Broomstick wrote:
Um... I thought that the Soviets helped out with North Korea, as well as China's past and continuing help. Free from foreign influence? Well, OK, that was the party line for public consumption, right?
It may very well have been, since as we have seen the North couldn't have survived the Korean war without Chinese and Soviet help, nor can it survive now without Chinese help. I'd have to dig out the book and read it again, and it's 500 pages long. It'd be difficult to find the references to that particular point.
However, the point of "free from foreign influence" has less to do with receiving aid from allies and more to do with not being a mere puppet. The first government under Kim il-Sung had its own agenda (the unification of Korea under the North) and after the Korean War the North carried out its policies without undue influence from the USSR or China. The Northern policy of economic "self-reliance," aka isolation, otherwise known as
Juche, was carried out partly as a response to what Il-Sung considered an abandonment of true communism by the USSR and China around the 1970s. I see that as quite a fair bit of self-determination.
Why did it take so long?
I think this has to do with historical precedent right after the end of World War II and the stress of having such a hostile neighbor to the north. You have to keep in mind that immediately after the Korean peninsula was divided, the population of the country was well mixed with leftists and rightists, communists and capitalists, on both sides of the border. In the North, the Soviets installed Kim Il-Sung who gained great popularity by instituting land reform, seizing Japanese held land and the land of the wealthy class. He pretty much had universal control of the country in just a few years because he outright killed all the right elements of Northern society or chased them into the south. The south, on the other hand, being a slightly more open society (emphasis on "slightly"), still had hoards of leftists that were sympathetic to the North. For instance, after Kim Il-Sung instituted land reform in the north, the south was forced by populist pressure to adopt land reform of its own. There were several military uprisings in 1948. In 1950 on the eve of the war, most of the Southern parliament was filled with independent candidates that didn't belong to any party, indicating poor domestic support for the capitalist government installed.
As for who was in control of that government, Syngman Rhee was directly appointed by the United States to head the post-WWII provisional government in the south. When he launched campaigns to remove any political opposition in the south in the name of cleansing communism from the society, the US condoned it. He was elected president of the Republic in 1948 with a man named Kim Gu opposing him. A year later, Kim Gu was assassinated. During his tenure in office, the private security force arrested any disorderly elements that opposed his power, and his government is responsible for multiple massacres. He imprisoned political opponents to get what he wanted out of the legislature, rigged elections, and was overall a very authoritarian, anti-democratic man. One could say that this was in response to communist threats from the north and I think that definitely plays a role. The US is complicit in allowing him power, though, and certainly it set a precedent for authoritarian rule in the South for a long time.
Syngman ruled South Korea until 1960, and then he was forced to resign after widespread protests over a rigged election. A true democratic Republic was established, but it was ineffective due to overwhelming activity by suppressed leftist elements. That Republic was thus overthrown by the South Korean military only eight months after it was established. Park Chee-Hung was the new strongman. Chee-Hung has a mixed legacy. He was an authoritarian man just like Syngman was, but he is also credited with making South Korea into the economic giant it is today. He was very sensible in his economic policies, preferring "Development First, Reunification Later." He did win some elections for two terms in office under the "Republic" he established, however, when his two terms were up, he had the term limits abolished so he could stay in power. In 1971, when opposing parties won a majority in the parliament, he declared a national emergency and dissolved the Republic altogether. Afterwards, he established a new constitution that gave him pretty much unilateral control of the country until 1979 when he was assassinated.
Leftists were still very active in the country, and although the country had developed economically, the military still didn't trust the people. So after Chee-Hung was assassinated, there was another coup d'etat and the military took over again. There were protests, and they were violently put down. The people never trusted this government even though the economy continued to grow and South Korea started to really, really prosper. In 1987, a student protester was killed by the police during questioning, and when that got out the entire country was outraged. When the military president said that he'd do everything possible to protect the current order and ignore popular protests, the public pretty much rose up all over the country and forced the government to resign and enact true democratic reforms. And it was then that the first truly open and free democratic votes were held in the country. By then, North Korea was only a few years from becoming an economic non-item, and pretty much no one at that point could imagine themselves unifying under a communist system.
The thing is, the rest of the world isn't going to cater to them as an Extra Special Snowflake. The only thing keeping North Korean "isolated diplomatically" is themselves.
This is true to an extent. However, the point I've always tried to make when discussing North Korea is that they don't really have a choice because of all their past decisions and mistakes. They actually want and are desperate for recognition, ties, and direct relations with the US, but being an order built on lies, they can't afford to let anyone in the North know anything about the way the world is outside. I mean, Koreans who got to work in Siberian logging camps came back so influenced by the relative Russian liberalism that many of them were imprisoned in prison camps along with their entire families, never to be seen again. That's how paranoid the Northern ruling class is, and to be honest, they can't afford not to be paranoid.
Now, I've detailed above why I think that current US interests, if viewed from a shallow and selfish prism, would have little interest in allowing a United Korea. However, if we *did* want to see conflict averted and a possible bloodless unification of the peninsula, then I think the US would have to swallow its pride a little and deal with the devil. Recognize that the Northern leadership is walking just as fine a line as we are from their standpoint. It's a fine line between state failure, death, loss of power, ideology, and pride. Extremely complex, but if the US were able to understand that context and engage North Korea one-on-one over time, then I think there would be some success in de-escalating the conflict.
From what I can see, China is actually propping them up at this point. Maybe the Norks shouldn't be stealing the trains that supplies are sent on, perhaps that would help their situation? In any case, I would think the Norks could look to China for how to change their system economically while still retaining an autocratic government, and with the Nork cult of personality if the top ordered changes they'd probably be done without entirely upsetting the applecart. A little change in how things are done that resulted in even slightly greater prosperity would, given the situation, probably only make the populace more devoted to the current regime.
The Chinese are propping them up, yes, but as we've seen, they're growing more and more skeptical with each passing year. A lot of posters even on this board have felt North Korean sweat hitting the ground over that. But the real threat is from the economically and militarily dominant South and the absolutely overwhelming power of the United States. I mean, both states are diametrically opposed to what North Korea stands for and while South Korea has attempted engagement with the North with some success, the US refuses to deal with the North on a one-on-one level (barring General level talks at a meeting point in the DMZ as part of the United Nations mandate). And, of course, our citizenry and government have openly talked about regime change and we have practiced it abroad before. Again, North Korean sweat is practically pouring.
... so, when China started changing its economy that's when things really started to go off the rails in North Korea?
Mmmm...not entirely sure. Things were never really entirely all right in Kim Il-Sung's head from the moment he took power, at least from a personal ethics point of view. I mean, take a look at these pictures.
Here we have our bright, handsome, energetic revolutionary fighting for independence from Japanese domination.
And here we have our extremely well fed Kim Il-Sung after he assumed power. Can you say "perks of office?" The power went straight to his head.
From a foreign policy point of view, though, the Soviet Union distanced itself from Stalinist communism starting in 1954, and that alienated Il-Sung. When Mao died in China and Deng Xiaopeng started his economic reforms, you have to imagine that Il-Sung felt that communism's two standard bearers were abandoning their founding principles. And then when the big fall came in 1989, you have to imagine that the North Koreans grew even more paranoid.
I don't see any way to give them that reassurance in a way they would trust. As you point out, they're bullies. They're going to assume that the US will treat them as they would treat the US - with crushing force. I don't think showing them an example of the US dealing with a former bully without crushing force, or showing them instances where the US didn't summarily execute the prior leadership is going to work. I'm not sure that sort of mercy exists in the mindset of the Nork leaders.
Here we agree somewhat. I don't think that giving them examples of our historical good will would work. For every example that we might find, I'm sure we'd find some that were equally nasty. We brutally stomped Mexico to get land, we brutally stomped the Confederate States to maintain the unity of the nation, we brutally assisted in stomping Germany one and a half times (I count WWI only half since the US had such a relatively limited involvement, even though it tipped the Allies over the edge to victory in the end), and we crushed Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a few other people that we didn't like, and we keep various states all over the world squished under our comparatively giant little toes. Little wonder that the North Koreans are desperate to negotiate with us from some sort of position of parity. All that insecurity built up over decades of watching their poor abused brethren to the south find their way, overcome them, and tower over them so indisputably would probably create that insecurity in anyone.
However, I don't believe that engagement is impossible, nor would I promote that point of view to anyone. I think engagement would be a generational project that, for all I know, would require 100 years to see true payoffs. Understand your opponent and give him
some credit to assuage his insecurity, and he might just listen to you long enough to change a little. Change certainly isn't happening as it is.
will throw at you. 
