Classic Engagement and Its Flaw
by Richardson ~ December 26th, 2006. Filed under: Engagement. Catherine Field presents the classic (and mostly thoughtful) engagement argument in the International Herald Tribune. There isn’t anything original in the piece, but it nicely summarizes the core argument of the pro-engagement crowd:
Some argue that such handouts have not led to any improvement in the lives of North Koreans in the past, and that such aid amounts to sustaining a rogue nuclear state. But the fact is that Kim’s reign will end one day, and the only question is when and how chaotically. If Germany does carry a lesson for the Korean Peninsula, it is that a state that feeds its people, has some basic infrastructure and a few contacts abroad is a far better prospect for peaceful reunification than one that is starving, ignorant — and nuclear armed.
The fundamental problem with this argument is its sense of inevitability. Field makes the rather obvious statement, “Kim’s regin will end one day” (what reign won’t?) and that when it does, “a state that feeds its people, has some basic infrastructure and a few contacts abroad is a far better prospect for peaceful reunification…”
Her assumption is not simply that Kim’s reign will end one day, but that the structure of the present regime will too, especially if North Korea developed “some basic infrastructure.” There is more than a dose of historical inevitability, an odor of determinism in her writing. She completely discounts the possibility that the aid to create that infrastructure may, in fact, help to sustain the current regime structure even after Kim’s demise — far longer than anyone imagines.
Such a regime, despite marginally improved economic prospects, will likely continue to kill its own people. It will also continue to possess nuclear weapons, for survival or for international political leverage… which means the basic security equation — the concern for proliferation and threats to its regional allies — for the United States will not change.
The East German model may be appropriate in purely economic terms, but military, political and moral circumstances that concern North Korea are vastly different. As repulsive as it was, East Germany did not engage in sustained mass killings of its people. It was not dominated by a quasi-feudal family of god-kings. It did not threaten the world with the potential of rogue proliferation of nuclear weapons. All these mitigating factors made it possible for West Germany, and indeed the West, to tolerate the existence of East Germany up to a point.
Such a calculation does not apply to North Korea. The United States cannot afford to “sit it out” with the hope that one day Kim will die as his father did and the fallout will be “soft landing,” provided the West prepared the ground with economic aid.
There are only two solutions for the United States. One, North Korea must undergo a radical change of the structure of its economy and government on its own. That, however, is unlikely to occur. The other solution is for an outside force to demolish the regime, whether by direct military action or “strangulation.”
Following Field’s recommendation and sustaining the regime in the hope that it will cushion the landing will, in my view, delay — perhaps for a long time — the very landing that Field considers so inevitable.
December 27th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
I, for one, am not of the politically correct six nation talk of reforming North Korea and slowly bringing new progressive people to rule NK over a period of many years. Many, many, human beings are dying and suffuring under this corrupt form of human government. The results of an overthrown government and its aftermath are of less concern to me than the current suffering and perversion of human dignity. The collaspse will come eventually as will the results, prolonging it, is not in the best interests of anyone. Get it done, overthrow the regime, lets the chips fall where they may.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Regrettably, that sentiment is not echoed in the halls of power in light of the Iraq experience.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
The US should not be the ones to overthrow the NK regime, it would only make sense if it were done preferably by China or if not, South Korea. They are the ones who will have to deal with its aftermath. Since they must deal with it sooner or later, it would be best for it to happen sooner. I doubt South Korea has the cajones to do it, but China might.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I am absolutely, categorically opposed to any Chinese move to overthrow the Kim regime in North Korea. Once the Chinese have a foothold in, and a direct control over, the northern half of the Korean Peninsual, they will be very dfficult to dislodge.
My preference would be for ROK would absorb North Korea, with substantial U.S. assistance and input. As I mentioned before, once ROK shares a direct border with PRC, Seoul will find Washington to be a much more generous and amenable ally than Beijing ever would be.
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I understand your point and arguement very well, it has been around for years. However South Korea does not have the stomach for it, china might. Much of South Koreas trade is now with China and growing, and visa versa. The US does not need to defend South Korea any longer, even with China at the South Korean border, trade would expand and North Korea would open up again as a society. Japan may have a more complicated military defense problem, but I seriously doubt war would break out. And the US could help ensure South Koreas defense if need be. End of Kim Jong Il, end of starvation, beginning of a new era.
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:02 pm
China controlling North Korea has the potential to push South Korea to go nuclear. At the very least it would serve to accelerate East Asian security destabilization, not enhance it. Divvying up what is historically one nation into the control or another (or more), or complacently allowing it to happen, is a recipe for disaster. The Europeans in Africa, and the U.S. and Russia in Korea have run into this – no need to perpetuate with a puppet Chinese controlled regime in Pyongyang.
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I doubt South Korea would go nuclear, and what makes you believe it would destabilize east asian security. Your statements of allowing it to happen as a recipe for disaster do not make sense. The Koreans and China are too close to each other historically and economically for it to happen. Your next argument that the europeans in africa as well as US and Russians in Korea only accentuate this. Russia and the US do not belong in Korea other than as trading partners.
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Actually it makes a lot of sense. Rather than repeat what I’ve already written - although not for the specific context - I’ll refer you to;
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI09Dg02.html
http://www.dprkstudies.org/2006/07/25/the-coming-east-asian-arms-race/
U.S. influence has ensured five decades of peace; removing said influence might sound good to some, but is in reality impractical and dangerous.
If you’ve noticed how heated South Koreans become when China calls Koguryo ‘Chinese’ history, then you should know that the notion that Korea and China are ‘too close’ for such disagreements is rather wrong.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I read both articles previously but reread them again as a refresher. American influence in South Korea goes without saying. Its very existence is directly due to the US. As well as much of its economic recovery. I do not argue those points. However, like children, they eventually grow up and are able to take care of themselves. South Korea has reached that point. The naming of mountains and linking Chinas past to Korea may well be a sign of eventual chinese intentions. I think the Chinese are being pragmatic and realize North Korea is going to collapse. They are already moving military into the area and building fences for when it happens. Meanwhile, South Korea is hung up on the Keasong(?) project and how much it can milk North Korea for. The collapse of North Korea is comming and China is ready to move in. Its going to happen. Position papers and posturing are not going to keep it from happening. In the mean time people are starving to death under a regime as bad as any Stalin ever produced. Let the idea of protecting east asia from itself go. Get rid of the fat boy save a few lives and be a promoter of human decency. Thats how the Chinese are going to play it. Now see what you did, you got me on my soap box.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Do you mean North Korea is milking South Korea?
China moving in and controlling North Korea may indeed save a few lives from starvation in the short term, but that’s a band-aid that would cover up the true problem and let it fester. Long-term it can only hurt regional stability and threaten war, were that the balance of those that may be saved from starvation would quickly turn into negative numbers.
In practical terms, China would have to “take over” North Korea with agents and politics, not with an army, and it’s highly unlikely that China has the ability in either area to do so. Kim is way of that and heads roll at the hint of transgression. No doubt China is pondering it, but it would not be easy or bloodless. If they did somehow succeed without a war, it would most likely only postpone a war.
In an alternate scenario, assume the U.S. “lets” China take over North Korea. Aside from the likely long-term consequences, giving China more regional/global political/diplomatic clout does not help U.S. interests in any way.