NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4684240.stm

"We repeated that resolution of the abduction issue is very important to normalising diplomatic relations," said the Japanese envoy.

JAPAN'S MISSING
Snatched in the '70s and '80s
Used as cultural trainers for N Korean spies
Five allowed home in 2002
Five children now freed from N Korea
Eight said to be dead, others missing

Heartbreak over Japan's missing

"We'll urge Pyongyang to deal with the abduction issue sincerely by returning abductees, unveiling the truth and handing over suspects."

North Korea has admitted kidnapping 13 Japanese to train as spies, and has already repatriated five of those kidnapped, saying the eight others are dead.

But Tokyo says Pyongyang has never provided conclusive proof of their deaths, and many Japanese suspect some of them may still be alive.

one more country N.Korea seems to piss off. why are they suddenly ignored? didn't they want nuclear weapons?
did they drop out of the axis of evil?
did bush forget there's two koreas?

oh wait, their not near oil. . .

It's not so much the oil as it would be difficult. If you think Iraq is costing the US a lot of money, you do not want to see the bill for beating the DPRK.

But, it must be said, I consider North Korea to be the worst regime on the planet, and even though I hate war, I would support it if someone went in there and liberated the people. Because these ones really need it.

But, it must be said, I consider North Korea to be the worst regime on the planet, and even though I hate war, I would support it if someone went in there and liberated the people. Because these ones really need it.
And how many of these people that “need” liberation are you willing to sacrifice to make yourself feel better?

And how many of these people that “need” liberation are you willing to sacrifice to make yourself feel better?
As little as possible, obviously.
But you have to look at your own ideals regarding freedom, individualism and so on - North Korea violates them all, on levels that other dictators can't even dream of. There is an argument to be made that a short war here may be better than a long peace.

Of course it would be better if the two Koreas could get together peacefully, but how realistic is that?

As little as possible, obviously.
But you have to look at your own ideals regarding freedom, individualism and so on - North Korea violates them all, on levels that other dictators can't even dream of. There is an argument to be made that a short war here may be better than a long peace.
You should know better than to advocate a "short war," all Germans should. The UN went to war with them once. We lost, and my people sustained most of the casualties, besides the Koreans, of course . We don't even know if they want freedom. Maybe they're like the Iranians? Are you sure its a sacrafice that they are willing to make?
Of course it would be better if the two Koreas could get together peacefully, but how realistic is that?
About as realistic as expecting a short war.

We don't even know if they want freedom. Maybe they're like the Iranians? Are you sure its a sacrafice that they are willing to make?
I suppose this is the question: Many North Koreans are genuinely educated to like their government and give everything for it (by the way, I don't think the same is true for the Iranians, they're just patriotic).
Can we "liberate" people against their will?

I suppose the answer is "no". Maybe I was a little too quick with my first post, but I have to say that the amateur videos I saw from inside North Korea, coupled with a documentary about young gymnasts and how much they genuinely loved their leader, did leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I suppose this is the question: Many North Koreans are genuinely educated to like their government and give everything for it (by the way, I don't think the same is true for the Iranians, they're just patriotic).
Can we "liberate" people against their will?
Experiance tells us that we can't.
I suppose the answer is "no". Maybe I was a little too quick with my first post, but I have to say that the amateur videos I saw from inside North Korea, coupled with a documentary about young gymnasts and how much they genuinely loved their leader, did leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Very few would deny that what is going on in North Korea isn't terrible. I just don't want whatever country to end up fighting another war where the people they are trying to help are the main opposition. It gets tiring.

Too true, they have no oil and a powerful nuclear power in china. When it comes down to it that’s what matters to the USA is money and a war there is not feasible. I do think but if the usa left the north and south alone the would peacfuky reunite.

Watch out for the day when Korea unifies.

A nuclear power, AND South Korea has been doing some impressive things with cloning, which they could easily branch off into bio/chem weapons...or just try to start cloning soldiers (unlikely, but how likely is reunification??)

If they unified tomorrow, they would have the largest conventional military in the world.

And they don't happen to like any of their neighbors too much either. :eek:

Of course it would be better if the two Koreas could get together peacefully, but how realistic is that?

Actually, it was looking rather realistic before Bush's 'Axis of Evil' speech.

The two Koreas were meeting and talking, and were talking of making railways that transcended the borders, and reunification was taking a step closer.

Of course, the Neo Conservatives could not have a United Korea, or at least, a Korea of two autonomous parts, that could create another Asian economic powerhouse in the region that would see US influence in the region reduced by South Korea not needing US assistance concerning the big scary threat from the North, seeing as it would be reduced through co-habitation, existence, or unification.

So, Bush had to put the frighteners on North Korea, who are insecure, calling them part of something 'Evil'.

This put back relations between North Korea and South Korea back about oooh if we are luck only a decade, if not, more than that, and has seen North Korea go on the defensive.

South Korea were rather irritated by the 'Axis of Evil' speech themselves.

NK would never unite with SK except under it's own insane terms.

The real reason the US has been so hands-off to NK is because NK is under China's protection. If the North Koreans ever piss off the Chinese enough to withdraw that, I'd guess it's curtains for Pyongyang...

even though I hate war, I would support it if someone went in there and liberated the people. Because these ones really need it.

It's a lot more complicated than that. In a country with no access to outside sources of information, people are brainwashed from birth to love their leader. They see him practically as a god. Try to "liberate" them, and you'll cause trauma and fury, all targeted at you.


Of course it would be better if the two Koreas could get together peacefully, but how realistic is that?

Inter-Korean relations were getting steadily better until Bush decided he couldn't have things going too well. A few inflamatory anti-DPRK speeches, which angered the South as much as the North, and hey presto, the Sunshine Policy gets set back by at least a decade...

The real reason the US has been so hands-off to NK is because NK is under China's protection. If the North Koreans ever piss off the Chinese enough to withdraw that, I'd guess it's curtains for Pyongyang...

Nope. Not just China. South Korea would vehemently oppose any action against the North, for a number of reasons. First, they'd get the brunt of any retaliation. Second, it would demolish all their efforts so far. Third, a hasty reunification brought about by violence would place a hugely empoverished, half-demolished North under Southern responsibility, which would be an immense blow to the South's economy. Not to mention the masses of refugees who would flood across the former border. Fourth, but not least, Koreans see themselves as one people, not two. Hence, South Koreans have ambivalent feelings about their Northern counterparts, and would feel exceedingly uncomfortable at seeing the North attacked. Add to that the strong anti-US feelings in South Korea, and many people in the South would probably back the North (until and unless Pyongyang started raining missiles on Seoul, but even them I'm sure a lot of the South's anger would be targeted at the US).

As an anecdote which may surprise people unfamilar with that Korean sense of Korean unity, North Koreans (mostly Party officials) asked during the World Cup which country they supported all answered South Korea, as if it were so obvious the question didn't even need asking. North Korea's online newspaper still proudly tells about the sporting achievements of the South, even when the South does better than the North (which is often, except in women's football...).

Inter-Korean relations were getting steadily better until Bush decided he couldn't have things going too well. A few inflamatory anti-DPRK speeches, which angered the South as much as the North, and hey presto, the Sunshine Policy gets set back by at least a decade...
Were they? The DPRK wasn't exactly forthcoming on concessions from the start of the policy onward, which led the ROK to give aid without expecting anything specific in return. That's not a logic way of conducting diplomacy with a dictator, if you just give and give and he takes and takes you're not really changing anything and may well be enabling him.

I seem to remember that the United States took the same path with nuclear and missile tech in the DPRK in the '90s and, lo and behold, they have a nuclear arms program and a delivery system to match.

Not to say I'm in favor of war there, not by a long shot, but I'm not convinced that the Sunshine Policy, with its lack of expectations on the part of Kim Jong-Il's regime, was going to have any long-term effects of change in the DPRK.

Not to say I'm in favor of war there, not by a long shot, but I'm not convinced that the Sunshine Policy, with its lack of expectations on the part of Kim Jong-Il's regime, was going to have any long-term effects of change in the DPRK.

I don't think it's perfect either. The situation is too complex to expect easy solutions in any case. But it was better than more or less any alternative. Plus, you have to remember the US reneged on a deal to supply heavy water (I think that was it; I'll have to check) back in the nineties, when the DPRK had already fulfiled its side of the bargain. So there's undoubtedly mistrust on both sides.

I read an interesting book once, by an American who's spent time in Korea and actually met officials from the South, the North, China, the USSR/Russia and the US, so it's pretty well documented. The book suggests that demanding concessions from Koreans without offering anything in return (the US' current policy, although the book was written before the Bush era) is counter-productive, simply because of the cultural importance of "saving face". I can't believe Washington would be unaware of that, which suggests Bush & Co. are deliberately trying and hoping to provoke Pyongyang and prevent the peace process from moving forward.