Will North Korea collapse in the next 4 years?

[Wolfman]

Would you say that China is paying the price for supporting the former that grew into latter?

McHrozni

Yup, certainly. The same way that the U.S. paid the price for supporting Bin Laden and Saddam.

Does anyone actually have any reason to know what they are talking about here or is this a guessing game?

Well, I'd say I'm fairly qualified to talk about the Chinese side of the equation, and Chinese attitudes; and I have a number of friends here who've spent considerable time in North Korea

 

[angrysoba]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the what the people think about him has anything to do with his power. He doesn't derive his power from the people; he derives his power from the massive propaganda and military machine that backs him. He is entirely dependent on them for his position, his public perception, and anything else. If he even tries to assert independence of any kind, that same propaganda machine will remove him, and release a bunch of propaganda about the "tragic death of their beloved leader", and then replace him with another figurehead.

Sorry, but what is the purpose of this "massive propaganda and military machine"?

Why would he need to be dependent on those who can provide "his public perception"?

When you answer this question bear in mind that you have already boldly stated that his percpetion among the general population is unimportant. If that was the case then what is the purpose of this "massive propaganda and military machine"?

ETA: For the record, I don't think Kim Jong-Eun has any independence of policy whatsoever. I think that he is being made to inhabit a role that he didn't personally choose and I think that his fate is determined by how well he can inhabit that role. When I talked of "initial doubts" I am not talking about any kind of "democratic mandate" and absolutely never implied anything of the sort. But what I am implying is whether or not he can truly convince in that role or whether he will turn out to be a dud.

 

[angrysoba]

Does anyone actually have any reason to know what they are talking about here or is this a guessing game?

It's almost all a guessing game.

 

[angrysoba]

A second Korean war, basically, followed by an intervention by China when NK gets it's ass kicked where they install an openly puppet regime to "fix things'.

Actually, that is not what is usually known by a collapse.

It is true that some of North Korea's internal propaganda has mocked the Soviet Union for collapsing without firing a shot but that doesn't mean that if North Korea "collapses" it will go down with all guns blazing.

Unless you can substantiate that claim.

There do seem to be a number of people who are making lots of quite wild claims with a high amount of certainty without either backing them up or even qualifying them.

 

[angrysoba]

Well, I'd say I'm fairly qualified to talk about the Chinese side of the equation, and Chinese attitudes;

What are your qualifications?

 

[angrysoba]

Please note that I didn't say a war would result in greater stability; only that China would welcome greater stability, and if a war/revolution brought that about, they wouldn't be opposed to it.

No, you didn't say war would result in greater stability what you said was:

China would welcome a revolution or war that resulted in more stability in N. Korea, so long as it didn't have too much of a negative impact on China.

But that's not even a useful statement given that nobody knows from the onset of war or revolution whether or not it is going to produce greater or lesser stability and those who are weighing the odds, as China presumably would do in such an example, would most likely think that war or revolution would result in lesser stability. Why? Because that's what war and revolutions almost invariably bring.

In other words the question of their opposition or otherwise could only sensibly be made in hindsight. The situation we are talking about, an outbreak of war between North and South Korea is one that China couldn't foresee as one that could be hoped to bring about greater stability.

 

[Wolfman]

Sorry, but what is the purpose of this "massive propaganda and military machine"?

Why would he need to be dependent on those who can provide "his public perception"?

Because he's not the one who has the power. There's a whole propaganda machine who knows that the stuff about him is not true, because they are the ones who made it up.

There are two different sources of power for a North Korean leader. One is the obedience/worship of the North Korean people -- which depends far more on the propaganda machine than it does on the individual (Kim Jong-Il was not at all a charismatic person, and made few public appearances...the people's love of him wasn't because of anything special about him). However, those in power don't believe the propaganda -- they're the ones who help create and propagate it. So the other source of power (and the more important one) is one's political power and relationships. Dad and Granddad both had powerful political relationships that kept them in power; but son doesn't have that. He's new to the game, with only a few years to jump into the game. He's a youngster, less than 30 years old, with no previous leadership experience at all...who's dealing with people 2-3 times his age, who've spent decades in the power game. They aren't going to listen to or follow his orders. Its his aunt and uncle that they listen to (both insiders with very strong relationships and connections). He's simply a convenient tool for them to cement their power.

Getting rid of Kim Jong-Eun would be incredibly easy for them, if they wanted to. Kill him, then use the propaganda machine to spin a suitable story. Kim Jong-Eun derives no power from the propaganda surrounding him, since he has no control over it.

What are your qualifications?

Almost 20 years in China, including significant work with the Chinese gov't. If you want to know more, check out my brief biography here.

But that's not even a useful statement given that nobody knows from the onset of war or revolution whether or not it is going to produce greater or lesser stability and those who are weighing the odds, as China presumably would do in such an example, would most likely think that war or revolution would result in lesser stability. Why? Because that's what war and revolutions almost invariably bring.

In other words the question of their opposition or otherwise could only sensibly be made in hindsight. The situation we are talking about, an outbreak of war between North and South Korea is one that China couldn't foresee as one that could be hoped to bring about greater stability.

Actually, if we are talking about a military coup, they'd be dealing with people who are already well-established within the N. Korean hierarchy. If enough of them wanted to launch a coup d'etat, essentially killing/imprisoning the key leaders in the current system, there could be reasonable expectation of pulling it off fairly quickly. They'd then have control of the propaganda machine and could spin whatever tale they wanted ("Kim Jong-Eun was brutally murdered by his aunt and uncle; the two of them tried to take over the government for themselves, but forces loyal to our leader defeated them. We are now taking over power until a suitable new leader can be identified").

This would be a plan which, if there were enough key people involved, could be pulled off fairly quickly, and from China's perspective would have a very high probability of resulting not only in a more stable situation, but that would leave the new gov't deeply indebted to them for their help. And if it failed...things would be no worse than they are now.

 

[angrysoba]

Because he's not the one who has the power. There's a whole propaganda machine who knows that the stuff about him is not true, because they are the ones who made it up.

Yes, I am well aware of that. My question was why does the propaganda machine try to portray Kim Jong-Eun as a general and as Kim Jong-il's successor?

What is the point of this massive military-propaganda organ if not to appeal to the people?

It is you who said that the people of North Korea are irrelevant to what goes on in North Korea so my point is why does North Korea even expend so much energy pumping out this propaganda?

There are two different sources of power for a North Korean leader. One is the obedience/worship of the North Korean people

Whoops!

How do you square that comment with this one:

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the what the people think about him has anything to do with his power. He doesn't derive his power from the people;.

This is clearly and unambiguously a complete contradiction, isn't it?

And of course it is because the propaganda machine would be pointless if it wasn't designed to influence opinion.

which depends far more on the propaganda machine than it does on the individual (Kim Jong-Il was not at all a charismatic person, and made few public appearances...the people's love of him wasn't because of anything special about him).

Then Kim Jong-Eun needn't worry too much providing the propaganda machine does its job and promotes him like his uncharismatic dad, I suppose.

However, those in power don't believe the propaganda -- they're the ones who help create and propagate it. So the other source of power (and the more important one) is one's political power and relationships. Dad and Granddad both had powerful political relationships that kept them in power; but son doesn't have that. He's new to the game, with only a few years to jump into the game. He's a youngster, less than 30 years old, with no previous leadership experience at all...who's dealing with people 2-3 times his age, who've spent decades in the power game. They aren't going to listen to or follow his orders. Its his aunt and uncle that they listen to (both insiders with very strong relationships and connections). He's simply a convenient tool for them to cement their power.

Okay, Kim Jong-Eun doesn't have power and his aunt and uncle don't. Then who is controlling the propaganda machine?

My guess would be the same "civil service" or whatever else passes for a bureaucracy in North Korea. But I don't claim to be an expert here.

Getting rid of Kim Jong-Eun would be incredibly easy for them, if they wanted to. Kill him, then use the propaganda machine to spin a suitable story. Kim Jong-Eun derives no power from the propaganda surrounding him, since he has no control over it.

So why don't they just do it? And how sure are you that it is as simple as you make it out to be? Do they merely have to order the propaganda machine to print out their faces instead of those of Kim Jong-Eun and that will be all? I very much doubt it and I very much doubt you could know these things with the confidence with which you make these assertions.

Almost 20 years in China, including significant work with the Chinese gov't. If you want to know more, check out my brief biography here.

I didn't see anything there that convinced me you know of the internal workings of the North Korean hierarchy or its propaganda ministry. Do you regularly read its internal propaganda (not KCNA!) and do you speak Korean? I'll happily admit I do neither but I think it is clear that I am not as confident about my analyses of the situation there as you appear to be.

Nor do I think I am as contradictory.

Actually, if we are talking about a military coup, they'd be dealing with people who are already well-established within the N. Korean hierarchy. If enough of them wanted to launch a coup d'etat, essentially killing/imprisoning the key leaders in the current system, there could be reasonable expectation of pulling it off fairly quickly. They'd then have control of the propaganda machine and could spin whatever tale they wanted ("Kim Jong-Eun was brutally murdered by his aunt and uncle; the two of them tried to take over the government for themselves, but forces loyal to our leader defeated them. We are now taking over power until a suitable new leader can be identified").

This would be a plan which, if there were enough key people involved, could be pulled off fairly quickly, and from China's perspective would have a very high probability of resulting not only in a more stable situation, but that would leave the new gov't deeply indebted to them for their help. And if it failed...things would be no worse than they are now.

I have no willingness to trust any of these fantasies which sound like complete conjecture to me.

Could you try backing up some of these claims with a bit of evidence?

 

[Wolfman]

Yes, I am well aware of that. My question was why does the propaganda machine try to portray Kim Jong-Eun as a general and as Kim Jong-il's successor?

It is you who said that the people of North Korea are irrelevant to what goes on in North Korea so my point is why does North Korea even expend so much energy pumping out this propaganda?

Because they want to give the people a figure-head.

Whoops!

How do you square that comment with this one:

This is clearly and unambiguously a complete contradiction, isn't it?

No...because the people's support is dependent on the propaganda, which is completely out of his control. This isn't hard to understand. The people follow him not because of him, but because of the propaganda.

Then Kim Jong-Eun needn't worry too much providing the propaganda machine does its job and promotes him like his uncharismatic dad, I suppose.

The difference is that his dad was in control of the propaganda machine; he's not.

Okay, Kim Jong-Eun doesn't have power and his aunt and uncle don't. Then who is controlling the propaganda machine?

Nowhere did I say his aunt and uncle don't control it...they're very much the ones pulling the strings.

So why don't they just do it? And how sure are you that it is as simple as you make it out to be? Do they merely have to order the propaganda machine to print out their faces instead of those of Kim Jong-Eun and that will be all? I very much doubt it and I very much doubt you could know these things with the confidence with which you make these assertions.

For the same reason that many autocracies have used figure-heads in the past. This is hardly a new historical or political concept...a powerless figurehead that is used to manipulate the masses. The people have already been conditioned to accept Kim's son, this is far easier than trying to create a new leader.

I didn't see anything there that convinced me you know of the internal workings of the North Korean hierarchy or its propaganda ministry. Do you regularly read its internal propaganda (not KCNA!) and do you speak Korean? I'll happily admit I do neither but I think it is clear that I am not as confident about my analyses of the situation there as you appear to be.

Now you're being downright dishonest. You quoted my statement that I had a valid claim to being knowledgeable about China; you did NOT copy the part about Korea. I responded specifically with my China qualifications. This level of intellectual dishonesty is personally disgusting.

Nor do I think I am as contradictory.

Nope, just failing entirely to understand what I'm saying.
[quoteI have no willingness to trust any of these fantasies which sound like complete conjecture to me.

Could you try backing up some of these claims with a bit of evidence?[/quote]Can I provide evidence of a hypothetical situation? No.

Are there examples of military coups that quickly and effectively overthrew the previous government and took control? Tons of them. If you're so historically illiterate as to be unfamiliar with all of them, then I'd suggest you do some further study before attempting further discussion.

 

[Humes fork]

Does anyone actually have any reason to know what they are talking about here or is this a guessing game?

Mostly guessing. In the past, the pessimists about North Korea have usually turned out to be right, so that's where my money would be.

 

[angrysoba]

Because they want to give the people a figure-head.

Yes, the propaganda people are certainly making him one of those. And in the tried and tested fashion they are presenting him as a general, riding on horses and waving his finger around authoritatively and petting children in uniform. They haven't missed a beat. They never do. And I don't see what's different here.

The link to Kim Jong-Un Looking at Things is quite interesting. It seems clear that they want the new Kim to be like the old Kim. Whether he pulls it off is what I was talking about. I never suggested he was aiming for some kind of independent policy and in my view the default opinion about North Korea is that of the status quo. I would need to see some evidence of an imminent reason for change or some hints from the propaganda to believe otherwise and I just aint seeing it. You did remark that the aunt and uncle seem to be very much with him in the pictures holding hands and that did give me pause but looking at these pictures again I realize he is holding hands with lots of people. Could you tell me which ones are his aunt and uncle as I do not know:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/02/kim-jong-un-looking-at-things/100237/

No...because the people's support is dependent on the propaganda, which is completely out of his control. This isn't hard to understand. The people follow him not because of him, but because of the propaganda.

I still say you contradicted yourself by saying that Korean leaders don't derive their support from the people and that they do because it is fed to them by propaganda. I think propaganda can only convince so far and right now anyone at the top in North Korea is probably hoping that Kim Jong-Eun makes a favourable impression and that the North Korean leadership's "legitimacy" is perpetuated by a military leader whose dedicated to protecting the nation from outsiders. And one who has good figure-head appeal.

The difference is that his dad was in control of the propaganda machine; he's not.
Nowhere did I say his aunt and uncle don't control it...they're very much the ones pulling the strings.

It is believed that the aunt and uncle have some kind of de facto leadership, but could you show some evidence that they are being actively promoted by the propaganda machine?

For the same reason that many autocracies have used figure-heads in the past. This is hardly a new historical or political concept...a powerless figurehead that is used to manipulate the masses. The people have already been conditioned to accept Kim's son, this is far easier than trying to create a new leader.

Well, okay. But you still need to demonstrate this is true in this case.

Now you're being downright dishonest. You quoted my statement that I had a valid claim to being knowledgeable about China; you did NOT copy the part about Korea. I responded specifically with my China qualifications. This level of intellectual dishonesty is personally disgusting.

Well, okay to that as well. But specifically you are claiming to have knowledge of China's relationship with North Korea and how it sees the future between the two countries.

Nope, just failing entirely to understand what I'm saying.

I have no willingness to trust any of these fantasies which sound like complete conjecture to me.

Could you try backing up some of these claims with a bit of evidence?

Can I provide evidence of a hypothetical situation? No.

I fail to see how you can know that China would be in favour of this or that it would result in a more stable situation. Why do you not think that China prefers the status quo?

Are there examples of military coups that quickly and effectively overthrew the previous government and took control? Tons of them. If you're so historically illiterate as to be unfamiliar with all of them, then I'd suggest you do some further study before attempting further discussion.

Yes, but again you would need to show how the situations are relevant.

For years I heard that North Korea would go the way of Romania with Kim Jong-il being overthrown the way that Ceaucescu was. It never happened, so I am not as convinced by simply referring to previous military coups.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Will North Korea collapse in the next 4 years?
I was hoping for the "next week or next month" and bet a friend at the office that the latest Kim would be gone before Mardi Gras. (22 Feb) due to the actual power brokers having a fracture followed by a fracas. "There will be blood" and such ...

I have twenty buck on it.

We'll see how close I am to right.

What has me a bit nervous is that there may be a horrific power struggle in NK, and most in the west won't know, so won't cover it.

How will I know if I won or lost the bet?

 

[Muldur]

That's just it. It's not perceived as either controlled, or controllable. Not by the Chinese, not by anyone else particularly familiar with that gov't. Particularly not now that there's an inexperienced 'leader' supposedly in charge. Worries were rife as soon as he took over that North Korea would launch a war on South Korea simply to unite the people behind their new leader...is that kind of worry what you'd call "controlled or controllable"?

Then they may be forced to act much sooner than they'd prefer (probably if/when NK is on the brink of doing something monumentally stupid).

All I'm saying is that, all other factors being equal, China would prefer to see the three-ring circus that is NK continue to keep the world's attention fixed there rather than have it shift to what China is doing in the meantime, and they will let NK go right to the brink (and possibly over it) before stepping in.

 

[Muldur]

Actually, that is not what is usually known by a collapse.

It is true that some of North Korea's internal propaganda has mocked the Soviet Union for collapsing without firing a shot but that doesn't mean that if North Korea "collapses" it will go down with all guns blazing.

Unless you can substantiate that claim.

There do seem to be a number of people who are making lots of quite wild claims with a high amount of certainty without either backing them up or even qualifying them.

The backwash of economic and social collapses can only turn two ways: either inward (Russia in the 90s) or outward (Germany in the 30s). Focusing the public's attention and ire on the traditionally hated South would suit the Northern leadership (whoever they may actually be) quite nicely. Gives them an excuse for austerity ("Sorry, but we need to confiscate your grain for the war effort..."), and a convenient scapegoat ("Don't blame us for your woes, it's those no-good South Koreans who are at fault...")

 

[McHrozni]

Yup, certainly. The same way that the U.S. paid the price for supporting Bin Laden and Saddam.

Saddam is one comparison I was trying to draw, yes. Bin Laden was a different issue (he just fought on the same side).

McHrozni

 

[Beerina]

North Korea already collapsed, long ago. Never was a real country. Now it is being kept on life support by China, nominally 'alive' in a sick joke kind of way.

Thank you. How can something that's smashed and been lying in pieces all over the ground the past 50 years "collapse"?

 

[angrysoba]

The backwash of economic and social collapses can only turn two ways: either inward (Russia in the 90s) or outward (Germany in the 30s). Focusing the public's attention and ire on the traditionally hated South would suit the Northern leadership (whoever they may actually be) quite nicely. Gives them an excuse for austerity ("Sorry, but we need to confiscate your grain for the war effort..."), and a convenient scapegoat ("Don't blame us for your woes, it's those no-good South Koreans who are at fault...")

"Confiscate your grain"? I think all grain belongs to the state, it is grown on collective farms and is distributed on an army-first basis and has been since the mid-nineties with the adoption of the Songun policy. As far as I know there is no such thing as private farmers although some people may manage to grow some vegetables around their house and sell them on the black markets.

The adoption of Songun as official policy was followed by years of famine - which were coming one way or another anyway - in which maybe a million or two million people died. And the vast majority of people live in abject poverty and on the brink of starvation. This is why I wondered what collapse would look like as it is already pretty much completely economically collapsed.

The North Korean state likely derives no legitimacy (or very little) for how well it handles its economy and provides food for the people. The legitimacy of a North Korean leader is likely to rest on how well he either portrays himself or, if you prefer, is portrayed by the vast and all-pervading propaganda "machine", as a military leader. It is hardly surprising then, that Kim Jong-Eun is often seen in military uniform and on a white horse, looking dashing (or as dashing as possible).

But according to some people, such as Bryan Myers, what is also important is how well they can appear to be the guardians of Koreanness. The Kim family supposedly exemplify all the traits of the supreme Korean identity whereas the south, while it is undeniably richer and the people there are better-fed, they are considered decadent lackeys of the Yankee imperialist aggressors and the reactionary Imperial Japanese etc...etc... So, his theory is that being a military leader it requires some periodic hostilities which it can claim to win and to which the successful defence of the Korean people can be attributed to Kim XYZ.

But I don't see any need for North Korea to start a whole new war, especially given that the first one isn't even over yet. What could easily be expected is that any "reformists" or independent "pro-peace" policies by either Kim Jong-Eun or whoever the Regents are would be political suicide as it would knock out the last remaining justification of the ruling clique being there.

That's the theory anyway.

 

[geni]

A coup seems unlikely. Those at the top know it would risk giving people below them ideas and anyone below that level would suffer from a very signficant risk of the whole thing collapsing and removing anything they gained from the coup.

 

[Darth Rotor]

"
But I don't see any need for North Korea to start a whole new war, especially given that the first one isn't even over yet.

It might be wise not to try and measure another man's wheat with your bushel.

All the NorKors need to do is spool up the hostilities to a level somewhat higher than slinging a torpedo here and there into a frigate. Since the state of play is "war on ice," getting hostilities actively restarted looks about the same as "start a whole new war" given that the strategic situation has changed markedly in the years since 1953, when the war as it was then was put on ice for a while.

DR

 

[angrysoba]

It might be wise not to try and measure another man's wheat with your bushel.

All the NorKors need to do is spool up the hostilities to a level somewhat higher than slinging a torpedo here and there into a frigate. Since the state of play is "war on ice," getting hostilities actively restarted looks about the same as "start a whole new war" given that the strategic situation has changed markedly in the years since 1953, when the war as it was then was put on ice for a while.

DR

You misunderstand me.

I am saying for North Korea's purposes there is no need to start a new war.

Every single day they are fed stories of atrocities and betrayal by the Yankees and their running dogs from the Korean War.

It might occupy only a small part of our own brainspace but in North Korea it doesn't.

The periodic flashpoints such as the sinking of a South Korean vessel, the shelling of an island, the occasional shooting death of someone on one side or another play well into that idea that the Korean War is still going and could escalate suddenly.