Kim Jong-Il's death

[mōdgethanc]

Based on what exactly? If there wasn't at least some degree of mutual respect and trust between Reagan and Gorbachev, they never would have agreed to so many joint proposals.

Either way, it's moot because the point is that the Cold War was resolved peaceably without total state collapse, so there's no reason why the Korean War can't be.

[hlysnan]

The USSR ceased to exist and there were revolutions occurring all over the country. Isn't that total state collapse?

Ps. Yasha does the term "massive humanitarian crisis" sound like the best possible outcome here?

North Korea at the moment is itself a massive humanitarian crisis.

[mōdgethanc]

The USSR ceased to exist and there were revolutions occurring all over the country. Isn't that total state collapse?

No. The transition to the USSR's successor state, the Russian Federation, was relatively peaceful and straightforward. If you want a definition of state collapse, see Somalia. It's not hard to imagine NK ending up the same way (civil war, anarchy, famine). None of those happened when the Wall came down.

North Korea at the moment is itself a massive humanitarian crisis.

I couldn't agree more. The problem is that I feel your proposal would only make things worse - either by inviting China to turn the country into even more of a client state, or inviting a catastrophe famine even worse than that of the 90s. Millions would die, and the survival of the state would still be a very real possibility.

[Leviwosc]

This article is in a Dutch newspaper http://www.ad.nl:


Dutch original text:

Tot zes maanden strafkamp voor 'ongevoelige' Noord-Koreanen

Noord-Koreanen die niet genoeg verdriet toonden na de dood van hun voormalig leider Kim Jong-il riskeren zes maanden strafkamp.

Zij die niet deelnamen aan de afscheidsceremonies of niet genoeg huilden om de dood van de 'grote leider', worden beschuldigd van het tonen van 'te weinig emotie' en zullen worden berecht in 'volkstribunalen'. Zo melden Zuid-Koreaanse bronnen.

Kim Jong-il overleed in december aan een hartaanval. De regering van Noord-Korea, onder leiding van zijn zoon Kim Jong-un, heeft laten weten 'de ideeën van de grote revolutionaire leider aan te houden'. (Stephanie van Strijen)

Translation:

Up to six months penal prison camp for 'unsensitive' North-Koreans

North-Koreans who did not cry enough after the death of their former leader Kim Jong-Il risk a six month penalty in a prison camp.

They who did not take part in the funeral ceremonies or didn't weep enough because the 'great leader' died, are accused of showing 'too little emotion' and will be tried in 'folk tribunals'. According to South-Korean sources.

Kim Jong-Il deceased in december caused by a heart attack. The government of North-Korea, led by his son Kim Jong-Un, announced that 'the ideas of the great revolutionary leader will be continued'. (Stephanie van Strijen)

[Bryon]

Well, if it wasn't obvious enough before that their "mourning" was complete and utter bullshit, it's confirmed now. That Kim Kong bastard will be no better than his father, unfortunately.

[Sol Invictus]

The USSR ceased to exist and there were revolutions occurring all over the country. Isn't that total state collapse?

No. The transition to the USSR's successor state, the Russian Federation, was relatively peaceful and straightforward. If you want a definition of state collapse, see Somalia. It's not hard to imagine NK ending up the same way (civil war, anarchy, famine). None of those happened when the Wall came down.

Sorry, but that is extremely ignorant of you. First of all it was Eastern block as whole, not just Russia that collapsed. And the main difference rather is that in Somalia crisis has been going on for longer, the anarchy and bloodshed occurred when USSR collapsed too. Plus I suspect that the rest of the World was more interested in stabilizing situation after collapse of a nuclear superpower, than it was in helping some place in Africa. With North Korea, assuming that its citizens aren't totally brainwashed, they probably will happily reunite with South Korea; it seems unlikely that, since they too have nuclear weapons and huge army, that the world will let things get out of hand as in Somalia.

[mōdgethanc]

Sorry, but that is extremely ignorant of you. First of all it was Eastern block as whole, not just Russia that collapsed.

Thanks for the free history lesson, but I'm well aware of that fact as well as quite a few others about the end of Communism. (Romania wasn't nearly as peaceful as Estonia was, for example.)

And the main difference rather is that in Somalia crisis has been going on for longer, the anarchy and bloodshed occurred when USSR collapsed too.

Whatever anarchy and bloodshed there was, it never came anywhere close to rivaling Somalia, where the death toll from decades of war and famine may be as high as half a million people (and counting).

Plus I suspect that the rest of the World was more interested in stabilizing situation after collapse of a nuclear superpower, than it was in helping some place in Africa.

There is nothing surprising about this. What happens in Somalia, however brutal, does not really affect anything outside the region. What happened in Russia affected the entire planet.

With North Korea, assuming that its citizens aren't totally brainwashed, they probably will happily reunite with South Korea; it seems unlikely that, since they too have nuclear weapons and huge army, that the world will let things get out of hand as in Somalia.

If only it were this easy. Nobody wants to take on the responsibility of clothing, housing and feeding 25 million people, nuclear weapons or not. That's the real reason why we haven't simply let the North Korean regime collapse, as it inevitably would at some point.

[Sol Invictus]

Sorry, but that is extremely ignorant of you. First of all it was Eastern block as whole, not just Russia that collapsed.

Thanks for the free history lesson, but I'm well aware of that fact as well as quite a few others about the end of Communism.

And what justifies calling deaths of hundreds of people a "relatively peaceful" transition? Not saying that as the crisis continues on it doesn't get worse, but that you should define state collapse by its effects, not solely by how long the ensuing chaos rages on.

With North Korea, assuming that its citizens aren't totally brainwashed, they probably will happily reunite with South Korea; it seems unlikely that, since they too have nuclear weapons and huge army, that the world will let things get out of hand as in Somalia.

If only it were this easy. Nobody wants to take on the responsibility of clothing, housing and feeding 25 million people, nuclear weapons or not. That's the real reason why we haven't simply let the North Korean regime collapse, as it inevitably would at some point.

Indeed, but the collapse of Communism elsewhere has shown us that it doesn't always have to end with long lasting humanitarian catastrophe. And people have amazing capability to take care of them selves on one hand and to come together to help those in need on the other hand. Somalia seems to be nobody's problem, but with North Korea we can expect it will end up being South Korea's duty to take care of it.

[mōdgethanc]

And what justifies calling deaths of hundreds of people a "relatively peaceful" transition? Not saying that as the crisis continues on it doesn't get worse, but that you should define state collapse by its effects, not solely by how long the ensuing chaos rages on.

The important part is "relatively". In the USSR, there was a coup attempt, not civil war. There was still overall continuity of government while in Somalia, the state just ceased to exist.

Indeed, but the collapse of Communism elsewhere has shown us that it doesn't always have to end with long lasting humanitarian catastrophe. And people have amazing capability to take care of them selves on one hand and to come together to help those in need on the other hand. Somalia seems to be nobody's problem, but with North Korea we can expect it will end up being South Korea's duty to take care of it.

Ah, that's the problem. South Koreans would probably love to reunite with their Northern brethen (and vice versa) but they do not want millions of refugees streaming into their cities, and neither does China or Japan. The closest historical comparison would be the reunification of Germany, but that's misleading because the average East German (while still poor) was much wealthier than the average North Korean is today. In order for reunification to work, the living standard in North Korea would have to rise by a lot. We can only hope that a future Gorbachev-type leader emerges (like Thein Sein in Burma seems to be trying for right now).

[Sol Invictus]

In the USSR, there was a coup attempt, not civil war.

That is extremely constricted view of what occurred due to collapse of USSR. I can only say once again say that you are being ignorant, deliberately so apparently. There were various episodes of deadly violence, several factions with different agendas and civil war in Caucasus. You think that "total collapse" would be all-out civil war in whole Soviet Union with no government what so ever? Even in Somalia the land is divided between factions that are governing their respective plots of land and there are regions were there is peace.

Ah, that's the problem. South Koreans would probably love to reunite with their Northern brethen (and vice versa) but they do not want millions of refugees streaming into their cities, and neither does China or Japan. The closest historical comparison would be the reunification of Germany, but that's misleading because the average East German (while still poor) was much wealthier than the average North Korean is today. In order for reunification to work, the living standard in North Korea would have to rise by a lot.

For one it is not like opportunity will represent it self tomorrow - the great what-Kim-was-he and his court would have to be great visionaries indeed to give up their power. Meanwhile most former communist countries have softened up to free economy and other western goodies lately. So probably we can expect it from them as well. You never hear Germans complain much about reunification and if when North Korea finally collapses the sentiment favoring reunification will still be alive, it probably will be no-brainier for them to do so despite any difficulties they may have - humans are not very rational beings.

[Car]

You never hear Germans complain much about reunification[...]

That's simply not true at all, for both the West and the East. Considering what reunification already cost us so far and taking into account how many people moved to the West and still do, people here are convinced that a reunification would ruin South Korea and the migration wave would be a lot bigger, of course.
But that's also a thing that's constantly overlooked when we are once again expected to be the main financial contributor in the EU/euro bail outs.

[Sol Invictus]

You never hear Germans complain much about reunification[...]

That's simply not true at all, for both the West and the East. Considering what reunification already cost us so far and taking into account how many people moved to the West and still do, people here are convinced that a reunification would ruin South Korea and the migration wave would be a lot bigger, of course.
But that's also a thing that's constantly overlooked when we are once again expected to be the main financial contributor in the EU/euro bail outs.

I meant that line literary not doubting that you have issues, which probably are still a controversial topic within Germany, but that outside of Germany that issue isn't usually brought up. Point being that, if Germans were willing to bite the bullet (and now nobody even mentions it), why wouldn't Koreans?

[mōdgethanc]

I literally just told you why. It's because North Koreans are much, much poorer.

That is extremely constricted view of what occurred due to collapse of USSR. I can only say once again say that you are being ignorant, deliberately so apparently.

I can only say that I'm not going to continue debating with you if you don't start being more civil.

There were various episodes of deadly violence, several factions with different agendas and civil war in Caucasus.

Yeah I know thanks. That's still nothing comparable to Somalia. Most of Europe was peaceful. There was no civil war in most countries. The only Warsaw Pact country in which there was a violent uprising was Romania, and it was short in duration.

You think that "total collapse" would be all-out civil war in whole Soviet Union with no government what so ever? Even in Somalia the land is divided between factions that are governing their respective plots of land and there are regions were there is peace.

Yes, I think "total collapse" would imply state failure. There was no state failure in the Eastern Bloc, there was broad continuity of government. There is no central government in Somalia to speak of. That's what state failure is.

For one it is not like opportunity will represent it self tomorrow - the great what-Kim-was-he and his court would have to be great visionaries indeed to give up their power. Meanwhile most former communist countries have softened up to free economy and other western goodies lately. So probably we can expect it from them as well.

There is nothing guaranteed about that. For one thing, North Korea doesn't even pretend to be communist anymore. It's just a straight-up dictatorship, like Burma used to be. If North Korea has been able to avoid having to engage in meaningful reforms until now, I don't see why this would suddenly change in the future.

You never hear Germans complain much about reunification

And you call me ignorant! Look up the distinction between "Ossis" and "Wessis" sometime and tell me they don't still complain about it two decades after the fact.

[Sol Invictus]

I can only say that I'm not going to continue debating with you if you don't start being more civil.

I am civil; plus my aim wasn't to "debate" with you, but to point that I feel that calling a messy bloodshed peaceful and straightforward is terribly ignorant - even if you yourself know what really happened, saying that creates wrong impression about the issue to others.

Yes, I think "total collapse" would imply state failure.

Then we must agree to disagree.

There is no central government in Somalia to speak of - that's what state failure is.

There is no central government in the former USSR either.

There is nothing guaranteed about that. For one thing, North Korea doesn't even pretend to be communist anymore. It's just a straight-up dictatorship, like Burma used to be.

Well then even less reason for them not to adopt normal economic system

You never hear Germans complain much about reunification

And you call me ignorant! Look up the distinction between "Ossis" and "Wessis" sometime and tell me they don't still complain about it two decades after the fact.

Didn't I just explain that what I meant was exactly that it would require effort on my behalf to learn about the issue? That in itself speaks volumes about the issue. Plus we are talking about some of the best developed economies in the world.

[mōdgethanc]

I am civil; plus my aim wasn't to "debate" with you

It's not civil to imply that others are being purposefully ignorant, and you are debating with me whether you meant to or not.

I feel that calling a messy bloodshed peaceful and straightforward is terribly ignorant - even if you yourself know what really happened, saying that creates wrong impression about the issue to others.

I don't think I gave anyone the wrong impression. I said it was relatively peaceful, not entirely. Being peaceful relative to Somalia is not a hard thing to do.

Then we must agree to disagree.

Or you could stop equivocating on the meaning of the term "state failure".

There is no central government in the former USSR either.

Again, stop equivocating. There is a state in Russia which is very powerful. There is no state in Somalia, there is anarchy.

Well then even less reason for them not to adopt normal economic system

Except that state survival is a higher priority to them than anything else, including ideology. The introduction of capitalism - even of a limited kind - would mean the end of the North Korean regime and they know it.

Didn't I just explain that what I meant was exactly that it would require effort on my behalf to learn about the issue? That in itself speaks volumes about the issue.

I don't get it. I put forth the effort to learn about the collapse of the USSR, but you won't bother to learn about German reunification? Is that what you're saying?

Plus we are talking about some of the best developed economies in the world.

West Germany and South Korea are/were some of the best developed economies in the world. North Korea ranks near the very bottom. Even East Germany was never that bad. The gap between the two Koreas is much wider than that between the two Germanies was and that's a fact.

[Sol Invictus]

I am civil; plus my aim wasn't to "debate" with you

It's not civil to imply that others are being purposefully ignorant, and you are debating with me whether you meant to or not.

Suit yourself. Though I am under impression that whenever somebody answers to your post you take it as cue to start a needlessly long conversation in which both sides will endlessly state the same thing. That is hairsplitting, not a healthy debate. It needs to end as soon as it is ascertained that other side won't budge; especially if it is off-topic in the first place.

Then we must agree to disagree.

Or you could stop equivocating on the meaning of the term "state failure".

We weren't discussing the meaning of "state failure", but of "state collapse". Again - if you don't see a difference between those two, we are done.

There is no central government in the former USSR either.

Again, stop equivocating. There is a state in Russia which is very powerful. There is no state in Somalia, there is anarchy.

Maybe you should stop yourself - I am not the one constantly mixing up Russia with USSR and the Eastern block.

Well then even less reason for them not to adopt normal economic system

Except that state survival is a higher priority to them than anything else, including ideology. The introduction of capitalism - even of a limited kind - would mean the end of the North Korean regime and they know it.

Why? Nobody says they have to enable free flow of information and start to respect human rights to introduce new economical system.

Didn't I just explain that what I meant was exactly that it would require effort on my behalf to learn about the issue? That in itself speaks volumes about the issue.

I don't get it. I put forth the effort to learn about the collapse of the USSR, but you won't bother to learn about German reunification? Is that what you're saying?

No, I was saying that you misunderstood what I meant - distinct lack of opportunity to learn about an issue by accident, while being presented with some other information on the topic, usually means that it isn't a critical issue. Will I need to explain it to you for the fourth time?

Plus we are talking about some of the best developed economies in the world.

West Germany and South Korea are/were some of the best developed economies in the world.

What I meant was that Germany, now united, still is one of the largest economies in the world, if the reunification would have been truly devastating, it wouldn't be. And that South Korea might be strong enough to accommodate the blow.

North Korea ranks near the very bottom. Even East Germany was never that bad. The gap between the two Koreas is much wider than that between the two Germanies was and that's a fact.

North Korea ranks hardly anywhere, because most people appreciate that we have hardly any reliable facts on the country.

[mōdgethanc]

Suit yourself. Though I am under impression that whenever somebody answers to your post you take it as cue to start a needlessly long conversation in which both sides will endlessly state the same thing. That is hairsplitting, not a healthy debate. It needs to end as soon as it is ascertained that other side won't budge; especially if it is off-topic in the first place.

I am perfectly willing to budge when you explain to me how the former USSR lacks central governance and how the collapse of Communism is comparable in humanitarian terms to state failure in Somalia.

We weren't discussing the meaning of "state failure", but of "state collapse". Again - if you don't see a difference between those two, we are done.

Perhaps you would care to explain the difference between the two to me, because I fail to see one. Who's splitting hairs now?

Maybe you should stop yourself - I am not the one constantly mixing up Russia with USSR and the Eastern block.

So Russia isn't part of the former USSR, then? Pick a state: there is not one that lacks a strong central government.

Why? Nobody says they have to enable free flow of information and start to respect human rights to introduce new economical system.

They certainly don't, but that's the inevitable result. Economic freedom leads to personal freedom. They are corollaries.

No, I was saying that you misunderstood what I meant - distinct lack of opportunity to learn about an issue by accident, while being presented with some other information on the topic, usually means that it isn't a critical issue.

""Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

What I meant was that Germany, now united, still is one of the largest economies in the world, if the reunification would have been truly devastating, it wouldn't be. And that South Korea might be strong enough to accommodate the blow.

I already explained that German reunification worked because the divide between the two was not nearly as drastic as that between the two Koreas. South Korea might be able to handle the stress of caring for millions of refugees, but it's definitely not an optimal outcome for anyone.

North Korea ranks hardly anywhere, because most people appreciate that we have hardly any reliable facts on the country.

Which is not really true. We lack official statistics, yes. Reports from defectors and espionage have given us the impression of a country on the brink of collapse. These are generally regarded as reliable.

[Sol Invictus]

I am perfectly willing to budge when you explain to me how the former USSR lacks central governance and how the collapse of Communism is comparable in humanitarian terms to state failure in Somalia.

There currently is no central USSR government an indication of the fact that the state collapsed. If you actually go trough the list of criteria for failed state, you actually will see some are close to describing Soviet Union, it would acctualy be very interesting to see how they would rank it.

We weren't discussing the meaning of "state failure", but of "state collapse". Again - if you don't see a difference between those two, we are done.

Perhaps you would care to explain the difference between the two to me, because I fail to see one.

State failure is failure of the state to deliver on its duties to its citizens. It does share some similar characteristics with state collapse, but rather than being the same thing it is a prelude of state collapse. State collapse is when state ceases to exist. Both Somalia and USSR collapsed, but in case of Somalia instead of moving on it continues to vegetate.

Why? Nobody says they have to enable free flow of information and start to respect human rights to introduce new economical system.

They certainly don't, but that's the inevitable result. Economic freedom leads to personal freedom. They are corollaries.

They could allow free trade within the country and still limit contact with the outside world.

North Korea ranks hardly anywhere, because most people appreciate that we have hardly any reliable facts on the country.

Which is not really true. We lack official statistics, yes. Reports from defectors and espionage have given us the impression of a country on the brink of collapse. These are generally regarded as reliable.

It is excluded from most state comparisons. The only thing there seems to be is the CIA world factbook, which doesn't rank it at very bottom for anything, but Internet access. Rather it is somewhere in middle and actually seems to have very good health care system Now as for how it compares with Germany - do we actually have any statistics on gap between VDR and DDR that we could use to compare with Korea?

[Car]

I meant that line literary not doubting that you have issues, which probably are still a controversial topic within Germany, but that outside of Germany that issue isn't usually brought up. Point being that, if Germans were willing to bite the bullet (and now nobody even mentions it), why wouldn't Koreans?

I don't doubt that Koreans want to reunite, most people here think they do although some doubt it, but most here also think it would completely ruin South Korea. Sure, a lot of money was and is wasted here, but even if they don't repeat the same mistakes, they'd have to spend so much more, also to keep everyone from moving to the South. For East Germany, there was at least some money from the EU (although that was reduced a lot after the two east enlargements), but would anyone help South Korea with the North? Did you know that East Germany lost 10% of its population to the West between 1989 and 2008 (source)? For Korea, it would be a lot higher than that. Migration isn't the only aspect, though, because investment is another. Infrastructure, labour market etc., everything would have to be worked in.

[mōdgethanc]

There currently is no central USSR government an indication of the fact that the state collapsed.

That's not what I understood your point to mean. To me, you were implying that the states that make up the former USSR lack central governments. Of course there is no central government that serves as a successor state to the USSR - that would be Russia.

If you actually go trough the list of criteria for failed state, you actually will see some are close to describing Soviet Union, it would acctualy be very interesting to see how they would rank it.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/17/2011_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings

Most of them appear to be "borderline", which is in the middle. Somalia is ranked as "critical", or the very bottom.

State failure is failure of the state to deliver on its duties to its citizens. It does share some similar characteristics with state collapse, but rather than being the same thing it is a prelude of state collapse. State collapse is when state ceases to exist. Both Somalia and USSR collapsed, but in case of Somalia instead of moving on it continues to vegetate.

I find this definition acceptable. The problem is that I can easily see North Korea becoming a failed state were its regime to collapse, because the institutions of statehood are not well-developed there, and which ones that exist are mostly cobbled together out of Stalinist ideology and the military.

They could allow free trade within the country and still limit contact with the outside world.

Historically, this rarely works. China and Japan had policies of isolationism at one point which broke down under pressure from Western countries to allow increased trade freedom.

It is excluded from most state comparisons. The only thing there seems to be is the CIA world factbook, which doesn't rank it at very bottom for anything, but Internet access. Rather it is somewhere in middle and actually seems to have very good health care system.

There are still indications of widespread starvation and malnourishment, and it's clear the country ranks near the very bottom on measures of personal and economic freedom. Freedom House considers it one of the "Worst of the Worst" on measures of human rights.

Only one country, North Korea, has been at the bottom of the ratings scale every year since the Freedom in the World survey began nearly 40 years ago [...]

Now as for how it compares with Germany - do we actually have any statistics on gap between VDR and DDR that we could use to compare with Korea?

In relative terms, North Korea's economy is currently worse than that of East Germany was in 1990. The income per capita ratio (PPP) was about 3:1 in Germany (US$25,000 for West, about US$8,500 for East). The ratio is about 17:1 in Korea (US$29,791 for South, US$1,800 for North).