mdk

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

It seems like it'd be much less of a hassle to deal with a developed North Korea that's free of human rights abuses, especially if they engage in meaningful and high volume trade with the rest of the world. Such a drastic change in their way of life would probably discourage them from being hostile, and might actually set a positive precedent for its future leaders.

@catchamber

One of us is putting the cart before the horse and I'm not honestly sure which of us it is. DPRK has no human rights and engages with no meaningful trade. We would very much like them to not abuse human rights and DO have meaningful trade. Which one is the avenue to the other, and/or are they both either? That's a sentence, shut up. POINT BEING -- that version of Korea you're picturing is awesome. Also, I don't think we have a responsibility to get them there. Our responsibility (right now anyway) begins and ends with their ability to annihilate our citizens and allies. If we stray too far from that, we're nation-building. Or imperialists. Or, ya know, pick a word.

It's not about the UN, but the capabilities of its member states. China's far from being self sufficient, and the rest of the world can make China's economy suffer if they get to that point before China does. This is ignoring the potential pain that can be caused through espionage, memetics, and other nonviolent methods.

Well whatever is being done at this exact moment is working, and we haven't bombed China, so I guess just let it roll. I'm just saying, the concept of possible repercussions hasn't stopped them in the past. Maybe Twitter is Chinese kryptonite.

I can't access the article, and I'd rather not guess about what you're referring to. Mind copy-pasting that section?

WEIRD, this morning there was no paywall and now it wants me to subscribe. Well the gist is, we've got some exposure to the average North Korean based on who flees the country. Generally who comes across isn't the upper-crust of society, so grain of salt, but the state of education and labor skills is preeeetty (unremarkably) lackluster. Three generations of Kims have poisoned the learning well. It'll be decades before they're a self-sustaining economy..... frankly that might even happen faster with a Kim overseeing the process, if he could be compelled to do so. Basically the article was talking about what we've learned from the ROK trying to help DPRK refugees adapt and adjust, and the societies are drastically, often violently, different, to a generally depressing degree.

Oh? In that case, please tell Betsy to answer her goddamn phone.

She says "get a Skype account you peasant." What's a skype?

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I sincerely hope the current plan is dropped, and the situation is approached with the living conditions of the North Korean people being the unquestionable concern of everyone that's involved.

@catchamber

Eh. I mean don't get me wrong, I hope their lives get better, but I don't wanna have to flex my nuclear muscles every time a goatherd in the third world stubs their toe. If we're doing this for the sake of suffering people, then North Korea is gonna wind up being the cheapest thing we do for the next fifty years. I'm okay with approaching this from a position of rational self-interest. Enough people can find enough common ground to make that work.

China knows that defying the past few UN Security Council resolutions regarding North Korea would be a very bad move for both countries, and that the risks of such behavior far outweigh any hypothetical benefits.

lol, what's the UN gonna do about it? China has a veto on the security council. If by some miracle the UN got off its ass without the US whipping it into motion, China has the irrevocable power to make the entire UN sit back down. And again -- they've let it happen before. In plausibly-deniable ways, but they've let it happen.

Maybe. Then again, science marches on.

I remember reading that, when they found it! Neat stuff. Well, if we're counting speculative advancement, I totally believe China is up to the task of maintaining itself in the long run. I'm less sure they can also maintain all of North Korea in a short-term sense of things. Hope they're working on it though.

Fortunately, existing technologies can be synergized to accelerate development at cost effective rates, and living standards being improved should give North Koreans more than enough resources and time to participate in the process.

I dunno about that last bit. Skip to the bottom; basically, this is not going to be an easy pie to slice, no matter who winds up slicing it. But you're right, we can drop a 4G network instead of laying cables, and shit like that. Sometimes it pays to be the last horse across the line. Then again, I mean, how's Afghanistan look these days? It's not like we didn't spend money there.

You make it sound like you have Trump on speed dial.

You caught me. I'm Trump.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

It's a new approach, but it's incredibly risky and doesn't provide many novel benefits.

@catchamber

Well not yet. We haven't started.

I know China doesn't want North Korea to experience a revolution, and it's obvious that Xi is trying to get Kim and Trump to play nice to help facilitate that goal. However, the US can sit back and let China deal with the situation, and I doubt China's stupid enough to damage their international credibility by backing out of their sanctions enforcement role.

sure they are. I mean it's not so much "stupidity" as conflicting interests -- DPRK cannot fail, therefore China is willing to skirt some rules. Almost all the recent progress we've made, we've made by strong-arming China into playing along. Most of the banks, vessels, overland routes (somewhat obviously), etc. which have been keeping Kim afloat have gone through China. We take our foot off the throat, they'll go right back, or at least there's no reason to expect they wouldn't.

As for China's water shortage, they're already working on that.

Drop in the proverbial bucket. If we have to wait for China to meet its long-term water goals before anything happens with the DPRK, we're going to be waiting an awful long time.

Many former member republics of the USSR come to mind. Either way, I'll state that I favor economic strong arming as the way to incentivize North Korea to improve its citizens' living standards, because war and recovery are expensive.

Fair enough. Bear in mind, any effort to reconcile North Korea with the modern world is gonna be expensive, on the order of post-war recoveries. They're that poorly off.

I honestly don't see how anyone can guarantee that North Korea will fully comply with denuclearization. While North Korea's not a big country, it's still going to be difficult for any country or NGO to scour its entirety in search of anything remotely related to the production of nuclear weapons. Even if that was reasonable to achieve, it's not impossible for North Korea to outfit submarines with ICBMs.

All things we should bring up when talking with the boss. The wariness is healthy though. Shit, I wish we were this careful when we signed that Iran agreement.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I believe it was former President Jimmy Carter that met with President Kim Il Sung in June of 1994

@catchamber

Oh, yeah, FORMER presidents have met with the DPRK like a bunch. Bill Clinton went over there in like.... 2010? 2011? During Obama's administration. This is the first time we've had current-leader-to-current-leader. I think it's a significant development.

If they sit back and wait for the North Korean people to set up a new government, they can potentially end the Kim Dynasty, prevent dignitaries from being assassinated, and let China deal with the refugees and geopolitical fallout that was ultimately caused by their support of the North Korean government for so long.

For my money, the only reason China supported the DPRK for so long was to prevent exactly this outcome. I don't think they're gonna be on board -- in fact I know they aren't. For all their roaring economic success, they don't have the natural resources (most pressingly, drinkable water) to support the extra population. We could probably make a great friend out of China if we can navigate out of this without demolishing their last 30 years of progress (and, FWIW, that probably would also result in a lot less suffering in the long run -- China doesn't have the best human rights record).

The desired outcome is the significant improvement of living conditions for North Koreans, because denuclearization is not practical to pursue or guarantee. Whether this is achieved through economic strong arming or revolution depends on how much backlash the pro-sanctions nations are willing to endure, because a revolution will produce thousands of refugees and millions of deaths. As the power of the citizens increases, the power of suicidally aggressive governments decreases, thanks to the collective actions of tens of millions of sufficiently equipped North Koreans trying to prevent their living conditions from degrading.

My primary objective/desired outcome is security. Riddle me this, because at the moment I can't think of an example -- have we ever successfully induced a revolution against a totalitarian government, without (or, shoot, even with) sending in the troops, which resulted in improvement of living conditions for the people?

Anyway if we ARE truly holding all the cards, denuclearization is a reasonable goal, one that already has China, Russia, ROK, Japan, and basically all of Asia on board. I think it's worth running with that for a while. Probably not going to solve the next 50 years in one sit-down, but it's potentially a start.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

So the position here is....... what? I'm sorry, trying to juggle multiple convos and I feel like I'm going in circles. Help me understand what your positions are.

Open fill-in-the-blank: The first ever summit between DPRK and US presidency is _________ because _____________.

Bonus: The US should _______________, rather than ____________.

Bonus 2: The desired outcome is ____________.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I can't believe no one ever thought of talking tough and coming to the negotiating table with the North Koreans. That will surely convince the regime to throw away its only guarantee of survival. Its so simple!

@Penny

We made the nuclear program into a liability. That's the change.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>
Funny that you mention refugees, because China's already preparing for that.

@catchamber

tents aren't really the issue.

As for trade, 0.14% of Chinese exports went to North Korea, 0.16% of Chinese imports came from North Korea, while 4.47% of Chinese exports went to South Korea, and 10.01% of Chinese imports came from South Korea. China can basically shrug at the idea of economic ties with North Korea being severed.

Yep. Xi Jinping is a big part of the reason this is working.

For the record though, looking at the DPRK's on-the-books exports is a mistake. The CIA world factbook *used* to list illicit arms as their primary export -- that's been changed since the last time I looked it up, now it's coal and minerals, but I'm not entirely buying that.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

What exactly is there to be had by a sitting President visiting Kim Jong-un, versus sending some other official to speak on their behalf? Alternatively, can't the USA just sit back and watch the North Korean people turn against their leader because he put them in a fucked up situation, then send a dignitary to speak to the new leaders?

@catchamber

Refugee crisis mostly, is the reason we don't wanna do that. If the Kim dynasty fails, for all its bullshit, that's actually way worse for the global economy. Well, China and ROK's economy, but mostly China, and therefore the world. Now that's not, you know, non-starter -- the DPRK with nuke-capable ICBMs (they don't quite have that yet) would be worse. It's worth sitting down with the guy if we go in with the objective of trying to avoid either of those two outcomes.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

The Nuclear Program is a sort of national equity for DPRK. It makes no sense to give it up when you can borrow against it. DPRK policy has always reflected this.

@Penny

US policy has always allowed this. Until now.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

As they've always done.

Rephrased: the worst we can do in a negotiation is as good as anything we've ever gotten out of the DPRK.

I'm tempted to say that the fact a meeting is happening at all is, in itself, proof that the policy of increased pressure is working. I mean if it wasn't, why bother with the charade? This part of the policy worked. Any deal we make is a new ballgame, and we're gonna have to make sure those concerns are addressed. I know lots of ya don't have a lot of faith in the "Art of the Deal," but surely we can at least give the Mad Dog a chance to draw up something that works before we declare it a futile endeavor? We haven't even sat down yet, nothing's impossible.

I think Kim Jong-Un has self-interest. That oughta be all the leverage we need.