An array of intelligence analysts, Asian and US scholars, think tank specialists and workers in relief organizations have renewed speculation that the North Korean regime of Kim Jong-il is in danger of collapsing because the country is on the brink of mass starvation and mounting isolation.
No one is willing to guess when this might happen: within a year, five years or 10 years? Will the collapse be a “soft landing,” in which Kim’s regime gradually falls apart and the pieces are picked up by the South Koreans, or will it be a “hard landing,” in which Kim’s regime implodes and chaos sweeps the land?
The consequences of a regime change in Pyongyang could be staggering. Immediately, US, South Korean and Chinese troops could charge into North Korea to secure its nuclear facilities — and confront each other. In the middle term, reviving North Korea could cost South Korea, Japan, China and the US enormous sums. In the long term, a reunited Korea would change the power balance of East Asia — but unpredictably.
Analysts point to a decade of hunger that has left seven-year-old North Korean children 20cm shorter and 9kg lighter than their South Korean cousins. North Korean soldiers in a regime that gives priority to the military forces have been reduced to two skimpy meals a day. Factory workers nap on the floor for lack of food and energy.
That has led to conjecture that North Koreans, despite the pervasive controls in the Hermit Kingdom’s police state, may throw caution to the wind.
“We just don’t think they can go along with this much longer,” said a US official with access to intelligence assessments.
The Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington reports that North Korea, after ten years of food shortages, stands on the precipice of famine that could have political consequences.
“The possibility of widespread social distress and even political instability,” the institute said in a study, “cannot be ruled out.”
Another study, from the non-partisan US Congressional Research Service, says: “Dismal economic conditions also foster forces of discontent that potentially could turn against the Kim regime — especially if knowledge of the luxurious lifestyle of communist party leaders becomes better known or as poor economic performance hurts even the elite.”
Even so, an assessment from Jane’s, publisher of security reports, said five years ago: “The only significant power base that might challenge the regime is the military. Since Kim Jong Il became Chairman of the National Defense Commission, however, he has promoted 230 generals. Most of the army’s 1,200-strong general officer corps owes their allegiance to him.”
Nothing appears to have changed that judgment — except starvation.
Added to the pressures on the regime is the increasing isolation of Pyongyang. The six-party talks among North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, and the US, which are intended to persuade Kim to give up his nuclear ambitions, are stalled with no end in sight.
China and Russia no longer seem to have an ideological commitment to their fellow communists in North Korea and were clearly miffed when North Korea detonated a nuclear device in 2006. Japan has begun to negotiate warily with North Korea to get an accounting of the Japanese it kidnapped over a long period. Most sanctions remain in place.
Seoul’s contacts with North Korea slowed after, among other things, a North Korean soldier killed a South Korean woman taking an early morning walk on a beach near the North Korean resort she was visiting. Moreover, South Korean young people have shown less interest in reconciliation with North Korea than their parents and grandparents because of the cost.
Officials of the administration of US President George W. Bush are going through the motions of negotiating with the North Koreans for an enforceable agreement under which Kim would give up his nuclear weapons. In return, he would get a peace agreement replacing the truce that ended the Korean War of 1950 to 1953, diplomatic relations with the US and aid and trade benefits. But little real progress is in sight.
The opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic Games, a political event if ever there was one, reflected power relations in East Asia. Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) was the host, of course. Bush was there along with his father, former US president George Bush. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak also attended.
Kim wasn’t there.
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
RSS