North Korea- Children of the Secret State

[...]

Bruno, I think you missed the point of the paragraph you read: Schwartz raised Iran specifically to say, "look, that's not the main danger or issue here; Japan is." In the rest of the article, which you didn't read so can't be blamed for missing, he downplays the Iranian nuclear threat (which he doesn't rate much anyway), to focus on Japan, and its coming clash with NoKo. I think this goes against the Frank Gaffney-style kneejerk, which says, "well, fine. Give Japan nukes."

So much for your, ahem, close reading.

Now then, on the basis of your antipathy to Schwartz, you suggest we drop Japan, South Korea, China, and, I'm supposing, Russia, Pakistan and Iran out of the picture altogether, to get back to the only really important issue (the only game in town!), being: what America's up to. Something awful, no doubt. Maybe they're giving Japan nukes. Who knows? I just think, however, that by reducing the argument thus, we're missing...oh, I don't know, something...

So you want to let Kim Jong-Il die of natural causes, let the problem solve itself (assuming it doesn't solve us in the meantime), and this is very humanitarian of you. I think. Anyway, I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

Apart from that, I don't understand what your objection to my post is. I mean, my point was, it's not merely a Communist regime with strict Soviet ideology. Are you prepared to counter that?

 

[bruno]

fair enough, i didn't read the article. the opening statement seemed a bit ludicrous but there you go.

what i took issue with was your labelling a communist regime fascist. i mean you can always identify fascist elements within a communist regime and vice versa but for practical purposes these are two separate things. and there is no such thing as pure communism, there are as many variants outside of the soviet template as there are variants of anything else, the nk version being a strange dynastic hybrid doesen't make it any less communist. you don't call a dog a cat just because it's an animal too, things have names for a reason.

i don't see the negative connotation in the words 'american presence' but it's an issue, particularly in asia where there is a physical military presence, a fight for strategic control with china and a collision with pre-existing regional interests that have nothing to do with the u.s.

regarding engaging with the world i believe in minding my own business and not meddling in other people's affairs, basically! and in deterrence, diplomacy, intelligence and so on. i don't believe in these sick military-humanitarian hybrids, rescuing people against their will, etc. it's wrong, arbitrary, counterproductive and introduces anarchy to the only set of rules yet proven to avert massive conflict.

 

[donthatenkkids]

Dear fellow:

We thank you for your Heroic defense of our Great Nation in our struggle against Imperialism.

We wish you prosperity and happiness, expressing the belief that International friendship with Korea will be strengthened and developed by efforts such as yours.

Please see your Private Message for token of our appreciation.

Regards,
Leader Kim Jong-Il
General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea
Chairman of the DPRK National Defence Commission

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)

LOL!

 

[budub]

chuckles for everyone!

 

[gek-opel]

@hundredmillionlifetimes: I'm with you on how and why this film might have turned up at this point in time, but there is an issue here in terms of how to sort out the problem of nuclear arms, not just in North Korea but in the UK, Israel, America, Pakistan, India, etc etc. And how to prevent those who would want to obtain them obtaining them (not sure who would be in a legitimate position to do this though, given that those who would at present prevent other nations from owning them are themselves updating/upgrading their own arsenals). Some will see there are inherent distinctions between "democracies" and "dictatorships", that democracies are inherently good, I certainly don't believe that. Also, it is a little pointless to attempt to balance out the harm done by states against the harm done by other states when the harms are so different (US/UK harm diffuse, but ongoing, insidious, North Korea's internalised, more obvious etc etc).

If your desire is to remove nuclear threat: how would you have it done, and by whom, given the total lack of moral legitimacy of the potential actors here, and the lack of efficacy and moral legitimacy of their current strategy (ie- sanctions, which as you rightly point out were utterly disastrous and iniquitous in Iraq in the 90s)?

 

[budub]

well put. i'm not sure i agree with every single point, but i have considered them all because of the manner in which you have presented your position

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

@hundredmillionlifetimes: I'm with you on how and why this film might have turned up at this point in time, but there is an issue here in terms of how to sort out the problem of nuclear arms, not just in North Korea but in the UK, Israel, America, Pakistan, India, etc etc. And how to prevent those who would want to obtain them obtaining them (not sure who would be in a legitimate position to do this though, given that those who would at present prevent other nations from owning them are themselves updating/upgrading their own arsenals).

Needless to say, sorting out those problems has been the focus of many analysts for the past six decades, but - in the continuing absense of any actual international institution independent of the hegemony of nuclear-armed nations - reason and rationality are far off the radar in the pragmatic-realpolitic geopolitical present of escalating defensive belligerence and the realisation by all vulnerable [read: resisting complete submission to neoliberal ideology] non-nuclear countries that they will be aggressively targeted unless they acquire nuclear weaponry. It should be clear that nuclear arms proliferation is now occurring at a rate not seen since the frenetic expansion of the 1960s [I should imagine Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are now also hard at it ...]. Take, for instance, this brief survey of the problem in NorthEast Asia by an American realpolitic liberal:

[Then you could watch the quaint Dr. Helen Caldicott's analysis of the devastating impacts of a possible nuclear attack on Iran: The Dangers of a Nuclear War - 40 min Video. ]


"The North Korean Imbroglio: Who Gains?"
by Immanuel Wallerstein

North Korea has joined the nuclear club, and everyone else claims they are upset. Are they really? There are five actors that really count in this affair: North Korea, the United States, South Korea, China, and Japan. They have all in fact reacted quite differently.

North Korea is undoubtedly the most pleased of all. They set off a nuclear explosion for several obvious reasons. They are persuaded that having a weapon in hand eliminates the likelihood of a United States attack. And it probably does. They also wanted to be taken more seriously as a world actor. And despite appearances in the last few weeks, they have probably accomplished this too. They wanted to show not only the United States but everyone else, specifically including China, that there was nothing much they could do about North Korea's decision, and they seem to have done that. And underlying all this, their primary objective no doubt is the survival of the regime. And they have probably done as much as is within their power to ensure this. But of course they too are not all-powerful.

The general world analysis of the effect of their action is that it will ensure a spread of nuclear armament, first of all in the region. I agree. Within a very short time, I expect Japan to start its program. It will be followed by South Korea. And then - no one mentions this - it will be followed by Taiwan, thus realizing a totally nuclearized Northeast Asia. Is this good or bad? The answer depends on whose perspective you take.

The United States is surely the most unhappy. In a period when U.S. effective power is declining everywhere, the last zone where it still seemed to have a strong edge has been Northeast Asia. No more. The Bush regime hasn't known what to do. It pushed for a rapid punishment of North Korea by the U.N. Security Council. What it came up with was a limp rag - a resolution that, albeit unanimous, might have been written by the North Koreans. Had a Democratic administration agreed to such a resolution, the first person to denounce it for its weakness would have been John Bolton. But since Bolton is Bush's Ambassador to the United Nations, he has hailed the resolution as a great accomplishment. Unpersuaded by Bolton's rhetoric, Condoleezza Rice has made the rounds of Northeast Asia, saying that she can not impose on anyone how they will implement the limp rag. Still she "expects" that China and South Korea will live up to the obligations she presumes they have, which they have no intention of doing and have said so.

Japan claims that it is very unhappy, and shares the U.S. hardline position. Pardon me for being skeptical. Isn't Shinzo Abe the man who became prime minister by promising to make Japan into a "normal" nation? This is code language for changing the constitution, creating a full-fledged army and nuclear weapons. The North Korean nuclear explosion gives Abe the immediate justification, and he will take it. Indeed, U.S. neo-cons are publicly calling on him to take it. They do so because they believe it will strengthen the U.S. position in the region and make more likely military action against North Korea.

But a Japanese nuclear program may well have the opposite consequence. The one thing that has tied Japan most closely to the United States in the last fifty years has been Japan's dependence on the U.S. nuclear shield. Once Japan has its own nuclear weapons, it has the possibility of being more independent. And sooner or later, it will realize this possibility.

China is of course unhappy, and for many reasons. For one thing, North Korea's action exposes the limits of China's power, which seems as helpless as the United States in this situation. For another thing, nuclear proliferation is not in China's interests. It's not worried about North Korea. It's worried about Japan and, above all, Taiwan.

Japan and South Korea share the desperate desire to see the North Korean regime survive (no "regime change" in their program). They are both banking on the possibility that their various kinds of economic assistance will bring about a slow and mild liberalization of the regime - more of the Deng Xiaopeng than the Gorbachev variety. Whether this is realistic we shall have to see. But do they have any choice except to bank on it, and work for it?

South Korea is in the most difficult position of the five powers. It is the only country in which public opinion seems split down the middle - between the party in power which believes in "engagement" with North Korea and the opposition which wants to replicate the Japanese position of close alignment with the United States. This will undoubtedly be one of the major issues in next year's presidential elections.​