North Korea scrapping accords with South Korea

[Guardsman Bass]

So they say -

Communist North Korea has said it is scrapping all military and political agreements signed with the South, accusing Seoul of hostile intent.

The South's government had pushed relations "to the brink of a war", the North's cross-border relations body said on state media.

South Korea expressed regret at the announcement and called for dialogue.

The two countries' navies fought bloody skirmishes in the area of the de facto border in 2002 and 1999.

One agreement scrapped is that covering the maritime border in the Yellow Sea.

"All the agreed points concerning the issue of putting an end to the political and military confrontation between the North and the South will be nullified," the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea said.

It said that the situation on the Korean peninsula had reached a point where there was "neither way to improve [relations] nor hope to bring them on track".

The North has stepped up rhetorical attacks on the administration of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who has promised to stop the free flow of aid to the North unless it moves to end its nuclear weapons programme.

Earlier this week, North Korea criticised the appointment of a new South Korean unification minister, describing the choice of Hyun In-taek as evidence that the South wanted to intensify confrontation between the two Korean states.

The BBC's John Sudworth in Seoul says some analysts believe that Pyongyang is trying to build up tensions with the South in order to give itself more negotiating power with the new US administration.

A more pessimistic analysis suggests that the rising tension does raise the possibility of small-scale military clashes, says our correspondent.

Regrets

"Our government expresses deep regret," said Kim Ho-Nyoun, spokesman for South Korea's unification ministry, which handles cross-border affairs.

"We urge North Korea to accept our call for dialogue as soon as possible," he said.

The two states are still technically at war because their three-year conflict ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, in 1953.

The peninsula remains divided by a heavily fortified Demilitarised Zone, with thousands of troops stationed on both sides of the border.

Relations improved in the past decade, with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il meeting with then-South Korean President Kim Dae-jung in a historic summit in 2000.

But tensions have been high since Mr Lee took office in Seoul nearly a year ago pledging to get tough with Pyongyang.

He began rolling back his predecessors' "sunshine policy" of unconditional aid to the North.

The North responded by cutting off talks, suspending key joint projects and stepping up criticism of Mr Lee who it calls a "traitor".

"Never to be condoned are the crimes the Lee group has committed against the nation and reunification by bedevilling overnight the inter-Korean relations that had favourably developed amidst the support and encouragement of all the Koreans and ruthlessly scrapping the inter-Korean agreements," the North said on Friday.

We'll see if it actually sticks. Apparently, they've been threatening to do this since at least October last year.

[TheMuffinKing]

What does N.Korea hope to accomplish with these antics?

[K. A. Pital]

What does N.Korea hope to accomplish with these antics?

Publicity; also, internal pressure. The society of the DPRK is in a state of total war; it's hard to keep it constantly mobilized like it's a war economy if there is no permanent threat of war. Even though it's clear that the leaders of the DPRK love their God-like positions and would not risk war which would end their reign, lives and the very existence of the DPRK society, they must keep it under constant stress.

They must also react somehow to the curbing of "Sunshine Policy", which until now has granted them several joint econonic ventures with Seoul; since their total war society has little in the way of reaction through economic sanctions, their reaction can be mostly threats and "cutting off ties", i.e. a diplomatic rebuke.

DPRK's actions are pretty rational within it's own framework; also, don't expect this ever lead into war. The DPRK will continue existing as a permanently mobilized war-time society, maybe even for all time. It has passed the phase of super-closedness by the border-slipping of Chinese electronics en masse, but until it's government resigns or reforms in some fashion, the society is stable. It's autarky can be the only source of it's demise; they have little agriculture which leads to hunger and famine as soon as something goes wrong with the harvest, but even in such a situation DPRK society remains stable.

[Posner]

Thanks for the article. Does anyone know why they chose to do this now? Is this just hardball negotiation or a real threat?

[Guardsman Bass]

It's autarky can be the only source of it's demise; they have little agriculture which leads to hunger and famine as soon as something goes wrong with the harvest, but even in such a situation DPRK society remains stable.

That depends. If half their population starves to death, then while they could continue the war-footing, they'd be considerably weaker and less able to maintain what military and industrial capabilities they have.

Thanks for the article. Does anyone know why they chose to do this now? Is this just hardball negotiation or a real threat?

It depends on how long things stay this way. Considering that they've been threatening to do this for at least several months, it's probably an attempt to get some concessions out of Korea's President.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, such a severe famine as to kill half of the population would not leave a stone from their social structure; and their government would collapse even earlier. Even the greatest and most severe famines usually kill off only a percent of the population; but rarely as much as a half or something. That would mean the economy is in such a complete collapse that the government no longer can exist.

[Posner]

That would mean the economy is in such a complete collapse that the government no longer can exist.

So you're saying the Libertarians win.

[TheMuffinKing]

That would mean the economy is in such a complete collapse that the government no longer can exist.

So you're saying the Libertarians win.

I can think of a few problems with the idea of Libertarianism in N.Korea. I'll start out under the impression that the country is too poor in resources (food, skilled labor, infrastructure) and too steeped in propaganda to allow an indigenous renaissance of business and industry without significant foreign investment in all basic services. Well I am probably way off the mark with this line of thought, after all I'm sure there is a thriving black market, and I'm sure entrepreneurs could parlay a collapse of the country into some financial success.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

That depends. If half their population starves to death, then while they could continue the war-footing, they'd be considerably weaker and less able to maintain what military and industrial capabilities they have.

I think they receive substantial aid from China.

It depends on how long things stay this way. Considering that they've been threatening to do this for at least several months, it's probably an attempt to get some concessions out of Korea's President.

Basically the current Korean president represents the conservatives of the country, some of whom would like to deny that their country was saved by the UN forces, or that they were conquered by Japan. To be more precise, they are a bunch of nationalists, who incidentally are also corporatists. So they got what was coming for them when they took on a more belligerent stance a few years back, never mind the incessant bungling they made in terms of policy.

[Guardsman Bass]

That depends. If half their population starves to death, then while they could continue the war-footing, they'd be considerably weaker and less able to maintain what military and industrial capabilities they have.

I think they receive substantial aid from China.

They do, but I was examining the basis of whether or not the state could continue as it has. It seems obvious that they could probably do it with aid.

It depends on how long things stay this way. Considering that they've been threatening to do this for at least several months, it's probably an attempt to get some concessions out of Korea's President.

Basically the current Korean president represents the conservatives of the country, some of whom would like to deny that their country was saved by the UN forces, or that they were conquered by Japan. To be more precise, they are a bunch of nationalists, who incidentally are also corporatists. So they got what was coming for them when they took on a more belligerent stance a few years back, never mind the incessant bungling they made in terms of policy.

I thought the current Korean President was elected in part because he was considered to be more US-friendly (or at least less antagonizing to the US) compared to his predecessor.

[Master of Ossus]

Haven't the US/South Korea been pushing North Korea to the brink of war on a daily or weekly basis for the last 50 years? I'm not terribly impressed by North Korea's provocative statements, anymore. It'll be interesting if they go through with it, but I doubt that the North's navy would achieve anything through skirmishes with the South's.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I thought the current Korean President was elected in part because he was considered to be more US-friendly (or at least less antagonizing to the US) compared to his predecessor.

Ha! You wish. The great hoo ha over the American beef after the current President was elected puts paid to that. That was mostly linked to nationalism and anti-Americanism. Your country had a really bad rep to the newer generation over America's posturing against N. Korea.

No, they elected the current President under the assumption that he will run the economy well, since he was a great businessman. They probably hoped that he will show a bit more back bone to N. Korea as well, but that wasn't really the biggest issue.

[Guardsman Bass]

I thought the current Korean President was elected in part because he was considered to be more US-friendly (or at least less antagonizing to the US) compared to his predecessor.

Ha! You wish. The great hoo ha over the American beef after the current President was elected puts paid to that. That was mostly linked to nationalism and anti-Americanism. Your country had a really bad rep to the newer generation over America's posturing against N. Korea.

That wasn't his initiative (well, not directly - he wanted to liberalize the beef flow, which started the riots), though - and I didn't say that there wasn't some anti-Americanism going on over there, particularly with the younger generation. But part of his campaign was strengthening US-Korean ties, more than his predecessor at least.

Do the South Koreans think that if only the US wasn't so "tough" on North Korea, then North Korea would be more tractable? It's not as if we completely ruled out negotiations with the Norks, and they haven't been the most faithful of partners (the Norks).

No, they elected the current President under the assumption that he will run the economy well, since he was a great businessman. They probably hoped that he will show a bit more back bone to N. Korea as well, but that wasn't really the biggest issue.

I don't doubt that.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

That wasn't his initiative (well, not directly - he wanted to liberalize the beef flow, which started the riots), though - and I didn't say that there wasn't some anti-Americanism going on over there, particularly with the younger generation. But part of his campaign was strengthening US-Korean ties, more than his predecessor at least.

Well, that was probably a smaller factor than the economy which was the bigger concern.

Do the South Koreans think that if only the US wasn't so "tough" on North Korea, then North Korea would be more tractable? It's not as if we completely ruled out negotiations with the Norks, and they haven't been the most faithful of partners (the Norks).

The Norks weren't the most faithful of partners is undeniable, but if you look from the context of a country that was steeped in Stalinist paranoia, it made sense. The Norks never trusted the United States, and it did not help the United States when George Bush declared N. Korea as part of the Axis of Evil and proceeded to invade Iraq. That was the trigger that led to the Norks taking a very very antagonistic policy towards the US. It also didn't help that elements within the Bush Administration openly said that negotiations were a waste of time (or something to that effect). The S. Koreans on the other hand, were not very happy with the aggressive US policy which was in their opinion aggravating the problem rather than helping it, and the Bush Administration at one point of time if I am not wrong, regarded the Roh administration as unreliable because of the Sunshine policy.

Then came the talk that the US would move its army base a bit out of Seoul. It sounds great from the military point of view, but the S. Koreans were afraid that the US could attack N. Korea without fear of retaliation, while their capital burned. Of course, Bush decided towards the end of his term to talk to N. Korea and that ameliorated a lot of ill will. My personal take is that the N. Koreans want to see how Obama would approach them and see how he reacts to their moves.