Here's an odd bit of peninsula news from yesterday. We all knew that Inch'ŏn has been trying to jointly hold the 2014 Asian Games with P'yŏng'yang, but the new twist is that the mayor of Inchon said his city will invest the equipment and money needed --about half a billion dollars (or more) -- to fix up and finish Pyongyang's 105-story Ryugyŏng Hotel, the 300-meter-high unfinished phallic shell that dominates the Pyongyang skyline like the water tower in a Minnesota town. (Marmot's Hole has a good intro on this).
The Ryugyong Hotel is the pointy thing in the background.
What does it mean if they fix up the hotel? Yes, it means SK money and equipment pumped into NK, but it also means that Pyongyang will end up allowing a whole bunch of South Koreans (and others?) up into North Korea. Not just in controlled areas like Kaesŏng and Kŭmgangsan or even Najin, but in the heart of the country: the capital.
And I think this is part of the point of the gradualist approach to reunification: aiming not toward collapse of the system, but of a creeping in of southern/Western values for two purposes. First, this gradual influx of capital, infrastructure, and know-how will make things a hell of a lot easier when reunification does come. And second, the more and deeper these connections are, the harder it is for the regime to control thoughts and ideas, which helps build up a critical mass of perception of both the outside world and the inside world, which may become very crucial at some future crisis point in the regime's existence, leading to an East German-style throwing-in-of-the-towel rather than a going-down-with-both-guns-blazing scenario from the military or some other "leadership."
Of course, there is the problem with all the refugees and the starvation, which this seems to fail to address. But are the two mutually exclusive? Can't these ties be fostered while also providing food aid? Of course they can.
But then there's the ugly idea that these ties are actually propping up the Pyongyang regime, forestalling the collapse of the Kim Jong-il regime, thus prolonging the torture and death of many more.
But is this really true? Is South Korea's "Sunshine Policy" really forestalling their collapse while a hard-line approach would hasten their demise? I don't think the evidence is there, considering that nearly fifty years of the latter did NOTHING to lead to Pyongyang's collapse, and perhaps the greatest number of famine-related deaths occurred as a result of policies and actions took during that time.
In other words, decades of a hard-line approach did NOT lead to the collapse of the northern regime and it did not prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions. Thus, calling the so-called "Sunshine Policy" of engagement morally bankrupt because it props up Pyongyang is a bit specious.
And it also ignores a very, very important point, that there is another elephant in the room we choose to ignore: China.
It is China that props up Pyongyang. China. That's right: China. China props up Pyongyang. It is not Seoul, it is China.
South Korea could double, triple, quadruple, halve, or eliminate (zeruple?) its investment in North Korea and it would make little or not difference on when and if Pyongyang collapses. China controls that switch.
I think this is why it bothers me so that conservatives are so quick to bash Seoul for its political and economic engagement with the North while virtually ignoring Beijing's role. Seoul is playing the piss-poor hand it was dealt, but it is China that set up the table and the rules.
Bash Beijing if you're going to criticize Seoul.
But who is doing that? Virtually no one. China is a major economic cow to be milked, so we don't criticize China. We don't criticize China for torturing its own citizens, much less actively rounding up North Korean refugees and sending them back to North Korea where they will likely be tortured and imprisoned, likely forced to do hard labor, and possibly killed.
We don't criticize China for keeping Pyongyang propped up even though they know that North Korea is a human rights nightmare that makes China look like a kindergarten by comparison.
No. We send them billions up billions of dollars in investment instead.
But we criticize every step South Korean government or business takes as part of the Sunshine Policy.
Not only is this hypocritical, but it may also be counterproductive. At least the Sunshine Policy has a shared goal (eventually) with the hardliners: eventual elimination of the North Korean regime and absorption of North Korea into South Korea. The difference is in tack: Sunshine Policy seeks to kill with kindness while the "Moonshine Policy" (Dr. Lee Jungmin of Yonsei) seeks to isolate it and let it die a quicker death.
But China has no such goal in mind. It wants its buffer state against Japan and the US (and perhaps Korea and democracy in general). It wants to keep propping up Pyongyang. It does not share the goals of Sunshine Policy. China is the culprit. China is country responsible (beyond North Korea itself) for keeping Pyongyang afloat.
China.
The People's Republic of China, whose government still shares, nominally at least, a communist ideology with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
China in which we invest tens of billions of dollars and then tens of billions of dollars more. China which gives us cheap electronics to buy at Walmart. China.
So what am I advocating? Am I saying we should slap sanctions on China until they come around on North Korea? That may not be practical, given how deeply enmeshed we are, economically, with the People's Republic of China.
But it does mean two things: we need to recognize that China is the one that needs to be pressured. We need to make China feel comfortable -- or less uneasy -- with the prospect of a democratic and capitalist and unified Korea at its doorstep and allied with the US and Japan. We need to plant the idea in Beijing's head that they can and should flip the switch on Kim Jong-il. Whatever that entails.
And second, stop beating up on South Korea for the Sunshine Policy. It's not anti-US. It's not even pro-North. It's an attempt to try something when the hardline way failed to work after half a century. It will take time, if it works at all.
Now, having said that, I do think there are some things that are deserving of criticism. The Roh administration and much of the press seem to go overboard not to offend Pyongyang or Beijing, almost to the point of kowtowing to them.
In particular, I think that Roh's policy of preventing the refugees from coming here to South Korea crosses the line: it is not necessary to do so from a Sunshine Policy perspective, and it borders on moral repugnance. But again, the true culpability falls on Beijing, which is rounding up these North Koreans and sending them back. South Korea is merely slowing its process of accepting them, at a time when few other countries -- including the United States -- are willing to accept any North Koreans except those who make it to that country's shores on their own.
South Korea is given the Hobson's choice between continuing Sunshine Policy unabated but turning down the volume on the refugee issue or endangering Sunshine Policy progress, which (its proponents believe) could end up causing more good in the long run. Both choices may lead to considerable losses.
But Beijing is the one with the real choice: actively maintain its agreement with Pyongyang to round up and send refugees back to North Korea, knowing that they will likely be tortured and possibly killed, or tone down or even end the round-ups and let the North Koreans stay in China or quietly go to South Korea or some other country.
Ultimately, it is China's choice, not South Korea's. China, our economic partner.
Finally, and this is perhaps an entirely different issue, is the idea of Inch'ŏn taxpayers subsidizing a P'yŏng'yang hotel. I'm a Seoul taxpayer, but if I were an Inch'ŏn taxpayer, I might be livid.
But people will do strange things for civic pride, like building stadiums for sports franchises or for Olympic bragging rights. The 2014 Asiad that Inchon and Pyongyang are trying to jointly hold could lead to a 2020 Olympic bid for one or both of them (though I think the only way Pyongyang will get the Olympics anytime soon is as a nod to a newly reunified Korea).
But this does bring an odd twist: would, say, Detroit build subsidize a new stadium in Windsor, Ontario, just to get a sports franchise in the area? Would Seattle do this even for Vancouver, Washington, much less Vancouver, British Columbia? I couldn't even see Los Angeles County doing this for Orange County (not that we need it, because we have Disney dollars). Sphere: Related Content
Posts
The point of critizing Seoul's cowardice towards Pyeongyang shouldn't be that Seoul is responsible for making sure NK collapses; Seoul should merely demand reciprocity and that NK keeps its promises.
ReplyDeleteKim Dae-jung gave what - $500 million? - to NK to hold the summit, with the agreement that another summit would be held in Seoul. That never happened.
South Korea has refused to criticize NK for anything, meaning that criticism is deflected onto SK's ally, the US.
SK has most recently provided an enormous supply of fertilizer in exchange for NK allowing hundreds of guests to come to Pyeongyang for the anniversary of the summit. Pyeongyang now wants to renege on that deal, too.
The point is not that the Sunshine Policy isn't making NK collapse. The point is that it's making SK look like a chump.
I agree that the U.S. should pressure China to let NK refugees to move to a third country.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I disagree with the Sunshine policy. The money is not being used for the people. It goes to KJI and to NK military. They even develop nukes with the money.
NK has been lying to SK all along. There is no way to check how the money, rice or fertilizer were spent. NK have sold rice and other goods to China and used the money to buy weapons.
Fix up a hotel? I bet over 90% of the money will go to NK military to buy more weapons against the U.S. and against SK.
Stupid f***s. Who sends money to the enemy to buy more weapons? Only SKs.
The idea that we should critize Beijing INSTEAD of Seoul is naive at best, criminally ignorant at worst. That Beijing props up the North is not at all questionable, but then, Beijing makes no qualms about standing up for its decisions to do so. Seoul keeps trying to ride the fence, make everyone happy, and as a result manages to mangle relationships with all parties involved. Should Beijing be criticized? Absolutely- and they have been- does this mean that investment funds should not flow in, in an effort to influence policy through a policy of engagement? absolutely not.
ReplyDeleteThis investment into Beijing comes with strings attached. Things certainly could be better, but they have improved significantly over the last decade. Seoul's policy of bending over and signing checks while taking shafts is absurd from any point of view, and needs to be criticized loudly and immediately. Seoul is proping up a regime that it is asking the US to defend it against- this contradiction puts it worlds apart from Beijing and as your blog continues to generate well thought out and intellectual pieces, I have to wonder about your motives for being so blind to the truth here...
Kushibo,
ReplyDeleteWhat's your e-mail address? If you don't want to leave one here, could you drop me a note at ? I think we see eye-to-eye on most of the major political issues concerning Korea, and I'd like to know what you think of some things I've written on the topic--both published and unpublished.
WJ
Sending money to North Korea for the inevitable diversion to the Korean People's Army isn't so dumb if you accept that South Korea's government views the United States not as an ally, but as an enemy.
ReplyDeleteThe ROK government is busting its budget to provide a large-scale, multi-billion-dollar military base in Pyongtaek, while at the same time it is the U.S.'s SECOND-largest partner in Iraq, a decision made under Roh's watch.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the ROK or even just Roh sees the US as an enemy is absurd.
You wrote:
ReplyDelete“…Is South Korea's "Sunshine Policy" really forestalling their collapse while a hard-line approach would hasten their demise? I don't think the evidence is there, considering that nearly fifty years of the latter did NOTHING to lead to Pyongyang's collapse, and perhaps the greatest number of famine-related deaths occurred as a result of policies and actions took during that time.”
While I agree that China *mostly* is responsible for keeping North Korea afloat, your assertion above is flawed. About half a century of isolation did not cause NK to collapse, but less than a decade of that was without the support of the USSR and China. So in reality that about a decade is the timeframe to look at, and in that time, they got very close. Without the South’s support now, and no remissions from Japan…???
China’s main support is oil, following by allowing unofficial cross-border trade, BUT hundreds of millions are now coming from South Korea as well. Face it, the South is funding North Korea’s military, indirectly or not, and we all know it. Discounting that is rather apologetic for the South’s actions, and now they even actively discourage defectors, while giving the regime money. Good intentions pave the road to… Pyongyang.
The Sunshine Policy is moronic on the face. The idea to lift their brothers up so that when the re-unite it will be less costly. In reality, NK is in an extended wound-licking phase – if they recover from it (very unlikely since their industrial base is pretty much disintegrated) they will have no need to reunite. The good ole Moonshine Policy depends on a strong, brotherly, nationalistic embrace that is not going to happen.
On SK troops in Iraq -- Do you remember the hand-wringing that went into that? It was one of the most disingenuous political moves they could have made. And then they cut the cost of sending troops from USFK funding, which by the way is illegal under the SOFA, and caused 1,000 Korean workers on (at USFK) to lose their jobs, leading to idiotic Koreans protesting to the U.S. According to most polls, the majority of people under 50 DO consider the U.S. more of an enemy that North Korea. What were you saying about absurd?
Kushibo,
ReplyDeleteYou are right to point the finger at China. China's embrace of capitalism has actually created a very frightening human rights catastrophe within its own borders. China today is a combination of robber-baron capitalism and Stalininst rapid industrialization. The workers and farmers are being destroyed for the sake of profits. Entire villages are turned into golf courses and factories, with no compensation for the displaced. At the same time, workers in these factories work in slave-like conditions and are brutally punished for any union or protest activities.
Well, I don't want to sound like a Maoist, but the situation for the poor in China really has become terrible. The Communists have totally changed their colors, and are now more comfortable dealing with foreign multinationals than workers or farmers.
I believe China is not attacked so much for two reasons. First, it is so powerful economically and militarily. Fantasies of a military strike on China (like the one featured in the opening pages of Jasper Becker's book on North Korea) instantly hit the brick wall of China's nuclear deterrent.
Dealing with China requires one to admit the limits of military force, and the need for other means of dealing with unsavory regimes. This is a prospect that is not attractive to people who like simple, dramatic solutions to intractable problems.
Second, the multinational corporations that are so influential in the US are making a killing in China, and have no desire to see human rights dent their profits. Therefore there is a powerful pro-China lobby to counter the neo-con and pro-Taiwan lobby.
I myself can't offer any good suggestions for dealing with China, except to use US law to regulate and punish American companies that are supporting censorship (i.e. Microsoft, Google and Yahoo) or allow bad working conditions in their Chinese factories.
I myself can't offer any good suggestions for dealing with China, except to use US law to regulate and punish American companies that are supporting censorship (i.e. Microsoft, Google and Yahoo) or allow bad working conditions in their Chinese factories.
DeleteThat, and getting these American companies to bring the factories back to the USA instead of sending them off to China or Mexico.