6 Responses to North Korea in the News

1. Ampontan
   November 21st, 2007 at 12:48 am

   I beg to differ about that Kirk article. In fact, I was just discussing it with someone as an example of the weirdness that gets printed about Japan.

   While the uneasiness between the U.S. and Japan is something I’m writing about right now myself (g), and is worth discussing, the suggestion that Japan would be a “threat” to the region sans Article 9 vitiates any credibility this article or the author has.

   The cheap shots aren’t worth a whole lot, either. Mr. Fukuda doesn’t care about dead Koreans? Perhaps not, but he certainly cares about being forced to deal with a country that causes Koreans to be dead, and that has shot missiles toward and over his country.

   Mr. Abe “so rightist”? Compared to whom?

   The Japanese stand “may seem nationalistic and petty”? The people in question were abducted on Japanese soil. It’s a question of national integrity and the lack of respect an outlaw nation shows for it. Certainly the U.S. and the Chinese wouldn’t stand for it. Perhaps that’s why it is a symbol for the public.

   The even theoretical suggestion of a Pearl Harbor style raid on NK? Irresponsible and ignorant of contemporary Japan.

   The likelihood that Japan will do away with Article 9? He obvioiusly hasn’t been following the debate in Japan. If Article 9 is amended, it will take several years, and almost certainly be done so in a way that still constrains aggressive military action.

   The “rightist inclination” of Japanese leaders opposed to Article 9? Does this mean that anyone who is not a rightist is a pacifist?

   “The Japanese kidnap victims stand as symbols among Japanese of their power complexes, of the rule they once held over the Korean peninsula and much of China, and of a willingness, under certain circumstances, to go to war again.”

   Utter and complete nonsense that the author makes no attempt to support. (How could he? It’s insupportable.) And I have no idea of what “symbols…of their power complexes” is supposed to mean.

   As I said, it is worth noting that there are going to be strains between Japan and the US, but North Korea will not be the direct reason, nor the only reason.

   I suspect that Mr. Kirk’s emphasis on Korea for the past 30 years blinds him to the realities of today’s Japan. He obviously isn’t aware of them.

   There is also a tendency at times for some Korean observers to think that conditions on the Korean peninsula (in many different matters, including cultural) are of critical importance to the rest of the world. That’s understandable, because everybody can be like that, too.

   But this isn’t one of those times.

   We all know the Chinese/Korean/Japanese proverb about the frog in the well thinking he knows about the world.

   When it comes to Japan, Mr. Kirk is a frog in the well.

2. Richardson
   November 21st, 2007 at 8:32 am

   I’ve noticed sharp posts on your blog with those you disagree with, and nothing different here! However, I think you’re perhaps reading more into some of what Kirk says that what it means.

   Fore example, while you say,

   “The cheap shots aren’t worth a whole lot, either. Mr. Fukuda doesn’t care about dead Koreans? Perhaps not, but. . .”

   The article actually states,

   “It’s the Japanese, of course, that Fukuda worries about. No one thinks for a moment that Fukuda worries about a blown-up Korean plane or the assassination of a bunch of Koreans.” (emphasis added)

   To “care” vs. to “worries” about “dead Koreans” and the issue of abduction are two different things. Kirk is just saying that North Korea’s attacks on South Korea are an issue between those two nations, but Fukuda’s issue is – of course – the abduction issue.

   Mr. Abe “so rightist”? Compared to whom?

   I would assume compared to those previously and currently in the same position. Do you disagree?

   The even theoretical suggestion of a Pearl Harbor style raid on NK? Irresponsible and ignorant of contemporary Japan.

   Mention of Pearl Harbor in the context of what to do about Yongbyon (if no progress is made) is legitimate, and the context Kirk made the comparison is was that it absolutely would not occur. Pearl Harbor is simply an example of the sort of attack that, in this case, Japan in all likelihood would never consider viable.

   I have to say that you seem to be nitpicking, getting bogged down in semantics, and missing the context with a lot of your criticisms. It’s also worth considering that Kirk has a lot of connections, in both the Japanese and Korean governments (and press, etc.) that you may be unaware of.

3. Ampontan
   November 21st, 2007 at 9:18 am

   Thanks for the reply.

   1. Well, “care” vs. “worry” is a semantic distinction. That is still an unnecessarily flip comment by Kirk.

   2. I fail to see any reason to mention Pearl Harbor in connection with Yongbyon. Pearl Harbor was an aggressive and offensive action, coordinated with other simultaneous aggressive and offensive actions throughout East Asia. Any theoretical measure Japan might take against Yongbyon would be strictly defensive. Let us not forget that NK has actually fired missiles at or over Japan, and publicly threatened to turn Japan into “a sea of flame”. It would be unwise for the leader of any government to ignore such acts and statements by a hostile country anywhere, at any time, regardless of who makes them.

   Bringing it up as any kind of example was unnecessary.

   3. [[Mr. Abe “so rightist”? Compared to whom?]]
   [I would assume compared to those previously and currently in the same position. Do you disagree?]

   Yes. There is little or no substantial difference between Abe and his two immediate predecessors, Koizumi or Mori, or former PM Nakasone (a confidante of Abe), who is still politically active. They are all from the same LDP faction, and in agreement on most specifics and in philosophy. Let’s not forget Mr. Koizumi’s (and Mr. Nakasone’s) visits to Yasukuni. In fact, Mr. Abe was, to an extent, selected by Mr. Koizumi as his successor. Koizumi also gave an opportunity for Taro Aso to assert himself and take the job, and Mr. Aso also shares the same philosophies.

   The current prime minister, Mr. Fukuda, is also from that faction, though he has distanced himself from it slightly, but not by “so” much. Apart from pushing Constitutional amendment, Fukuda has pursued roughly the same agenda. In fact, one of his first steps was to extend existing Japanese sanctions on North Korea.

   The key to Mr. Kirk’s statement is the use of the word SO. There is very little in Mr. Abe’s public statements (including his 240-page book) or speeches to indicate an extreme position as it would be understood in the West. In fact, one could make the case that he is “conservative”, in the Eisenhower/Nixon mold rather than “a Conservative” in the Reagan/Thatcher mold. Would anyone refer to Dwight D. Eisenhower as a “rightwing nationalist”?

   4. “It’s also worth considering that Kirk has a lot of connections, in both the Japanese and Korean governments (and press, etc.) that you may be unaware of.”

   So does Tom Plate, but that doesn’t mean either is unimpeachable. Mr. Kirk’s comments on Constitutional revision in particular betray a lack of knowledge for someone supposedly so well connected. What I noted about the prospects are in fact the reality of the situation in Japan today. (Take a look at the Japanese Constitution on Google, and read Article 9. Most people expect the first paragraph to be retained, with a modification of the second paragraph to be hammered out later. This is an important point.)

   Also the idea that North Korean policy was what drove Japan and the U.S. apart ignores about 50 years of dozens of other factors that may, or may not, be coming to a head now.

   [[I’ve noticed sharp posts on your blog with those you disagree with, and nothing different here!]]

   “If you would be a man, speak today what you think today in words as hard as cannonballs, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again.”
   - Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Self-Reliance”

4. Ampontan
   November 21st, 2007 at 9:25 am

   Oh, one more thing I almost forgot (in the voice of Lt. Columbo)

   The “symbols of power complexes” sentence is still unsupported and partially incoherent.

5. Janus
   November 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 pm

   Osirak would have been a better choice of clumsy historical analogy than Pearl Harbor…or have they given a name to that raid in Syria?

   That said, I’ve had dinner with Mr. Kirk and he is a lovely fellow.

6. The Florida Masochist
   November 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pm

   Planned escapes…

   There are people in the business of helping people flee North Korea. Why doesn’t that surprise me?…

Leave a Reply