[sunnykerr]

http://www.fanforum.com/f117/101-kil...ndia-62866023/

Banner made by 4N6 DNA

[quaist]

Previous thread: Asian News Thread #1

In the last thread, we were again discussing North Korea and its recent attempts to get the world's attention by blaring out nuclear threats.

Even China doesn't know how to react to that anymore:

China and its North Korea problem The extent of the contempt with which North Korea is viewed in China might surprise some Westerners. Ordinary Chinese workers, students and taxi drivers I have spoken with over the years chuckle and sneer at North Korea for not “awakening from delusions” and reforming. An uproariously funny 18-minute video clip of comedians Jia Xuming and Zhang Kang satirizing world news, including unsavoury Chinese items, was recently banned in China but still manages to circulate surreptitiously there on the Internet. Its shellacking of North Korea (some of it quite obscene) got some of the biggest laughs from the audience, especially the deadpan (and not entirely inaccurate) comparison of its security policies with those of other major countries: America: We attack whomever we want. Britain: We attack whomever the Americans attack. Japan: If anyone attacks us, we’ll allow the Americans to attack them. South Korea: If anyone attacks us, we’ll hold joint military exercises with the Americans. North Korea: If anyone provokes us, we’ll attack South Korea. Although North Korea is a laughingstock, even in China, it is creating decidedly unfunny problems for the world. North Korea deliberately portrays itself as desperate, hungry – a mad dog backed into a corner by the West, Japan and the United Nations, ready to strike out violently if it feels too threatened. For Pyongyang, the summum bonum is the survival of the Kim dynasty, the viability of the Workers’ Party of Korea that runs it and North Korea’s independence. Anything seriously threatening these three things will enrage North Korea and make it an extremely dangerous state. Is North Korea crazy? Yes – like a fox. Beijing has long understood this, but Beijing knows that foxy craziness could one day, under the right (er, wrong) conditions, become real madness in Pyongyang. Ever since the early 1990s and the death of North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung, Beijing has faced a tough balancing act: validating North Korea’s existential angst while telling a leery international community not to worry too much about it. North Korea’s isolation only grows with the passage of time – and with it its anxiety about survival. Its clunky and faltering socialist economy has made it unable to feed its people, so its government has developed missiles and nuclear weapons in order to intimidate the outside world into supporting it. “Feed me or I just might be crazy enough to kill you” has essentially been North Korea’s message to South Korea, in particular, and the world, in general, over the past 20 years. Chinese leaders perceive a divided Korea as serving China’s national interests, but they would vastly prefer a saner, more stable and more pragmatic government in North Korea. China is acutely aware that North Korea’s outré antics could very well lead to a massive arms buildup by the United States, Japan and South Korea – a scenario that would greatly destabilize Northeast Asia and present a security nightmare to China. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement in China this weekend that Chinese leaders are “very serious” about reducing tensions in the Korean peninsula and seeing an end to North Korea’s nuclear program is credible and encouraging. Beijing is exasperated with Pyongyang for being so bellicose. But China must move cautiously because North Korea is now possibly unstable and factionalized, and Beijing does not know for certain which strings to pull nor what the consequences of pulling them will be. Beijing cannot resort to grasping at straws, and its cautions about everyone involved remaining cool and collected are wise and appropriate. Still, it is Beijing alone that must figure out how to manage the delicate and artful task of lowering the boom on North Korea while not quite driving its tyrants completely mad – mad for real this time, not like wily foxes but rabid dogs.

[sunnykerr]

I don't know if I should be flattered or insulted that Canada wasn't derided.

Whenever there's global conflict, we're usually pretty involved.



Oh well.

I think the article sums up well the current situation.

It's in everyone's best interest to have China handle the situation, but I don't think that's something anyone is too comfortable with either.

It's not in the United States' nature to relinquish control easily. And, for all that we know for sure that North Korea is crazy, China's kinda of a cooky bird as well.

[quaist]

Oh, I'm sorry for not having included the banner in the first post... I somehow overlooked it.

As for the article not mentioning Canada's stance -- how would you sum it up? I have to say that I've got no idea, but I'd guess it's similar to Britain's approach?

[sunnykerr]

No worries about the banner. And I'm sorry I didn't think to thank you yesterday, for starting the new thread.

A very good title choice, by the way.

As for how Canada should be represented, I almost posted yesterday that we probably would indeed fit in with the UK on this one "we'll attack whomever the United States wants us to attack."

It used to be we had a will of our own, but I'm afraid that's diminished considerably under the current leadership.

[quaist]

Aww, no problem

Well, like I said, I don't know much about Canada's (previous) stances on world politics. Would you like to have your country taking a different position on that matter, towards North Korea?

[sunnykerr]

Actually, I kinda like the position we're taking with North Korea right now.

Which is the one where army veterans have been going to South Korea to make a show of presence and participate in the military exercises.

At this point, that's about as far as I'd be willing to commit troops to this wannabe conflict.

[quaist]

Yeah, that's about the same thing the US does right now.

But what should Canada do in case of conflict? Because as I view it, all these summarized security policies are about that 'case of emergency'.

[sunnykerr]

Do you mean "what do you think Canada should do in case there's a conflict with North Korea" or more generally?

Because, I'll be honest, it's hard for me to imagine this will turn into a real armed conflict. Of course, I suppose someone might do something stupid and it will, but I can hardly imagine it.

Generally speaking then, I have to go to the pre-Harper days to see how I would like Canada to be involved in foreign conflicts. Which is sparingly, but effectively. We've always had a fairly good record in war zones and the part that I'm especially proud of is the bit, that might be completely apocryphal, but the bit where we will treat the wounded with dignity, regardless of which side they're coming from.

[quaist]

I meant concerning their general stance on North Korea as well as their reaction in case of conflict.

Because, technically, I agree with you -- a real armed conflict with North Korea is highly unlikely, but in terms of international relations it does matter how each country positions oneself on that score.

Originally Posted by sunnykerr We've always had a fairly good record in war zones and the part that I'm especially proud of is the bit, that might be completely apocryphal, but the bit where we will treat the wounded with dignity, regardless of which side they're coming from.

That's certainly something Canadians can be proud of. One couldn't say that for specific other countries and their behavior in war zones.

[sunnykerr]

I think the only thing that works with North Korea is diplomacy.

They want food. They want contact with the West to have food.

Ideologically, that's obviously anathema to what they promote domestically.

But that relationship with the "West" (in this scenario, the West could very well be South Korea or China or Russia) is sine qua non to their survival.

And Canada used to be good at that sort of "strong diplomacy" thing. I'm sure we didn't actually invent peacekeeping (even though that's what they tell schoolchidren here happened), but we certainly perfected it.

So that's where I would see us... in a world before Harper.

[quaist]

Thing is, they've got just enough money for the country's elite and for the military.

The Kim clan doesn't seem to care as much for the common people to put their survival and provision for food first. They are simply not willing to give their nuclear program up for that.

[sunnykerr]

I have heard that the only reason North Korea is able to feed anyone, whether that's just the elite or people outside that small group, was because of whatever back-channel contact with the outside world they may have.

I'm on the same page as anyone else with thinking that the elites must hoarde the large bulk of... I was gonna say "luxuries," but in North Korea, we've got a bit more comprehensive than that, huh?

[quaist]

I think the main source of 'wealth' (if you can call it that) in North Korea is the financial support coming from China and the money in form of forex they get from the Kaesŏng Industrial Park.

Keeping in mind that they willingly risked their good relations to China recently and shut the park down while simultaneously launching threats against South Korea and the US, the idea suggests itself that the Kim regime doesn't view the overall financial situation to be that bad.

[sunnykerr]

He's a 30-year-old over-priveleged brat.

Sooner or later, though, it'll dawn on all of them that this can't go anywhere.