Piano Forum

Topic: korean ultimatum  (Read 1814 times)

Offline pianistimo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12142
korean ultimatum
on: March 10, 2007, 08:33:50 AM
next thursday.  drop sanctions or something will happen? 

now, what is the united nations president ban ki-moon saying?  nothing?  he should be saying something right now.  i know he wants peace between the north and south korea - but he is supposedly for getting rid of nuclear arms.  if the koreas join without democracy for south korea - it will be a militaristic dictatorship again.

will democracy be key for 'new world' or dictatorships?
here is a bit about mr. moon:
https://www.un.org/sg/biography.shtml

Offline prometheus

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3819
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #1 on: March 10, 2007, 09:12:18 AM
The S-Koreans are not very happy about the way the US escalated the conflict recently.
"As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art." -Franz Liszt

Offline pianistimo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12142
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #2 on: March 10, 2007, 09:18:59 AM
north korea has been separated from south korea for a long time.  the north koreans have been starving for a very long time, too, because all the money goes to nuclear ams proliferation.  now, why the united nations secretary general is saying one thing and then saying nothing about korea is mighty strange.  maybe he will soon?

prometheus, do you think democracy is evil?  how about dictatorships?  is that what some people really want?  do they want the world ruled by korea or iran?  first some talk about the bible being like the taliban and then they go and make buddies with whomever is against the usa - like it's politically correct.

the only thing left to do is just lay down and let them walk on us?  what about all the world wars that finally brought about freedom for half the world?  do you think it would be free today without fighting for it.  all people want to hear is that the usa will accept any and every deal.

i think God entitles us with the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.  and on top of that there is no laws within the 'world system' that allow for 'inalienable rights.'  those would only be granted by a dictator and taken upon whim. 

Offline elspeth

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #3 on: March 10, 2007, 10:24:35 AM
do you think democracy is evil?  how about dictatorships?  is that what some people really want?  do they want the world ruled by korea or iran?  first some talk about the bible being like the taliban and then they go and make buddies with whomever is against the usa - like it's politically correct.

The question wasn't directed at me... but anyway! Obviously democracy's not evil. It's a system that works very well in a lot of countries.

That said, however, I think it's a mistake to assume that what works to run one county works to run every other country. Democracy's great but it doesn't suit every country and it still throws up some rulers we'd all rather had never risen to power.

There are many places in the world where the inhabitants of a particular country are so opposed to each other, have such entrenched bad feeling and disagreements, that they just can't function together in a democracy. Can't even bear to be in the same room, never mind debate and agree how to run the nation. Such bad feeling takes generations of sustained effort to break down, you can't just put in a democracy and expect them to get on with it and it to be a success right from the word go.

Some countries, where such situations exist, only funtion under a dictator, regardless of what you think about the politics of dictatorships. Take Iraq as a prime example. It had a dictator, who I think we all agree was a particularly vicious and nasty example of the breed. He was taken out, they now have a democracy, the people have freedom and the country is melting down into civil war because none of the resident factions get on well enough to make democracy work.

And of course, it doesn't even work to say 'right, you don't get on, so we'll split the country up, you each have a bit and run each bit as a democracy.' They'd never agree the new boundaries and the ill-feeling would continue.

It's a short-term view of course, there is a good argument for putting in a democracy, giving it full support from the rest of the international community, and hope that in fifty years' time it'll have turned the corner, eroded the bad feeling and be a sucess. But on the other hand, civil wars are usually short-term too, and how much more bloodshed can a country like Iraq take?

Just to really put the cat among the pigeons, I have always suspected that democracy is sometimes just a better-packaged version of dictatorship. Hitler was democratically elected... the people vote a dictator in so that's ok, if that's what the people wanted.
Go you big red fire engine!

Offline counterpoint

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2003
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #4 on: March 10, 2007, 10:58:39 AM

will democracy be key for 'new world' or dictatorships?


Pianistimo, you are so contradictory...

I thought, you're waiting for the great dictator to take the regiment over the whole world and kill all, who don't want this sort of autocratic system?
If it doesn't work - try something different!

Offline cmg

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1042
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #5 on: March 10, 2007, 04:01:14 PM

Just to really put the cat among the pigeons, I have always suspected that democracy is sometimes just a better-packaged version of dictatorship. Hitler was democratically elected... the people vote a dictator in so that's ok, if that's what the people wanted.

Well, elsbeth, you might be allergic to work, but you're not allergic to some real first-class cogitation!  Couldn't agree with you more. 

The point is power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Presidents (Hitler, Bush, Nixon etc.) have all proven that.  Democracy is certainly no guarantee of fairness in government.

Democracy, as a governing notion, also seems, theoretically, to be the end result of a rather evolutionary process.  Market systems must be in place, civil discord subdued for it to work.  Communism seems to be a better form of government for undeveloped (i.e. no infrastructure) societies -- sharing resources on an eqalitarian basis until the so-called free enterprise thing can get going. 

And Christianity, I think, is the purest form of communism.  "We're all equal."  "No heirarchy."  "No class system."  "No discrimination."  No perks for the rich -- just that skinny eye of a needle to try to crawl through to reach, ultimately, that autocratic Patriarchy it tries to disquise so very well.   ;D
Current repertoire:  "Come to Jesus" (in whole-notes)

Offline prometheus

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3819
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #6 on: March 10, 2007, 04:12:45 PM
Yes, amazing. I thought that Pianistimo was against democracy and for dictatorship by a benevolent dictator while I am for democracy.

The reason I am for democracy is exactly the reason why I think there shouldn't be very heavy sanctions.

N-Korea is not a democracy. So what do sanctions do? Kill half a million Children like in Iraq? And then one still needs to go to war and trash the country a second time?

N-Korea just wants respect from the international community. Respect they do not diverse. So they build a nuclear weapon to force the US to give them cheap oil etc.

If the international community was to spoil the people of N-Korea then maybe they would have the strength to rise up.

Anyway, the nuclear weapon needs to go. No matter how much face the US needs to lose to accomplish this.

Democracy can be 'evil'. The people of Germany elected Hitler, for example.
"As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art." -Franz Liszt

Offline living_stradivarius

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #7 on: March 10, 2007, 09:45:05 PM
"Democracy" has been overused and overgeneralized. There are many models of democracy that may or may not fit well into a particular societal context (look up Arend Lijphart). Thus far I have seen few "democracies" that match the genius of James Madison in the Federalist Papers when considering social influences and contingencies that need to be addressed.

Getting a Chapter VII Article 42 resolution passed through the UNSC is no easy task. Initiating conflict with North Korea will inevitably lead to many casualties - Seoul will be in flames. Is that risk worth taking when there's still a chance for soft power cause regime change?
Music is like making love: either all or nothing. Isaac Stern

Life without music is unthinkable. Music without life is academic. That is why my contact with music is a total embrace.
Lenny Bernst

Offline pianistimo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12142
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #8 on: March 10, 2007, 10:59:37 PM
initiating conflict?  this was an ultimatum that i thought i heard the koreans were giving the international community if they weren't included in it.  noone has been doing anything different than before.  it's just that they are like teenagers that refuse to be told what to do - regardess of their human rights status and hatred of democracy and nuclear arms proliferation - they want international recognition as though they deserve everything. 

Offline thalbergmad

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16741
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #9 on: March 10, 2007, 11:15:12 PM
Can't you give it a rest for just 5 minutes.

There are hundreds of threads for you to spit your Bible quotes out on.

There cannot be anyone now on this Forum who is not aware of your views, so please do us all and favour and SHUT UP.

Thal
Curator/Director
Concerto Preservation Society

Offline pianistimo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12142
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #10 on: March 11, 2007, 12:01:26 AM
ok. 

Offline counterpoint

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2003
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #11 on: March 11, 2007, 12:23:59 AM
it's just that they are like teenagers that refuse to be told what to do - regardess of their human rights status and hatred of democracy and nuclear arms proliferation - they want international recognition as though they deserve everything. 

Pianistimo, why do you think, that anyone has the right to tell N-Korea, "what to do"?

Nuclear arms? USA and Russia have so much of them, that they can destroy the whole world many times. So why is anyone afraid of N-Korea?

Hatred of democracy - that's really bad! But thats the question of how to convince the Korean government to not fear democracy, not to make war against them.
If it doesn't work - try something different!

Offline living_stradivarius

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #12 on: March 11, 2007, 01:30:16 AM
initiating conflict?  this was an ultimatum that i thought i heard the koreans were giving the international community if they weren't included in it.  noone has been doing anything different than before.  it's just that they are like teenagers that refuse to be told what to do - regardess of their human rights status and hatred of democracy and nuclear arms proliferation - they want international recognition as though they deserve everything. 

I speak in military terms, e.g. who strikes first. Only way we can be successful and averting casualties by DPRK artillery is with massive air superiority. But don't have nearly enough forces ready in the area and any significant move to prepare for such an invasion would be detected responded to.
Music is like making love: either all or nothing. Isaac Stern

Life without music is unthinkable. Music without life is academic. That is why my contact with music is a total embrace.
Lenny Bernst

Offline living_stradivarius

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #13 on: March 11, 2007, 01:32:47 AM
Some background reading:


https://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/dprkmil.htm
Military Options for Dealing with North Korea's Nuclear Program

Phillip C. Saunders[1] ...

Preventing North Korean Retaliation

The biggest military concern in striking North Korean nuclear facilities is the threat of North Korean counter-attacks. Seoul, the South Korean capitol, lies within range of North Korean long-range artillery. Five hundred 170mm Koksan guns and 200 multiple-launch rocket systems could hit Seoul with artillery shells and chemical weapons, causing panic and massive civilian casualties. North Korea has between 500 and 600 Scud missiles that could strike targets throughout South Korea with conventional warheads or chemical weapons. North Korea could hit Japan with its 100 No-dong missiles.[7] Seventy percent of North Korean army ground units are located within 100 miles of the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea, positioned to undertake offensive ground operations. These units could fire up to 500,000 artillery rounds per hour against South Korean defenses for several hours.[8] Finally, if North Korea does have one or two deliverable nuclear weapons, nuclear retaliation (or nuclear threats) would also be available to North Korea leaders.

Even if U.S. strikes on North Korea nuclear facilities are successful, North Korea would still have the capability to inflict massive damage against South Korea and the 37,000 U.S. troops based there. Retaliation might be gradual, or North Korea might resort to large-scale strikes quickly. Efforts to invade the South are less likely, but cannot be ruled out entirely (especially if U.S. military forces are preoccupied in the Persian Gulf). The decision about how to respond would be up to North Korean leaders, who would have a range of military options and the ability to escalate the conflict over time. Although the United States would likely win an all-out war, the damage to South Korea would be tremendous and U.S. forces would sustain large casualties. One U.S. military estimate suggested that U.S. and South Korean military forces might suffer 300,000-500,000 casualties within the first 90 days of fighting, in addition to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.[9]

Given these possible military responses, attacks against North Korean nuclear facilities would need to be accompanied by measures to prevent or limit retaliation, such as efforts to degrade North Korean military capabilities, defend against counter-attacks, and deter military responses.

Because North Korea has a wide range of military means (including artillery, missiles, and ground-force operations) that can inflict significant damage on the South, pre-emptive strikes could not destroy all of North Korea's weapons before they could be used. Pre-emptive strikes against North Korean artillery and missiles would require South Korean cooperation and the deployment of additional U.S. aircraft, reconnaissance assets, and artillery. Counter-battery artillery fire and air strikes could be used to target North Korea artillery, but would be unable to prevent North Korea from doing considerable damage to Seoul. The number and mobility of North Korea artillery pieces and ballistic missile forces make them particularly tough targets. Many North Korean artillery pieces are protected in caves and would be difficult to destroy; North Korean missiles are mounted on mobile launchers that are hard to locate and strike. As mentioned previously, any North Korean nuclear weapons would likely be hidden in hardened underground facilities. Because pre-emptive strikes against North Korean artillery and missiles would require striking targets throughout the country, they would quickly escalate the conflict into a wider war. For this reason, pre-emptive strikes would be unlikely to accompany surgical strikes against North Korean nuclear facilities, but would be held in reserve in case North Korea began to retaliate with missile and artillery attacks.

Efforts to reinforce U.S. and South Korean defenses would provide additional protection against a North Korean ground attack, some protection against North Korean missile attacks, and little or no protection against North Korean artillery. The U.S. Army has already deployed some Patriot missile defense batteries in South Korea to protect U.S. troops and airbases. The Patriot would provide some protection against North Korean missile attacks, but it cannot provide wide-area coverage and is unlikely to destroy all incoming North Korean missiles in a concerted attack. North Korean missiles armed with chemical or biological warheads might be able to do considerable damage even if they are successfully intercepted. If Patriot systems were deployed to protect Japan, they would provide only very limited point defense against North Korean No-dong missiles. The only protection against North Korean artillery fire would be to try to destroy individual artillery pieces as quickly as possible.

Because efforts to degrade North Korean military capabilities and defend against attacks could not prevent North Korea from inflicting major damage on South Korean and Japanese targets, the United States would likely focus on deterring Pyongyang from counter-attacking by threatening to escalate the conflict to an unacceptable level of violence. This might include a statement of limited U.S. military objectives in the initial attack on North Korean nuclear facilities, threats to use devastating conventional attacks in response to a major North Korean counter-attack, military deployments to make the threat of conventional retaliation more credible, and explicit threats to use nuclear weapons in response to North Korean retaliation using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Although it would not be necessary militarily, deployment of nuclear weapons to South Korea could be used to signal U.S. willingness to escalate the conflict to the nuclear level.

This would be a high-risk strategy that would seek to use the threat of escalation to minimize the North Korean military response. If deterrence failed, the initiative would be in North Korean hands, and the military situation might escalate rapidly toward a major conventional war and the possible use of weapons of mass destruction. Deployments of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf would reduce potential U.S. surveillance and strike capabilities on the Korean peninsula and limit the number of troops that could be deployed to Korea to halt a possible North Korean ground offensive. One consequence would be to reduce the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons if the conventional war began going badly for U.S. and South Korean forces.

From a political point of view, a U.S. pre-emptive strike would mean that the United States would be blamed for starting the military conflict. If North Korea employed its military assets skillfully, attacks and threats could be used to divide the United States politically from Japan and South Korea (and perhaps make a long-term U.S. military presence in both countries untenable). For example, North Korea could respond by targeting U.S. air bases in South Korea and Japan in order to highlight the point that it is the presence of U.S. forces that makes those countries a target. Although North Korean leaders would be concerned about the danger of an all-out war that could result in the destruction of both their regime and their country, they might calculate that South Korean and Japanese leaders are even more averse to a major war. North Korea could use limited counter-attacks to inflict damage and ratchet up the pressure on U.S. allies to reach a compromise that ended the fighting. North Korea's ability to escalate the conflict into a large-scale ground war that South Korea and the United States do not want would be a powerful negotiating chip.

Conclusion

From the foregoing analysis, it is easy to see why available military options look unattractive to U.S. planners. U.S. military strikes could probably destroy North Korea's future ability to produce and reprocess plutonium for use in nuclear weapons, preventing North Korea from moving from the one or two nuclear weapons that might be available now to the six to eight weapons that would be available if the spent fuel rods stored in Yongbyon were reprocessed to produce plutonium. These strikes could potentially remove North Korea's ability to produce large quantities of plutonium for the next several years. However an attack is highly unlikely to destroy any existing North Korean nuclear weapons capability. Because the facilities involved in North Korea's uranium enrichment program have not been located (and are likely in hardened or underground sites that are difficult to destroy), military strikes would be unable to prevent North Korea from producing fissile material via uranium enrichment. The available information is insufficient to determine how quickly North Korea might be able to produce additional nuclear weapons using uranium enrichment. However one source estimates that North Korea might be able to produce up to 100 kg of highly-enriched uranium per year (enough for about six nuclear weapons) within one to three years.[10]

The biggest problem with military options is the difficulty of preventing North Korean military retaliation. Defenses could not protect the South Korean population from North Korean artillery and missile strikes, while U.S. efforts to attack these weapons would escalate the conflict without removing North Korea's retaliatory capability. The United States would be forced to rely upon deterrence--possibly reinforced with explicit nuclear threats--to prevent or limit North Korean counter-attacks. North Korea would have the initiative and the ability to calibrate its response to maximize U.S. political and military problems. This might include threats or the actual use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The most likely result would be North Korean conventional counter-attacks combined with threats to escalate toward a full-scale ground war and the possible use of weapons of mass destruction. If deterrence failed to prevent North Korean counter-attacks, the United States would be faced with a very unappealing military situation, especially at a time when many U.S. forces are deployed in the Persian Gulf.

The political consequences might be even more significant. South Korea and Japan strongly oppose military attacks against North Korean nuclear facilities, largely due to their vulnerability to North Korean retaliatory strikes. Their alliances with the United States are predicated on the belief that the presence of U.S. forces on their territory enhances their security. U.S. military actions that resulted in North Korean counter-attacks against their territory could destroy support for an alliance with the United States and end U.S. access to bases in South Korea and Japan. Military attacks might also fundamentally change the nature of U.S. relations with China and Russia, who strongly oppose resolving the nuclear crisis through military means. There is even some possibility of direct military conflict with China (which still has a security treaty with North Korea). More broadly, a U.S. pre-emptive strike against North Korean nuclear facilities would arguably violate international law and would convey the message that the United States can use nuclear threats to attack sovereign states with impunity. This would reinforce concerns many countries have about a growing trend towards unilateralism in American foreign policy. The result might only undermine the nuclear nonproliferation regime, but also damage the foundations of the current international order.

Given the high risks and limited ability of military strikes to destroy North Korean nuclear capabilities, it is easy to see why Bush administration officials, like the Clinton administration officials before them, have decided that military means are an unattractive way to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis.
Music is like making love: either all or nothing. Isaac Stern

Life without music is unthinkable. Music without life is academic. That is why my contact with music is a total embrace.
Lenny Bernst

Offline living_stradivarius

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #14 on: March 11, 2007, 01:40:21 AM
Nuclear arms? USA and Russia have so much of them, that they can destroy the whole world many times. So why is anyone afraid of N-Korea?

Nuclear deterrence does not work against rogue regimes that hold innocent civilians hostage as well as pose a threat to its neighbors (heck, nuclear deterrence didn't work against the Soviet Union when it took Czechoslovakia and Hungary).

We should have waited for North Koreans to violate international law before pulling the Axis of Evil trigger.
That said, the DPRK regime should be repudiated for its human rights abuses. The question is how.

We should not back down from sanctions. The ultimatum is a sign that the regime is about to crack.
Music is like making love: either all or nothing. Isaac Stern

Life without music is unthinkable. Music without life is academic. That is why my contact with music is a total embrace.
Lenny Bernst

Offline rach n bach

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 691
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #15 on: March 11, 2007, 04:30:38 AM
Agreed.

Thanks for your informative posts... I have done alot of study on this stuff, and that was still quite interesting to read.   I call myself a "optimistic realist," meaning that I have a bright outlook, but still see the problems on the horizon.  I think that this whole thing is very, very dangerous, I don't want to see what happens Thursday...

RnB
I'm an optimist... but I don't think it's helping...

Offline prometheus

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3819
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #16 on: March 11, 2007, 10:13:28 AM
We should have waited for North Koreans to violate international law before pulling the Axis of Evil trigger.


Apart from 'evil' being a religious word, which axis? Iran and Iraq had just fought one of the bloodiest wars in the last fifty years, against each other.

N-Korea is on the other side of the world. Is this the axis that is going to be the spine of evil?


Quote
We should not back down from sanctions. The ultimatum is a sign that the regime is about to crack.

If the regime is really about to crack then the sanctions will prevent this. How will sanctions empower the people to have the strength and courage to rise up?

Haven't we learned a lesson with Iraq? Where sanctions kept Hussein in power? Of course then that was the goal behind the sanctions and it was worth it according to Albright. So maybe we should reconsider.
"As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art." -Franz Liszt

Offline living_stradivarius

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #17 on: March 12, 2007, 05:43:25 PM
If the regime is really about to crack then the sanctions will prevent this. How will sanctions empower the people to have the strength and courage to rise up?

Haven't we learned a lesson with Iraq? Where sanctions kept Hussein in power? Of course then that was the goal behind the sanctions and it was worth it according to Albright. So maybe we should reconsider.

It is too late to revert to conciliatory diplomacy as would only increase the credibility of the current regime's practices.

Iraq does not map onto the situation in North Korea. How do you suggest we give "strength" and "courage" to a brainwashed and starving population? The same way we tried with Cuba?
The civilian populations in Iraq and North Korea are very different.

Saddam had oil to economically insulate him from the brunt of sanctions. Kim Jong Il has nukes... not so lucrative (that's why he must rely on "bilateral" talks).
Music is like making love: either all or nothing. Isaac Stern

Life without music is unthinkable. Music without life is academic. That is why my contact with music is a total embrace.
Lenny Bernst

Offline prometheus

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3819
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #18 on: March 12, 2007, 07:06:28 PM
Doesn't Cuba suffer from an economic boycott? What are you referring to?


N-Korea has very little. There are very little resources and agriculture doesn't go well either. So they will have to build an economy on education.

What is the issue with credibility? Do you think the population will support the government more when the rest of the world give the government 'credibility'? Forget about governments and credibility. What about the N-Korean people? And those in S-Korea?

I don't know a good way to give strength and courage to the N-Korean people. But there is no alternative. Well, one can invade N-Korea. Or one can just wait and do nothing. But do you really want to either of those.

Also, China is the only thing that seems to be able to influence the N-Korean government. Maybe over time through China we can influence N-Korea as well. As China becomes more westernised and the Chinese people gain more liberties maybe they will decide to help out the N-Korean people.
"As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art." -Franz Liszt

Offline living_stradivarius

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #19 on: March 12, 2007, 07:52:12 PM
Doesn't Cuba suffer from an economic boycott? What are you referring to?

I'm referring to Bay of Pigs, when we believed there was plenty of "strength" and "courage" among the populace against Castro's regime. Castro's not choking like Kim Jong Il because he has alternate economic routes to take.
If you're banking on education and an open economy to foster regime change in North Korea, tell me how it would work given the regime's practices. North Korea is not like China; it pales in size and does not require complex levels of bureaucracy to manage, which China is struggling with.

Quote
N-Korea has very little. There are very little resources and agriculture doesn't go well either. So they will have to build an economy on education.

The government elites live off a black market now. The regime will stop at nothing to keep the civilians closed off - no education, no economy

Quote
What is the issue with credibility? Do you think the population will support the government more when the rest of the world give the government 'credibility'? Forget about governments and credibility. What about the N-Korean people? And those in S-Korea?

I'm talking about giving credibility to the regime's behavior. They more confident the REGIME feels about its current techniques (gaining concessions from the UN) the more it will reinforce its current practices and crack down further on economic openings and social progress. The civilian population is blind to the external forces at work because of the regime's practices.
Backing away from sanctions also lowers the credibility of UNSC resolutions.

Quote
I don't know a good way to give strength and courage to the N-Korean people. But there is no alternative. Well, one can invade N-Korea. Or one can just wait and do nothing. But do you really want to either of those.

Exactly. Until there we can actually find or produce a viable source of regime change from within, stepping back from sanctions would only strengthen the regime and its military.
The better alternative is to sanction the regime to the point where elites finally feel the plight of their own civilians. Lifting sanctions is equivalent to giving the regime a blank check.

Quote
Also, China is the only thing that seems to be able to influence the N-Korean government. Maybe over time through China we can influence N-Korea as well. As China becomes more westernised and the Chinese people gain more liberties maybe they will decide to help out the N-Korean people.

China has committed to defending North Korea from outside incursions. Additionally,  "westernization" cannot spill over if BOTH states do not sanction such an exchange. Even if the CCP were to finally concede (Wen JiaBao does not want democracy for at least another 100 years) in x amount of years, the NK regime would also have to open its borders (try to cross it from/to China and you risk getting shot). If the UN waits for China, it'll be far too late.


On a side note, do you believe in trickle down economics?
If it has a hard time working in the US, do you think it even has a chance over there?
Music is like making love: either all or nothing. Isaac Stern

Life without music is unthinkable. Music without life is academic. That is why my contact with music is a total embrace.
Lenny Bernst

Offline prometheus

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3819
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #20 on: March 12, 2007, 10:11:36 PM
I'm referring to Bay of Pigs, when we believed there was plenty of "strength" and "courage" among the populace against Castro's regime.

Well, what happened in Cuba was that the people overthrew Batista, who was pro-US. And then the US organised an invasion only months later to put a dictator friendly to them back in power.

I don't understand how you want to draw this analogy. But it would be similar to the people revolting against Kim Jong Il. Then his supports go in exile in the US. And the US plans an invasion for them, to get Kim Jong Il back in power.



Quote
I'm talking about giving credibility to the regime's behavior. They more confident the REGIME feels about its current techniques (gaining concessions from the UN) the more it will reinforce its current practices and crack down further on economic openings and social progress.

Don't they start to use more desperate tactics when they become more desperate? Why are they building a nuclear weapon anyway, do you think? To get political leverage.

Quote
Backing away from sanctions also lowers the credibility of UNSC resolutions.

Does it have any credibility left? Anyway, the UNSC interprets it's own resolutions. So let's see what the decide on.

Quote
...stepping back from sanctions would only strengthen the regime and its military.
The better alternative is to sanction the regime to the point where elites finally feel the plight of their own civilians. Lifting sanctions is equivalent to giving the regime a blank check.

It seems to me a good excuse to villainise the US even more and to use the US as an excuse for all their own bad policies. Just like Cuba and Iraq did.
It will cripple and disrupt the country even more and hit the population while the elite live the same lives as before.

Quote
China has committed to defending North Korea from outside incursions.

Why would they do that?

Quote
Additionally,  "westernization" cannot spill over if BOTH states do not sanction such an exchange.

China is already westernizing up to some extent.

Quote
Even if the CCP were to finally concede (Wen JiaBao does not want democracy for at least another 100 years) in x amount of years, the NK regime would also have to open its borders (try to cross it from/to China and you risk getting shot). If the UN waits for China, it'll be far too late.

Far too late for what? And again, what is the alternative? You want to starve the whole country so that there is no one left to do anything?

Quote
On a side note, do you believe in trickle down economics?

No. But does anyone?
"As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art." -Franz Liszt

Offline living_stradivarius

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
Re: korean ultimatum
Reply #21 on: March 14, 2007, 08:21:47 PM
Again, I'm referring to the reasons why the Bay of Pigs Invasion was predicted to be successful. The point is that inspiring regime change (in this case, by supporting exiles who opposed Castro) does not happen easily and often occurs without adequate knowledge of those we believe are in support of regime change. The Kennedy Administration overestimated the boost the US could provide to the strength and morale of exile forces in Cuba.

Now look at North Korea. We have no means of reaching the civilian population because the regime is so tightly closed. You make it sound like "westernization" is quick and easy. North Korea cannot "westernize" the way China has for multiple reasons stated above (population density, federalism, regime control).
Even food aid provided by the UN does NOT reach the civilian population (hence my point on trickle-down economics. Since you do agree that resources don't reach the civilian populace, they will starve regardless of sanctions.). Lifting sanctions as a concession to NK's threat would do nothing to change the plight of the civilians. At the same time this concession would boost the regime's self confidence in its practices.
If sanctions are lifted without concessions from NK, the regime will continue to violate human rights, continue building its military with the funds we let in, and nothing gets accomplished. None of the funds from outside ever reach the civilians. They starve.
Better to weaken the regime and generate distaste among the civilian populace against the DPRK elites so that they don't die in vain.

The regime's show of desperation means that it cannot tolerate international pressure much longer.

Lifting sanctions must be coupled with TANGIBLE moves for regime change, which the DPRK government has failed to show.
Ideally that's what sanctions try to accomplish first; gaining concessions from rogue governments.
Music is like making love: either all or nothing. Isaac Stern

Life without music is unthinkable. Music without life is academic. That is why my contact with music is a total embrace.
Lenny Bernst
For more information about this topic, click search below!

Piano Street Magazine:
Women and the Chopin Competition: Breaking Barriers in Classical Music

The piano, a sleek monument of polished wood and ivory keys, holds a curious, often paradoxical, position in music history, especially for women. While offering a crucial outlet for female expression in societies where opportunities were often limited, it also became a stage for complex gender dynamics, sometimes subtle, sometimes stark. From drawing-room whispers in the 19th century to the thunderous applause of today’s concert halls, the story of women and the piano is a narrative woven with threads of remarkable progress and stubbornly persistent challenges. Read more
 

Logo light pianostreet.com - the website for classical pianists, piano teachers, students and piano music enthusiasts.

Subscribe for unlimited access

Sign up

Follow us

Piano Street Digicert