How long do you think the DPRK is going to exist for?

[Archbob]

Until China decides to stop giving them rice -- which is never.

 

[Cutlass]

Korea doesn't aid us in protecting Japan or North America. And we don't have any other interests in the region except Taiwan, which is also not positioned such that Korea helps us there. If Korea no longer needs us, then that's a place where we can draw down without disrupting our other interests.

 

[Takhisis]

But Juche is in itself an autarchic or at least quasi-autarchic program, so I'm sceptical as to how open that is to the sort of innovation that the North Korean state needs.


It's most about national self-reliance, and while that's possibly compatible with international trade, I don't know if it is similarly compatible with rentier-statism.

Avoiding reunification, which is quite possibly the outcome of the collapse of the North Korean state. It would be an economic catastrophefor South Korea if it had to take responsibility for the North- the equivalent of having half your country devastated by natural disaster- which is something the US quite understandably wants to avoid. So it's in the interests of the US to keep the DPRK ticking just enough that it doesn't actually collapse, but not so much that it poses any real threat.

Besides, this is a documented thing. So whether or not it makes sense, it happened.

You yourself demonstrate that self-reliance is ficticious and the DPRK's diplomnacy consists of saying 'Hey, I lied! I am doing this thing you bribed me off of last year' and get themselves re-bribed because they can't make ends meet any other way. Perfect vicious circle: keep your people nearly starved in order to develop weapons in order to shake foreign countries down in order to feed your population so you can again develop weapons…

Of course they want it, but it's like Irish Unification. They want it someday. Especially since by keeping it ticking the ROK stands to make great heaps of money now


It's not exactly a secret. It's one of those open secret that everybody knows, but no one is willing to come out and say.
As for the US, it has it's own reasons for wanting to delay unification. Pretty much the day unification happens, we're going to be told to leave the country. We lose our only foothold on mainland Asia, and the defense perimeter against China moves back to Taiwan and Japan.
Not to mention all the potential for crisis a collapse of the DPRK allows for, so yeah, the U.S. and the ROK just want to keep the regime on life support.

Afterall to the north they have the giant China, across the sea to the East they have Japan. They do not get on well with either (to my limited knowledge). I can't really see on the map of Asia a natural ally for Korea.
I just didn't buy Traitorfish's explaination that "food aid!" = "we want your regime to survive untill it stops benefitting us".[/QUOTE]

So what if the US is told to get out? Why would we want to stay all that badly?

USA #1. hope that suffices as an answer.

Park, thats seems like a more reasonable explaination for that. Although I wouldn't say a united Korea would tell the yanks to leave is certain.

Polls put it at something like 90% of the ROK is in favor of the U.S. leaving. DPRK people are unlikely to be any happier.

90%? Then why haven't they told the Yanks to leave? Is it just the threat of NK invading? What's the US doing to force the ROK to let them stay?

Afterall to the north they have the giant China, across the sea to the East they have Japan. They do not get on well with either (to my limited knowledge). I can't really see on the map of Asia a natural ally for Korea.
I just didn't buy Traitorfish's explaination that "food aid!" = "we want your regime to survive untill it stops benefitting us".

Historically, it's China. China is viewed much more favorably in Korea then in the west, and it's likely that they'll probably move closer to the Chinese orbit after unification. Another good reason for the U.S. to keep the regime ticking.

Could they possibly join with the Japanese if the Chinese get too expansionistic?

 

[ParkCungHee]

90%? Then why haven't they told the Yanks to leave? Is it just the threat of NK invading? What's the US doing to force the ROK to let them stay?

The U.S. isn't forcing them to do something, per se. There's just way too many vested interests in them being there, and having a closer relationship with the United States. Almost everyone in Korea wants it to happen, but very rarely do politicians who promise it get elected, and those that do find the issue is more complicated then they thought.

Could they possibly join with the Japanese if the Chinese get too expansionistic?

Possibly, but fears of an expansionist China are overblown. China has enough trouble maintaining control over their current borders.

 

[Takhisis]

Yes, but China can control their borders in the short term (especially if they keep the forced migrations to Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongolia to make the natives become ethnic minorities) while North Korea could collapse with every single failed harvest or every time one of their generals fires upon ROK vessels -what if they mistake a Chinese ship for a Korean one and they hit it? Improbable but not impossible- and that's every year.

 

[Traitorfish]

You yourself demonstrate that self-reliance is ficticious and the DPRK's diplomnacy consists of saying 'Hey, I lied! I am doing this thing you bribed me off of last year' and get themselves re-bribed because they can't make ends meet any other way. Perfect vicious circle: keep your people nearly starved in order to develop weapons in order to shake foreign countries down in order to feed your population so you can again develop weapons…

Yeah, but there's a difference between accepting aid and accepting foreign investment. As I said, my concern isn't so much that North Koreans suddenly realise that their national mythology is nonsense and go into a panic, but that the institutional logic of the state becomes so disconnected from reality that it becomes impossible to function. That's likelier to happen if the DPRK has to go through some sort of major economic reforms than if they simply get their rice from a different place.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

What interest could the US have in subsidising a country of the likes of North Korea? The USA certainly has a history of supporting dictatorships but considering the DPRK's stance towards the USA, it seems a little bit non-sensical at best.

I see you have a short memory so I will remind you.

North Korea has been leveraging its threat by nuclear weapons by demanding bribes from the US, and other nations. So far, it's been getting what it wants. It needs that money because it certainly doesn't have enough of its own. If it did, it would never face mass starvation. It could import food to make up for any deficiency. Whether it would actually ever make good on its threats is uncertain, because once it did, its point of leverage is gone.

Ideally, the US should simply refuse to stop sending "aid" to North Korea for its starvation (that money doesn't really make it to the people, or else there would no longer be starvation). The DPRK would then have to make good on its threat. The result of that, in my opinion, would be to get the attention of its neighbors, like China, who would not be pleased to have a nuclear exchange at its border. This may force actions that might stop that war before it started, perhaps leading to the collapse of the regime FROM WITHIN. But again, this is speculative. All I can say for sure is that as long as the gravy train keeps rolling in, the North will remain.

 

[Winner]

(OP question):

6 months. Give or take another 6 months.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ideally, the US should simply refuse to stop sending "aid" to North Korea for its starvation (that money doesn't really make it to the people, or else there would no longer be starvation). The DPRK would then have to make good on its threat. The result of that, in my opinion, would be to get the attention of its neighbors, like China, who would not be pleased to have a nuclear exchange at its border. This may force actions that might stop that war before it started, perhaps leading to the collapse of the regime FROM WITHIN. But again, this is speculative. All I can say for sure is that as long as the gravy train keeps rolling in, the North will remain.

The problem being, as Park and I have noted, that the collapse of the DPRK is the very last thing that the South or the US wants to happen. That would be true whether or not Kim was sitting on nukes; the nukes just limit the possibilities of pursuing alternative outcomes.

 

[Dumanios]

Aside from US and RoK interests, a new regime in charge rises the question of whether or not the new boss will be the same as the old boss. North Korea seems pretty stable, anyway, at least compared to much of the middle east.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

The new guy looks like the podgy , geeky Asian kid at school who can't even tie his own shoelaces. He genuinely looks stunned to be there , like some reluctant Pythonesque monarch.

 

[Traitorfish]

Kim Jong-Un Privately Doubting He's Crazy Enough To Run North Korea

 

[Winner]

Aside from US and RoK interests, a new regime in charge rises the question of whether or not the new boss will be the same as the old boss. North Korea seems pretty stable, anyway, at least compared to much of the middle east.

That's why it will collapse suddenly and without warning.

 

[RedRalph]

(OP question):

6 months. Give or take another 6 months.

and what makes you say that?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

The problem being, as Park and I have noted, that the collapse of the DPRK is the very last thing that the South or the US wants to happen. That would be true whether or not Kim was sitting on nukes; the nukes just limit the possibilities of pursuing alternative outcomes.

By their actions, one can argue that. However, I think it's a dangerous game for the US to play as much as North Korea. As long as NK is resupplied, it will keep upgrading its threats, because it knows it has to, to keep the pressure on. Today, it's a nuke threat against its neighbors. Tomorrow, it could be an ICBM. If you think NK is destructive now, wait a generation and you'll see what it can really do!

As for this new leader, he seems to have the backing of the ruling class, even if he probably doesn't get to give any real orders. As long as he plays along with this arrangement, he can stick around. If he wisens up enough, he may even eliminate some competitors within and really be the top dog.

 

[Traitorfish]

By their actions, one can argue that. However, I think it's a dangerous game for the US to play as much as North Korea. As long as NK is resupplied, it will keep upgrading its threats, because it knows it has to, to keep the pressure on. Today, it's a nuke threat against its neighbors. Tomorrow, it could be an ICBM. If you think NK is destructive now, wait a generation and you'll see what it can really do!

That's the complication, isn't it? The nukes mean that the DPRK can't be left as it is indefinitely, but they also mean that no immediate solution presents itself. Catch twenty-two and all that.

 

[lovett]

Its days are numbered, as is most centralized regimes, and this is simply a matter of accounting. The state steals from its people, distributing that wealth among the few elite, and next to none to the rest of the people, from which its income depends. Inevitably, the people have less with which to even toil and produce for the state. Proof of this is the starvation endemic in North Korea while the military has ample opportunity to attack South Korean islands and ships. The DPRK would've collapsed in the 1990's if it hadn't been for US subsidy of the regime, under threat.

Perhaps you could spell out this 'simple matter' of accounting in more detail. Exactly how do you see the North Korean state collapsing? Do you think that resource shortages (and ensuing starvation) will lead to mass public mobilization in support of reform? Do you think resource shortages will lead to elite-lead democratization? Neither option seems particularly credible.

 

[Takhisis]

(OP question):

6 months. Give or take another 6 months.

and what makes you say that?

Incoming famine and widespread starvation, probably.

 

[Gigaz]

I think as soon as China starts transforming into a democracy, parts of the DPRK army will overthrow the regime and organize instant reunification. That might happen in the next five years.

 

[Takhisis]

China. Democracy. Does. Not. Compute.