113
South Korea has given up on talking to the North
(www.economist.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
113 points (89.5% liked)
World News
32321 readers
711 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The problem with North Korea is that its entire cultural identity is built on resisting American aggression. Without having an enemy to fight, what is the reason for the country going on? Why would the people of North Korea tolerate the current government other than to resist invasion?
The North Korean regime needs conflict. It doesn't need war, but it needs conflict. Kim could have gotten a sweetheart deal from Trump to end the war and never took it. Why? Because getting rid of the "American threat" also gets rid of North Korea's legitimacy.
I am curious: Why do you feel you can confidently speak on the exact nature of another nations cultural identity? Let alone reduce it in this way?
Not sure if you understand how arrogant your statement is, but you have to realize that you have 0 idea of the cultural identity of the people in the DPRK.
Corporate news isn't interested in showing you anything but the conflict don't make the mistake of letting that shape your perception. The first step is realizing your ignorance
I didn't say people, I said government. Why do people conflating the two?
Bc I haven't heard of the cultural identity of a government
And its still not true, they have a distinct political ideology that used to be called juche, idk if they changed the name.
Also you said: "the problem with North Korea is..." not really an indicator you're talking about the government, especially given the context of a cultural identity
If you want a starting point to address your ignorance:
Juche on wikipedia
You literally described the US, it is funny how it is always reflection.
Also take note of the arrogance of the claim to know and declare another nations complete cultural identity.
To give them a chance I have asked them to clarify but I am pretty sure they haven't lived in the DPRK
How is the USA defined by resisting North Korea?
Replace NK with US and American Threat with any movement or government that tries to be sovereign.
The Kim family has done a lot for the people in the DPRK, and is generally very well liked. It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but a lot of the problems stem not from the current DPRK leadership but the international (read: US) sanctions placed on them. Compared to the hypercapitalist hellscape of SK, the work-life balance in the DPRK seems downright utopian. Prior to the US invasion, the Korean peninsula was fairly unified in their support of socialism.
The people would certainly welcome peace, I just don't know how that is possible while the threat of the USA looms. People like to portray them as an aggressive country, but they have never done anything to another coountry except threaten to defend themselves.
LOL
Is it well liked? Or is it only well liked because the country is doing "the best that it can" against the USA? And even then, is it actually well liked or only liked enough to keep the BoAn from paying too much attention to them?
And I didn't mention the people of North Korea, I mentioned its government. The North Korean government needs conflict with the USA to justify itself.
Obviously anecdotal, but from the people I spoke to in the DPRK, generally very well liked. And no, I did not have government minders making sure they said "the right thing". Several programs were quite popular, particularly housing programs. There was a big push for community-based activities during my stay, even smaller towns had community centers where people could go after work to learn new skills or continuing education. The university I was based out of was pretty international as well, but even there people didn't spend that much time thinking about the US, nor did they have a particularly negative view of the average American citizen. More curious than hostile.
How are you sure you didn't have government minders watching what others said?
What program were you in that took you on a tour of North Korea?
I was there in for several months in graduate school doing research for my thesis, wasn't part of a tour. Based out of Kim Il Sung university at the time. I spent about a year in South Korea as well prior. Since I wasn't on a formal tour, I was left to my own devices a lot of the time unless I needed a guide to help me get access somewhere.
Technically yes, every rural farming village could have been secretly micced with hidden cameras on the off chance that a foreigner was going to stop by, but that seems unlikely. This was a little over ten years ago so cell phones (which would be a fairly common metric of government surviellence) were not as prevalent in the DPRK yet as they are now, so a lot of people weren't carrying one. I was a no-name graduate student, not a well-known diplomat, I don't think the government was particularly invested in spending large sums of money tracking me. So yes, technically they COULD have, but just as much as any other state could have.
10 years ago is right around when Kim Jong Un came to power and there were a few years of trying to open up before the country closed itself off again. The program you were in may still be going on, but I would be surprised if it did at the level it was when you were there.
But even then, I would be surprised if you weren't being tracked somehow just to make sure that you weren't a spy or initiating some local political troubles. You might not have seen it, but it would have been there, and the government would have likely attempted to keep the tracking hidden from you as a way to show its openness.
And I'm not going to be able to argue against your first hand account of rural North Korea. I don't see the people of North Korea being this group of bloodthirsty Communists who want to blow up all of capitalism. However, I don't see the people of North Korea being able to put political pressure on their government to change policies. Part of that is that the government of North Korea can use its conflict with the US as a reason to say that they are still at war and therefore can't allow more to be involved in the political process.
I live in the USA and when I leave my house I am being constantly tracked by at least five different private surveillance networks. There's hundreds (thousands?) of privately owned facial recognition and license plate scanners within 20 miles of my house. My neighbors even invite them into their homes and have constantly recording cameras facing the street. They are recording everything that goes on everywhere, reporting back to their corporate overlords, and selling that data to whomever can pay (including the US government).
I'd much rather have state surveillance because that's at least somewhat auditable, and the state is getting the data either way. When municipalities and citizens start paying for the privilege to feed them data is when I start to get really worried about what they're doing with it.
So don't fucking cry to me about constant surveillance in north korea. Our lives are constantly being quantified and logged right here in the country that touts itself as the bastion of freedom but continually wipes its ass with the bill of rights.
I'm not crying about it, but I'm noting it is there. I'm also noting that the issue of not toeing the party line may have more consequences for the average person compared to the US.
Why? I just explained how terrible surveillance is in the USA in response to you claiming the other poster was constantly being watched while they were in NK after they stated they didn't have anyone watching over their shoulders every minute. There was no reason to bring that up other than to inflame existing western opinions on the DPRK.
It doesnt matter what your political opinions are in the US. Everyone is regarded as if they are an enemy of the state and the rights they pretend to hold so dear are just a suggestion to the people in power. Why else would they have extended the laws they say are created to 'fight terrorism' to monitor all citizens at all times? We're living these consequences every day.
It came in the discussion between the person who went to North Korea and myself regarding their experience. I thought we had a respectful discussion about the experience.
You also talked past my comment about the impacts of the impacts of North Korean surveillance compared to American surveillance. Is the issue that North Korea can't afford an American like system or a Chinese like system?
Unless you are from the US or SK, when things open up a bit more that is looking to be possible again. I would encourage you to try visiting if you have the time and means. Even if we totally divorce things from the politics, there's a lot of beautiful nature there.
Anecdotally, you seem relatively reasonable and I think it would be an interesting experience.
It does depend to what extent, people can definitely enact policy change. While all political organizations do ultimately belong to the Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea, they have multiple political parties under that umbrella that do different on some issues. Obviously they aren't going to suddenly pass laws making the place capitalist, but they can do and do change some things. The Social Democratic Policy is notably more liberal in their attitudes as it was formed by a lot of the petite bourgeoise. They actually have published journal articles that are critical of the ruling party.
I'm sure North Korea is beautiful with its mountain vistas.
But when it comes to the government, the government is on its third generation hereditary ruler. That is a major outlier for Communist countries and a major outlier for republics in general. That isn't generally a good sign for a government to show that it can change. There might be a balancing of factions that the Supreme Leader has to deal with, but it generally leads to governments that don't change policy significantly except during transfers of power.
And, a lasting peace with South Korea involving the demilitarization of their mutual border would be that kind of change I don't see the current government being able to implement.
This isn't a discussion regarding the morality of the North Korean people or a dissection of Juche philosophy, but an analysis of how the government is set up.