5 ms·

Why cannot the west deescalate its relationship to North Korea? Sure it is fun to read about "cyberhacking" and secret missions but would diplomacy and trade no

by chvid 10y ago

Why cannot the west deescalate its relationship to North Korea? Sure it is fun to read about "cyberhacking" and secret missions but would diplomacy and trade not be the more constructive path? North Korea must have a fundamental interest in setting on the same path of growth as all its Asian neighbours; something that has happened without changing the political regime of these countries. And we in the west would clearly benifit from that and have already seen the rise of Japan, South Korea and China without military conflict. I know the explanation is that they are "crazy" and "irrational". But those are traits of individual persons; I find it hard to believe that can apply to a whole country.

WillyOnWheels 10y ago
North Korea wants recognition that it and the US is still at war (even though the rest of the entire planet does not consider the US and NK to be at war). They also want the US to directly negotiate with it (NK). Whenever the US feels like negotiating with NK, it calls a meeting with South Korea, China, and Japan... bizarrely and deliberately not involving NK. The political and military (perhaps in NK they are the same thing) leadership in NK belligerently fires missiles and pursues a nuclear weapons program because the current government in NK wants to stay in power, and this is their way of trying to preserve this. I'm not saying it'll work, but that's their line of reasoning.
vtange 10y ago
You make it sound like we're the source of antagonism to the North. We're still technically at war and last I checked we're not the ones firing missiles and gloating about "setting Seoul or Los Angeles in flames. The thing about economically aiding dictatorships is that there's no guarantee you're actually helping the non-'crazy' innocent folks - the dictator is in control so you might just be enriching him and lengthening the people's suffering.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  That's nonsense, just as much nonsense as saying that economic sanctions against a dictatorship hurt that dictator more than it hurts the people there. Of course it doesn't. The guarantee is that the dictator will not eat one truffle less and that the people will suffer more. The best way to attack a dictatorship is to fund a middle class with something to lose.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
kjs3 10y ago
Came for the inevitable "it's the Wests fault", was not disappointed.
yk 10y ago
There is the theory, that a "bad" actor has quite a bit to gain from being the "worst" actor, since the worst actor is in a natural leadership role for all bad actors. (Were "bad" and "worst" can be read as "opposed to western interests" if you prefer less loaded terms.) In a similar fashion, the North Korean elite has quite a bit to gain from having a nightmarish dystopia, since they are at the top of that nightmare, and the thing is, they set the foreign policy. So it is by no means a given that NK has a fundamental interest in better international relations, and on the other hand western governments are not immune to internal pressure. That is, if a US or western government would try to bribe NK into a strategy change, then the opposition would claim that the government "does not stand up to a bully."
dgudkov 10y ago
It doesn't depend much on the West. In North Korea (and to lesser extent in Russia) the anti-Western discourse is needed to keep local population mobilized and under control. Having an external enemy also provides legitimate ways to suppress opposition -- something that happens in both countries. Therefore deescalating relationships with the West is directly against the interests of the governing elites.

by chvid 10y ago

WillyOnWheels 10y ago

North Korea wants recognition that it and the US is still at war (even though the rest of the entire planet does not consider the US and NK to be at war). They also want the US to directly negotiate with it (NK). Whenever the US feels like negotiating with NK, it calls a meeting with South Korea, China, and Japan... bizarrely and deliberately not involving NK. The political and military (perhaps in NK they are the same thing) leadership in NK belligerently fires missiles and pursues a nuclear weapons program because the current government in NK wants to stay in power, and this is their way of trying to preserve this. I'm not saying it'll work, but that's their line of reasoning.

vtange 10y ago

You make it sound like we're the source of antagonism to the North. We're still technically at war and last I checked we're not the ones firing missiles and gloating about "setting Seoul or Los Angeles in flames. The thing about economically aiding dictatorships is that there's no guarantee you're actually helping the non-'crazy' innocent folks - the dictator is in control so you might just be enriching him and lengthening the people's suffering.

jacquesm 10y ago
That's nonsense, just as much nonsense as saying that economic sanctions against a dictatorship hurt that dictator more than it hurts the people there. Of course it doesn't. The guarantee is that the dictator will not eat one truffle less and that the people will suffer more. The best way to attack a dictatorship is to fund a middle class with something to lose.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

kjs3 10y ago

Came for the inevitable "it's the Wests fault", was not disappointed.

yk 10y ago

There is the theory, that a "bad" actor has quite a bit to gain from being the "worst" actor, since the worst actor is in a natural leadership role for all bad actors. (Were "bad" and "worst" can be read as "opposed to western interests" if you prefer less loaded terms.) In a similar fashion, the North Korean elite has quite a bit to gain from having a nightmarish dystopia, since they are at the top of that nightmare, and the thing is, they set the foreign policy. So it is by no means a given that NK has a fundamental interest in better international relations, and on the other hand western governments are not immune to internal pressure. That is, if a US or western government would try to bribe NK into a strategy change, then the opposition would claim that the government "does not stand up to a bully."

dgudkov 10y ago

It doesn't depend much on the West. In North Korea (and to lesser extent in Russia) the anti-Western discourse is needed to keep local population mobilized and under control. Having an external enemy also provides legitimate ways to suppress opposition -- something that happens in both countries. Therefore deescalating relationships with the West is directly against the interests of the governing elites.