Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

The South really should step in as soon as the North collapses. The way I see it a unified Korea is inevitable.

That isn't too surprising, but the South doesn't want to. I mean, it'd be like German reunification on Hard, nay, Insane mode (Kim Jong Un mode). It's East Germany's problems multiplied, economic, social, etc. Minute the government collapses (and, crucially, Chinese funding is cut off) North Korea is Somalia with snow and a secular militia in charge instead. The sheer social, economic, political changes required boggles the mind. I want them together as much as you do, but I can see why the South (and China, for many of the same reasons) is reluctant.

On another note, Wikipedia lists NK's "Eternal President" as Kim Il-sung, and their "Eternal Worker's Party of Korea (WPK) General Secretary" as Kim Jong-Il, which I thought was interesting.

>Unification
>Owlbread
>2013

* MetalSlimeHunt is even more convinced that Owlbread has been replaced by a Tory imposter.

I know, I know, such terminology is appalling coming from me. The thing is though Korea is rare in that it is a complete nation, i.e. the national equivalent of an atom (not this again) that cannot really be divided into smaller countries because they are genuinely 1 people. China, India, Pakistan and Japan would be very different examples that could be divided because they incorporate several or many nations, as with Russia, the UK and so on. You could divide Scotland better on national lines than you could Korea.

I do believe, however, that any United Korea should be federal and allow a devolved government to control the North (rather like in Scotland, but with more power), ideally maintaining what is left of the Socialist system up there by the time the country collapses. I think though given that the North Koreans' main goal is to unify the Korean peninsula (they bang on about unification more than they do the Americans or anyone else) and the Southern governments seem to be quite behind the idea, what with their Ministry of Unification and so on, a unified Korea is the only likely future if things go bad. No Chinese puppet government in the North would be enough to stop the tsunami of freedom, and there's still families in the South that have relatives in the North, separated by the war.

"Tsunami of Freedom". If China wanted to, they could go Putin and simply annex the whole fucking place, and not a damn thing could be done (the US certainly isn't going to start WWIII over it). If China wanted to, they could set it up under some other, more Chinese-like dictator, and modernize it as a vassal state that would be grateful to their new (old really) Chinese overlords. If China wanted to, they could kill half the population within months simply by not doing anything and watching the fireworks. If China wanted to, they could simply send the Un to the UN (and probably the Hague) and give the North to the South over the threshold. If China wanted to, they could force the North into an suicidal attack against the South, and America if it is in reach, and kill millions.

China holds most of the cards here, the only question remains what they want, and what they are willing to stomach; both to their own population and to the international arena.  China doesn't want millions of impoverished Koreans opening up it's doors, and it is trying to figure out how to get rid of them. But don't think that if they sincerely wanted to keep the North in their pocket forever, they couldn't do so: they could, they just realize they'd have to invest more then they are willing to, which currently isn't much.

[Owlbread]

That isn't too surprising, but the South doesn't want to. I mean, it'd be like German reunification on Hard, nay, Insane mode (Kim Jong Un mode). It's East Germany's problems multiplied, economic, social, etc. Minute the government collapses (and, crucially, Chinese funding is cut off) North Korea is Somalia with snow and a secular militia in charge instead. The sheer social, economic, political changes required boggles the mind. I want them together as much as you do, but I can see why the South (and China, for many of the same reasons) is reluctant.

I have never seen anything to show that "the South" is reluctant to unify, rather, unification is something of a priority. I've seen Southern people saying that they're concerned that it'll really damage the Southern economy, but the governments remain very much in favour of unification and that would be the word on people's lips if all hell breaks loose. This is just something the South has to stomach though, it'll be painful and it will rock the economy but it just has to happen.

If China wanted to, they could go Putin and simply annex the whole fucking place, and not a damn thing could be done (the US certainly isn't going to start WWIII over it).

China annexing a part of Korea (that's what we're talking about here) would be the deathknell for all successful Chinese foreign policy. Ever. If they did that they really wouldn't give a damn about anybody else and could comfortably become a pariah, when in fact the entire Chinese economy depends on people buying their stuff. Being a pariah and subject to sanctions is unwise if your economy is set up like that.

If China wanted to, they could set it up under some other, more Chinese-like dictator, and modernize it as a vassal state that would be grateful to their new (old really) Chinese overlords.

This is more likely but the moment the word "unification" starts popping up, no Chinese-like dictator will be able to stop that tidal wave. You've seen the Arab Spring, you know what happens when things get into full swing, not like in Bahrain or Algeria but when people really rise up they can't be stopped without massive bloodshed.

If China wanted to, they could kill half the population within months simply by not doing anything and watching the fireworks.

If China did this the finger would be pointing squarely at China and we're right back to option one. The Chinese would be internationally reviled for allowing this to happen.

If China wanted to, they could simply send the Un to the UN (and probably the Hague) and give the North to the South over the threshold.

This is the most likely course of action I think, and the most sensible if China wants to rehabilitate itself within the international community.

If China wanted to, they could force the North into an suicidal attack against the South, and America if it is in reach, and kill millions.

This is a ridiculous option that would be even worse than just sitting back. If they force any kind of attack then yes it would be WW3, or whatever the step below that is. Cold war perhaps.

China holds most of the cards here, the only question remains what they want, and what they are willing to stomach; both to their own population and to the international arena.  China doesn't want millions of impoverished Koreans opening up it's doors, and it is trying to figure out how to get rid of them. But don't think that if they sincerely wanted to keep the North in their pocket forever, they couldn't do so: they could, they just realize they'd have to invest more then they are willing to, which currently isn't much.

China holds most of the cards but they have few realistic options. They can choose to support the Northern government until it becomes completely untenable, in which case they sort the situation out themselves (invasion) and reform the government/install a puppet as we've discussed, or just bite the bullet and give the North to the South. If they sincerely wanted to keep the North in their pocket forever they'd be completely delusional because the North is existing on borrowed time. We're talking about a government that will blow their own generals up with mortars in public executions to make examples of them - trying to reform that mess is an exercise in futility.

Remember, Putin's annexation policy only worked in Chechnya because nobody really cared about the Chechens except Gamsakhurdian Georgia and Estonia. And John McCain. They're just Muslims anyway (who cares about those weirdos and their beards and gold teeth) from a country nobody's heard of, plus they were often Islamists and terrorists and anything is better than Islamic extremism, right? Even totalitarian, dictatorial, corrupt puppet-regimes with institutionalised brutal torture, disappearances, execution, sexual abuse and religious dogma. I'm sure. Those "monkeys" couldn't run their own country anyway, they're too crazy. I mean, it's not like they're human beings, right? North Korea on the other hand is not Chechnya, it is half of an ancient nation known to practically everyone and is very much in the public eye. Annexation would simply not be possible. Even the supposedly ambivalent South would be in uproar over that one. No Southern government would agree to half of their nation being annexed by anyone.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Pragmatic reasoning aside, I'm pretty sure even a lot of China's government has no real love for North Korea. There's a lot of distance between China's human rights violations and North Korea's human rights violations. China is brutal, but usually not hereditary death camps brutal.

[Descan]

The Arab Spring was kind of a failure. Like... 4 different countries went through it, out of 10+ Arab countries. One is still in a civil war (Syria), one's gone through 3+ different governments in the last year (Egypt), one is maybe going to split in half in the coming years (Libya), and the last one is the only one that kinda-sorta-maybe went okay. (Tunisia)

[Owlbread]

The Arab Spring was kind of a failure. Like... 4 different countries went through it, out of 10+ Arab countries. One is still in a civil war (Syria), one's gone through 3+ different governments in the last year (Egypt), one is maybe going to split in half in the coming years (Libya), and the last one is the only one that kinda-sorta-maybe went okay. (Tunisia)

The Arab Spring was a dismal failure, or perhaps a big shit sandwich for the world to bite into that we've had coming for years. My point was though that once things really got going, as it did in Syria, Egypt and Libya, the tide just couldn't be stopped. Change had to happen, the extent to which that change has been successful remains to be seen, and though it doesn't have a good prognosis the point is that the change was unstoppable. North Korea's collapse will be like that I think.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Arab Spring was kind of a failure. Like... 4 different countries went through it, out of 10+ Arab countries. One is still in a civil war (Syria), one's gone through 3+ different governments in the last year (Egypt), one is maybe going to split in half in the coming years (Libya), and the last one is the only one that kinda-sorta-maybe went okay. (Tunisia)

I think this is a viewpoint that lacks perspective, and it really shouldn't, because it can be linked back pretty easily to the original Spring: 1848.

Revolutions all over Europe! The end of oppression and monarchy! Yeah! And they all lost. All of them. Of course, these days we know how important 1848 really was in the end. Nobody would call it a failure in the way that people call the Arab Spring a failure. It was the massive shift in European society, the primary sign that the old order had entered terminal decline. Even though the old order won the actual fighting, they had no chance afterwards.

I think this is the same, and hell, this is turning out a lot better. Tunisia is going pretty great by the standards of a young democracy. Egypt is simmering, but not over. But more important than anything else is the change in mindset. The first revolt is the hardest to start, and now that this has happened there isn't exactly anybody living in the region who can truthfully claim that things never change in their societies, or that popular uprising is impossible.

[Strife26]

That isn't too surprising, but the South doesn't want to. I mean, it'd be like German reunification on Hard, nay, Insane mode (Kim Jong Un mode). It's East Germany's problems multiplied, economic, social, etc. Minute the government collapses (and, crucially, Chinese funding is cut off) North Korea is Somalia with snow and a secular militia in charge instead. The sheer social, economic, political changes required boggles the mind. I want them together as much as you do, but I can see why the South (and China, for many of the same reasons) is reluctant.

I have never seen anything to show that "the South" is reluctant to unify, rather, unification is something of a priority. I've seen Southern people saying that they're concerned that it'll really damage the Southern economy, but the governments remain very much in favour of unification and that would be the word on people's lips if all hell breaks loose. This is just something the South has to stomach though, it'll be painful and it will rock the economy but it just has to happen.

You have a very interesting definition of rock, in this case.

[10ebbor10]

Unification would probably bring the % of Koreans in poverty waaay up. We don't have enough jobs as it is!

That said, NK has a lot of natural resources and room to sprawl that SK doesn't currently have. That's an easy way to create lots and lots of jobs quickly.

That might not actually be such a good idea. Massive resource export has a tendency to damage the manufacturing sector, which is the cornerstone of South Korea's economy.

[DJ]

I think China's PR concerns are overestimated. It could nuke Korea and USA still wouldn't install economic sanctions against it, simply because USA's economy would completely collapse if China suddenly stopped being a trade partner.

[Sheb]

But then, you can just use those ressources as import substitution, to increase your own industry competitiveness. Now, integrating the north will be hard, but Korea is arguably the single best country to do that kind of thing. Let us remember that in 1960, its GDP per capita was 79$, lower than most African countries and the country was dependent on foreign aid to avoid starvation.

[10ebbor10]

A situation which it got out off thanks to the massive investments by a small amount of large corporations, which still control a majority of the economy. These would be the first to leave, if the situation were to change and manufacturing were to become less profitable.

[Duuvian]

I don't see why more resources for them to use would encourage them to leave.

[10ebbor10]

I don't see why more resources for them to use would encourage them to leave.

It's the Dutch disease.

In short: More resource export => Positive trade balance => Value of domestic currency rises => Increased costs, decreased profits. ((Because wages are payed in domestic currency, but income is foreign currency))
Also:      More jobs in mining sector* => Less unemployement => Higher wages => Higher costs.

*The influx of cheap North Korean labour might mitigate this, but overall they don't have the education nor trained personal to perform a variety of needed tasks.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

china having a monopoly on rare earth minerals i doubt they'd be comfortable giving up the largest deposit of the stuff to a western aligned nation

[10ebbor10]

They no longer have a monopoly. The Mountain pass mine in the US has recently resumed production, and various mines in Australia are also starting operation soon.