Showing posts with label Byungjin Line. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Byungjin Line. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

North Korea: Expect the Unexpected

I cannot emphasize enough (or beat the horse more dead) that we (the ROK/US Alliance) must focus on preparation in addition to planning:

This is why Kim’s vow to achieve economic prosperity may hasten the regime’s unraveling. One big mistake that the 3rd generation of the Kim dynasty made was promising to fix the economy. His father, Kim Jong Il never promised a rose garden, only nukes. As North Korea’s system has broken down, over the past two decades, it has by default allowed private markets to sprout up all over the country. As the system from food distribution to economic growth in the provinces broke down, a nascent merchant-class has taken shape that may now number upwards of 500,000 to a million. But more broadly, [7]a study of North Korean defectors by Seoul National University’s Institute for Peace and Unification Studies revealed [7] that more than 74% had experience selling goods in open-air markets, and derived the bulk of their income from unofficial economic activity. Even if such numbers are exaggerated, clearly large portions of North Koreans are using the markets as a coping mechanism.

But it is also possible that the Jang episode may mark the beginning of an unraveling of the Kim dynasty. The dangers of loose nukes, refugees heading North to China and South to the ROK, chaos, possible intervention by China and/or the ROK, or the US seeking to control nukes, and a precipitous reunification by default all hold the prospect of an inflection point approaching in Northeast Asia. Stay Tuned.

North Korea: Expect the Unexpected

January 8, 2014
Where is North Korea headed? When we last heard from the Boy General, Kim Jong-un, he was rationalizing the sudden and brutal execution of Pyongyang’s No.2, [3]Jang Sang Thaek [3], followed by threats to “strike mercilessly without notice [4]” in response to anti-Kim protests in Seoul.

Now Kim has offered us a glimpse of things to come. Pyongyang’s New Year’s statement, which often contain hints of coming attractions, reiterated all the vitriol about Jang’s alleged misdeeds, but contained few indications of anything except more of the same: Songun, it’s “military first” policy was praised as the way forward.

What was missing from Kim Jong-un’s New Year’s statement was any mention of the core problems leading Pyongyang down a steady, if gradual, path to oblivion. The words “nuclear weapons” and “US” were noticeably absent. Indeed, South Korean President Park Geun-Hye emphatically called Kim out on it in her first 2014 Press conference on January 6th explaining, “a nuclear North Korea is an obstacle to unification and world peace, and can never be allowed.”

The one intriguing element was a hint of possible interest in advancing North-South relations. Kim urged a move away from confrontation and said that, “Respecting and thoroughly implementing the north-south joint declarations is a basic prerequisite to promoting the inter-Korean relations and hastening the country’s reunification.”

Whether Kim is serious, or just seeking more handouts from Seoul remains to be seen. But previous North-South accords, particularly the 1990 North-South Basic Agreement contains – at least on paper – provisions to address all outstanding issues, from denuclearization to North-South reconciliation. Here again, President Park countered Kim in no uncertain terms [5]: “We must prepare for an era of unification. The primary barrier to this is North Korea’s nuclear program.” President Park put Kim to the test, calling for resuming reunions of divided families, after Pyongyang quashed an agreement to do so last year.
If the New Year’s message is any indicator, progress on the nuclear issue and the possibilities of more than marginal improvement in the North Korean economy range from slim to none.

Can’t Have Both

Unfortunately Pyongyang fails to understand the integral linkage between these two fundamental issues. At a Worker’s Party Congress last March, Kim Jong-un adopted the “byungjin” line: simultaneously pursuing nuclear and economic development. The bulk of Kim’s 10 page New Year’s message was focused on the economy, its purported achievements and what needs to be done to advance it. Yet for more than two decades, US-led global efforts to denuclearize North Korea have been based on the premise that the North must choose: it can join the global economy and prosper or it can have nukes. It can’t have both. Pyongyang has chosen self-imposed isolation reinforced by UN sanctions.
Even after several years of modest growth, the North Korean economy is now at roughly the level it was at the end of the Cold War in 1991. Even the Chinese, who account for nearly 90% of the North’s total foreign trade (a miniscule $6.8 billion) have trouble doing business with the North. Indeed, among the alleged sins of the executed Jang was selling resources too cheaply, all but mentioning China by name. Arbitrarily shutting down the Kaesong Industrial Zone operated by South Korea, the one example of opening to outside investment, sent exactly the wrong message: don’t invest here, your investment is subject to our political whims. [6]And holding an 85 year-old American tourist [6](because he fought in the Korean war) is not exactly a PR strategy for promoting tourism, which Kim’s new ski resort and dolphinariums are intended to do.

The reality is that so long as the enormous political risk factor remains, so long as military provocations can occur at any time, and no system of credible commercial arbitration exists, North Korea will have little chance to obtain any foreign investment. Pyongyang’s economic possibilities will remain very limited and it will continue to fall further behind its brethren in the South – not to mention the globalized economy. And the execution of Jang and destruction of his business networks will almost certainly chill China’s economic involvement in North Korea, a rare source of foreign investment.

Rising Expectations?

This is why Kim’s vow to achieve economic prosperity may hasten the regime’s unraveling. One big mistake that the 3rd generation of the Kim dynasty made was promising to fix the economy. His father, Kim Jong Il never promised a rose garden, only nukes. As North Korea’s system has broken down, over the past two decades, it has by default allowed private markets to sprout up all over the country. As the system from food distribution to economic growth in the provinces broke down, a nascent merchant-class has taken shape that may now number upwards of 500,000 to a million. But more broadly, [7]a study of North Korean defectors by Seoul National University’s Institute for Peace and Unification Studies revealed [7] that more than 74% had experience selling goods in open-air markets, and derived the bulk of their income from unofficial economic activity. Even if such numbers are exaggerated, clearly large portions of North Koreans are using the markets as a coping mechanism.

It can be argued that those benefiting from the current system in North Korea are unlikely to rock the boat. Nonetheless, growing portions of North Koreans are increasingly less economically dependent on the state. Historically, it is less deprivation than rising expectations that drives political change. In the case of North Korea, it is difficult to envision popular uprisings given the tight and ruthlessly enforced control Pyongyang’s terror state routinely exercises. That is precisely why the unprecedented public display of deep factionalism in the case of Uncle Jang and his associates is intriguing. One of the few certainties is that we are in truly uncharted territory. If change occurs in North Korea it is most likely to be a top-down process, with fighting amongst rival elite groups or networks.
(Continued at the link below)

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Writing on Wall for Future of Fearpolitik (north Korea)

Key Excerpt:

If we assess the durability of the North Korean regime through its various stages, we find that there was a 90% likelihood of success under Kim Il Sung’s “total Chollima line;” just 40% under Kim Jong Il’s “military-first line;” and perhaps just 20% under the rule of Kim Jong Eun. There is not a glimmer of hope to be found anywhere. If it were to happen quickly, the Kim regime could be cornered, mired in crisis and rife with internal bickering starting by 2014. This situation could then continue until 2018.
The 2015-2018 period will see the disintegration of Kim Jong Eun’s reign. The Byungjin Line of simultaneous nuclear and economic development will fail, and there will be a life-or-death struggle for power and the very existence of military and Party. As a result, various unforeseen incidents and mishaps could occur, indicative of the terminal symptoms of a totalitarian dictatorship. These will include political calamity for Kim Jong Eun, characterized by inconsistent decision-making. Decisions made in the morning could be reversed or overturned by evening. 

Let's think about the active preparations for this possibility.
V/R
Dave

Writing on Wall for Future of Fearpolitik

[Sohn Gwang Joo Column ③]
Sohn Gwang Joo, Director, Daily NK Reunification Strategy Research Institute
2014-01-01 22:50 




The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred in three stages: the first was the death of Stalin, which was followed by the weakening of class and Suryeongist dictatorship and the failure of socialist/communist economic construction in the 1960s; the second was the Helsinki Accords and the human rights investigations of the 1970s; and the last was the President Reagan-led American 1980s strategy of inciting Soviet collapse through economic warfare projects like the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka “Star Wars”).

At the core of all three stages was the fundamental failure of Socialist economics. The result was the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s.

North Korea’s Chollima Movement of the Kim Il Sung era was also initially successful (in the late 1950s1960s).  Then, from the mid-1960s, the Byungjin Line of simultaneously focusing on national defense and the economy took over.  Kim Il Sung managed to attain only one of these goals, succeeding in the defense sector but failing in economic construction. Thus, the proper foundation for future economic development was never set. Kim Jong Il succeeded in developing nuclear weapons and managed to prop up the regime via his military-first survival strategy between 1998 and 2011, but it brought about economic devastation.

Kim Jong Eun has opted for a second Byungjin Line (2013-?), this time featuring the simultaneous development of nuclear weapons and the economy. Will he succeed? All the available indicators point to failure.

In the Kim Il Sung era, the East Asian security environment was one of “security amidst the Cold War,” a function of being wedged between the diplomatic blocs of East and West. The charisma of the Suryeong, Kim Il Sung was absolute. In the Kim Jong Il era, Eastern Europe collapsed and North Korea suffered food shortages on a massive scale, but the regime was preserved by nuclear development and aid from China and South Korea. 

In the Kim Jong Eun era, however, the international community is demanding human rights improvements, while South Korea, the United States, Japan and China are now ranged in opposition to Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons programs. Marketization has progressed apace, and information from the outside has mushroomed. Horizontal exchanges of information have become possible thanks to 2.5 million mobile phones, meaning that the people of Chongjin know immediately if something occurs in Pyongyang.  The Stone Age, that time when North Korea relied solely on a single state source for all its information, is long gone.

Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il built up their “Suryeongist charisma over multiple decades. Kim Jong Eun has no hope of achieving the same in just a few short years.

If we assess the durability of the North Korean regime through its various stages, we find that there was a 90% likelihood of success under Kim Il Sung’s “total Chollima line;” just 40% under Kim Jong Il’s “military-first line;” and perhaps just 20% under the rule of Kim Jong Eun. There is not a glimmer of hope to be found anywhere. If it were to happen quickly, the Kim regime could be cornered, mired in crisis and rife with internal bickering starting by 2014. This situation could then continue until 2018.

Accordingly, here are the things to look out for as North Korean goes into 2014, any or all of which could have a decisive impact on the future of the regime: 1) A fourth nuclear test or long-range missile launch and subsequent pushback from South Korea, the United States, Japan and China, or a military provocation against the South and subsequent pushback from South Korea; 2) A backlash from the persistence of “Fearpolitik” across society; 3) Rising levels of doubt due to Kim Jong Eun’s constant political reshuffling, leading to unexpected elements within the Party and military; 4) The fate of North Korea's existing special economic zones and 13 other areas slated for economic development; and/or 5) Most vitally, the success or failure of South Korean government policy toward the North.

The 2015-2018 period will see the disintegration of Kim Jong Eun’s reign. The Byungjin Line of simultaneous nuclear and economic development will fail, and there will be a life-or-death struggle for power and the very existence of military and Party. As a result, various unforeseen incidents and mishaps could occur, indicative of the terminal symptoms of a totalitarian dictatorship. These will include political calamity for Kim Jong Eun, characterized by inconsistent decision-making. Decisions made in the morning could be reversed or overturned by evening. 

South Korea’s fate for the next 50-100 years will be determined by this three-year period.
And what may occur if the people of South Korea fail to deal appropriately with this issue, thus allowing the Kim Jong Eun regime to muddle through until 2020? What if China provided economic and diplomatic assistance to the Kim Jong Eun regime as part of its America policy, with North Korea playing the “bad guy” role instead of China in the Northeast Asian security sphere, all in the midst of a “new East Asian Cold War” featuring the U.S., Japan, and China?
Should this transpire then the Kim Jong Eun regime could indeed survive as a “nuclear power state.” Needless to say, this would endanger the sustainable development of South Korea. In fact, it may well present a serious challenge to South Korean liberal democracy itself.

In a given historical period, the total strength of a community of nations is the aggregate strength of each individual within each nation.  It is the role of politics to generate this strength. The fate of a nation may be radically different depending on the manner in which this combined “people power” is exhibited during crucial periods of opportunity and crisis.

What can the current generations of South Koreans do to secure the wellbeing and happiness of their children and their children’s children? The answer is the swift overturn of North Korea’s totalitarian Suryeongist dictatorship.  This would be a step in the right direction, portending a new dawn of prosperity for the 75 million people on the Korean Peninsula.
Related Articles

Giving Tuesday Recommendations

  Dear Friends,  I do not normally do this (except I did this last year and for the last few years now, too) and I certainly do not mean to ...