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

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

If you're interested in the DPRK, you should really read the latest Andrei Lankov piece. Mr Lankov knows what he's talking about, and is relatively optimistic about their current economic situation.

This is impressionistic, granted, but I'm sceptical of the ideological flexibility of Juche-Songun and of the ability of the current rulers to handle such ideological reforms, so the only way I can see any sort of political reform happening is with a pretty major ideological shift.

Ideological pragmatism is part of the Korean mindset. They wouldn't need to replace Juche, it would be Juche-plus-something.

 

[Leoreth]

Isn't the main point of Juche "stuff that serves North Korean interest" anyway?

 

[Traitorfish]

Ideological pragmatism is part of the Korean mindset. They wouldn't need to replace Juche, it would be Juche-plus-something.

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.

Isn't the main point of Juche "stuff that serves North Korean interest" anyway?

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.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think Sill summed it up....as long as people value the status quo more than themselves then their government will persist.

-.-
I specifically said "the system" not "the people" in this context.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The only real option for the North Korean elite is to start renting out their labour-force to foreign capital and I can't see that being possible even within the ideological confines of Juche or the political limits of the current leadership (the two of which can't really be separated from each other). They've already made a few attempts to move in that direction- the most recent is the Rajin-Sonbong Economic Special Zone in the far North-East, which is open to China and Russia- but attempts have been limited by a reasonable wariness of investing in the territory of a schizophrenic despotate.

I think it's pretty possible for the DPRK to retain it's image of anti-imperialism, as most of the incoming capital will be Korean, not Russian or Chinese. Expect this to be concurrent with a toned down American presence.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think it's pretty possible for the DPRK to retain it's image of anti-imperialism, as most of the incoming capital will be Korean, not Russian or Chinese. Expect this to be concurrent with a toned down American presence.

That's a good point, hadn't thought about it from that angle. I guess a nationalist ideology in a partitioned country complicates things, doesn't it?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

It seems to me that nothing at all suggests it is liable to dissapear any time soon. Of course there is no telling the future, and Apartheid SA, the Shah and Mubarak all vanished with little warning, but does anyone seriously expect the DPRK to collapse any time soon? It seems pretty stable to me.

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.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If we're making predictions, I see the collapse being something like this.

The DPRK increasingly allows the ROK access to their markets and labor force. This is brought along with the DRPK's old plan for Re-Unification, Federalism. We see an increase in bilateral treaties, but no serious plans for unification. Neither side actually wants that. But expect a peace treaty, mutual guarantee pacts, joint representation in certain useless or peripheral bodies, that sort of thing, meanwhile ROK funds prop up the Kim Dynasty.
Eventually, the people of the DPRK will get tired of being second class citizens of the ROK in everything but name, and will begin pressing for immediate re-unification.
Expect media coverage of this unification, especially in the United States to portray it as the people of the DPRK finally rising up against the DPRK, to happily join the brotherhood of democracies, ignoring the role the ROK had in their exploitation.

 

[Tahuti]

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.

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

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.

 

[Cutlass]

Avoiding reunification, which is quite possibly the outcome of the collapse of the North Korean state. It would be an economic disaster for 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.

I just don't see that. Sure, it would be difficult and expensive. But it wouldn't be that hard or that expensive, and it would be the best for the Korean people. I just have a really hard time seeing the Korean people not wanting reunification.

 

[Quackers]

What. The USA is allowing NK to survive because thats the secret policy goal of SK?

 

[Tahuti]

Avoiding reunification, which is quite possibly the outcome of the collapse of the North Korean state. It would be an economic disaster for 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.

Good point, but what makes you think reunification would be inevitable in case the DPRK régime would collapse? Isn't a transitionary North Korean régime far more likely in this case?

 

[Dumanios]

I'm with Quackers on this one. What?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I just don't see that. Sure, it would be difficult and expensive. But it wouldn't be that hard or that expensive, and it would be the best for the Korean people. I just have a really hard time seeing the Korean people not wanting reunification.

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

What. The USA is allowing NK to survive because thats the secret policy goal of SK?

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.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Good point, but what makes you think reunification would be inevitable in case the DPRK régime would collapse? Isn't a transitionary North Korean régime far more likely in this case?

Unlikely. If the government collapses there's no alternative power structure, not even to the level that the Eastern Bloc had (which never really collapsed the way we're talking.) The Republic would practically be forced to move in just to maintain public services.

 

[Quackers]

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. 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".

 

[Cutlass]

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

 

[ParkCungHee]

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.

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.

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.

 

[ParkCungHee]

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

I find it hard to understand the logic of the Washington Consensus, but the general trend seems to be we shouldn't lose bases, anywhere, ever, because that will make our other bases more vulnerable.