more concerned - China, Russia, Japan, and of course S. Korea?

Maybe I am wrong. And this is also very hypothetical. But I believe, if China, Russia and S. Korea really wanted, they should be able to make N. Korea collaps without too much bloodshed. The problem is that they are probably not very interested.

I do not know about Russia. But I do not think China, being a dictatorship itself, is interested in having another democratic neighbour. Besides, a united Korea might threaten Chinas territory. There are lots of Koreans living in the Chinese province Jilin. And there are Koreans who think at least parts of Jilin should belong to Korea. So N. Korea is needed as a buffer state. China already has problems with N. Korean refugees. If N. Korea collapses there will be an invasion of refugees.
But probably it will be even worse for S. Korea. Are S. Koreans willing to share their welfare with poor N. Koreans? West Germans are complaining about having to share with East Germans. But the differences between East and West Germany cannot be compared with the differences between South and North Korea.

Japan,although not far away, is not a neighbouring country. So I do not think Japan needs to be involved. And I definitely cannot see why USA should be. (Just like I cannot see why USA should have troops in Iraq)

So if USA withdrew the troops from Korea, then China and Russia would have to decide how to deal with the situation.

Except for natural Resources, Gold, Coal, Iron & some costal ports , there is not much reason for any country to desire to overtake North Korea.
The poor and impoverished are good reasons NOT to take over. Of course, Russia could use some slaves. China has no need for any foreigners, but they would like the "Million man Army"!

I see South Korea, the flourishing nation, as the best way out for North Korea, if indeed they ever get to the point where they feel the need for being rescued.

South Korea overwhelmingly feels brotherhood with the North. The South's president has shown himself to be willing to kiss and make up. As long as the South exhibits this atttitude, the North will be more than willing to kiss up and promise anything in return for favors of all kinds. Anything free will be generously accepted by the North! But negotiations will suddenly cut off if the South wants anything in return other than cheap labor. Watch and learn after 30 August.

South Korea is the size of Indiana. There is not much room for expansion anymore. If the population of the North should be alllowed to flow freely across the border, it would be much worse than the Berlin wall being torn down.
The timing and motivation are not right at this time. Don't hold your breath.

But my questions are still un-answered. Why are US troops still in Korea? Are US troops needed? If so, Americans should be very popular among Koreans. But I have the impression Americans are as impopular in Korea as in Iraq. Maybe I am wrong. But an American friend of mine who lived in Korea also told me that.

Which are the American intentions? I doubt they are only philantropic. Is it seeking hegemony, are there economic interests as in the Vietnam war, or what?

In Iraq it seems to be oil. What does USA want from Korea?

U.S. Foreign Policy states the U.S. presence in an area is always in the best interest of the U.S. When or if that ceases, we will leave. The consensus is that we are here to assist the South Koreans. If we were not, perhaps the million man army of the PRNK would swoop down and devour the South. Whether this is a possibiity these days is a question that cannot be answered by the average person. Could we get here quickly enough from our base in Northern Japan? Can we bring Nuclear war from Guam or Hawaii in time to save a major portion of South Korea? I can only speculate.
The older Koreans want us here. The younger ones don't remember the hardships of war, and think they can handle it alone. Youth is a wonderful thing, someone said; too bad it is wasted on the young. Kids cant fight. Girls can't cook. They play video games and thaw frozen blobs in a microwave. They live with their parents until they are 35 or get kicked out. Koreans are so much like Americans now it is scary!
My thoughts are that the U.S. needs a strong presence in the Far East. Should we put all our eggs in one basket? Guam? Japan? Hawaii? Korea? that spreads it out enough to remain a formidable threat in case China or Russia, or a combined force of the two should decide to challenge us for Top Gun position. North Korea is small potatoes, as long as we do not allow nuclear proliferation there. We need to keep an eye on the larger picture. China is the largest Communist Country. If you believe they are our friend, I have some articles for you to read. They are building Nuclear Submarines. So is Russia. Wake up and smell the roses.

In the Korea war USA acted on a UN mandate. I am glad they did.
But nowadays USA acts like a self-proclaimed police. They do not respect UN or the international opinion. They lied about WMD in Iraq in order to start a war. My compatriot ,Hans Blixt, did not find any. And neither did anyone after him.
What is USA defending in S. Korea? Democracy? I find this very hard to believe. USA has a tradition of supporting dictatorships. I respect Jimmy Carter for refusing to do so. But USA is still supportin e.g. Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. stands up for sovereignty or democracy where others only stand by! I agree sometimes we look like the "World Police". But the gutless UN is essentially worthless as a united front. There is little to respect. The WMD story was true. The weapons were hidden, then spirited across the border into Syria, according to Intel sources of two countries. Your compatriots, the Swiss and Swedes, are still here in Korea as a part of the UN Command. Why don't you ask them why they are here? Jimmy Carter was the worst president we ever had, surpassed only by Bill Clinton, who sold secrets to China. We do not support Saudi, by any stretch of the imagination. We work with them as long as doing so appears to be in the interest of the United States.

USA supported Saddam Hussein,Pinochet and other dictators. They toppled and supported the murder of democratically elected Salvador Alliende in Chile.