Menu
close
Tom MuellerAlyssa - great point on the Imperalist vs Fatherland argument. It is all about controlling the narrative to unite your country. We have done it in this country. Obviously China is imperalistic but since they are helping North Korea they are not put in the same light. I guess my question and I know we would never know the answer, but has there been a concerted effort by the CIA to overthrow the regime since the 1960s? The US had done it before (Iran in 1953, etc.). However during the Cold War with the Soviets having such a connection with North Korea - did we feel it was an option on the table? Then when the USSR fell, did we feel it was worth the risk (especially with China's connection) during this time. However with the growth of nuclear warheads, did that change the thinking inside the CIA, etc. ?
Tom MuellerJulie - very good points. After reading your discussion about not trusting the old guard. I wonder how this impacted the "foreign policy thinking" within the Kim Jong II's government. I remember reading that analysts were worred that his son Kim Jong Un was removing older analysts with younger ones. One of the points they made was that those older analysts had direct knowledge of the Korean War. They fought in it and remembered the destruction. If you take that knowledge away, does it make conflict more likely especially when you might only have a "Hollywood like" understanding of war.
Tom MuellerExcellent - thank you Julie
Tom MuellerI believe Kim Jong II had a two prong approach. First, Kim used the Son gun Policy of military first. As he moved through his leadership training, he held on to power of the military. He also consolidated his power through leadership roles in different institutions. He then made sure that he was addressed as the National Defense Commission Chairman and not the Korean Workers Party. This rose the military stature and put it front and center. This move was also solidified in the new constitution including the deletion of the communism. Kim pushed this move to weed out corruption and to bring that “passion” back into his administration. This was not only about building up its own defenses, but also manufacturing weapons for export. He sent missiles to Yemen, Vietnam, UAE, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Egypt, and of course Iraq. The Scud missiles used in the first Gulf War were exported to Iraq from North Korea. Then Kim pushed to build a nuclear arsenal. I wonder if Kim felt that nuclear weapons would level the playing field between themselves and military strength of the US, South Korea, etc. I remember reading one article on Pakistan and one of the Pakistani leaders stated they are building their nuclear arsenal to offset India’s military – not only personnel, but also conventional weapons and capital. Of course North Korea then did not want to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. This treaty stated that those with nuclear weapons would work on disarmament talks and share their “peaceful” nuclear technology with those that did not have the technology (as long as they did not try to acquire nuclear war technology). This treaty sounds good in practice, however it is not that simple when it comes to nuclear weapons and its technology Countries examine those with Nuclear Weapons (The Nuclear 5) and they also have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. As we all know this is a very powerful position. Also nuclear weapons can be used to build domestic cohesion. A country has nuclear weapons, then Nuclear 5 also needs to pay attention to this country or at least keep them on their radar. Another use of nuclear weapon technology is it shows these countries are not “technologically backward”, you need a lot of intelligent people to create nuclear energy and then transfer it to warhead.
Also North Korea worked with South Korea via the Sunshine Policy. As I read in one article, there were real economic problems that may have pushed North Korea into working with capitalist countries (flooding, famine, etc.) This brought trade and the building of Kaesong Industrial Complex. This sounded like international companies first starting in China’s Special Economic Zones. The companies are able to use the cheaper labor and keep their products’ cost low so they compete in the global market. The North Koreans received jobs. In the video, you discussed the wages in 2012 were $180. Was that above, average or below labor costs in the rest of North Korea? This policy of engagement was to bring the two Koreas together. However the costs of the Sunshine Policy were not as impactful. I wonder if South Korea had similar thinking to the US (via Chinese trade, etc.). If we can help build them economically (and get a little something for our businesses), then they (North Korea or China) will be more open politically. However that did not happen in China and it did not happen in North Korea
Tom MuellerI just received information on this webinar - Unfinished War, Unfinished Questions: Families Divided by the Korean War
Tom MuellerAlyssa after reading your post. I started to think about the Century of Humiliation in China - (Foreign powers occupying China). I wonder if Korea felt the same way. They were a colony of Japan and before that they paid tribute to China. Did they feel they were now free under Rhee and Kim? I read a few books on the Korean War and I thought Kim had to get permission from Stalin to attack the South initially. He also received an okay from Mao. Stalin was unsure because he was afraid the US would intervene. However after a policy maker did not mention South Korea as a major strategic location, then Stalin felt that we would not be involved. On the other side MacArthur felt the Chinese were too weak to stop them from crossing the Yalu River. It always made me wonder if Stalin or MacArthur thought differently how the Korean War would have played out differently (or even started).
Tom MuellerJane - yes the continued grassroots support for democracy was surprising. I believe the US backed Rhee because he was pro - Western. The world was a chess board and it seemed countries were a US piece or USSR piece. The US backed the Shah of Iran and he was an authoritarian leader and did not want democracy. I think the continued push for democracy shows the strength of the Korean people. After the Korean War, I wondered if the people just wanted peace and security. However in South Korea as development slowly started to take shape and people (and the country) started to improve, I wonder if Koreans felt… I am doing better economically - what else is there? They wanted more - more freedom, more voice in their country.
Tom MuellerMeghann - that is a great point. This helps build the cult of Kim II Sung. It did not matter if students were learning math, literature, etc., if the constant messages that you are getting are Kim is the great leader and South Korea / US are the ultimate evils - then this type of thinking is going to becomes second nature. I remember watching a PBS special (I think) and the reporter asked a North Korean child playing a video game "...who do imagine you are killing in this game?" His response was - Americans, because they are evil. These types of messages are then compounded by North Korea being so isolated (government controls media and information, etc.). Also I remember the messages that I was getting as a young kid (many, many years ago) about the Soviet Union - Evil Empire, Stallone/Chuck Norris/Red Dawn movies. I still remember our math teacher creating word problems (that took shots at the USSR) during the 1980 Olympics, etc. From a personal stance, due to these types of messages, I did not see the USSR as "people" but as unified evil object.
Tom MuellerI am going to answer the second question first - First I believe the post-World War II and Korean War played a role. After World War II, the Korean peninsula was “freed” from Japan. Now it was split between US and USSR, however there might have been a belief that they were now independent. Then the Korean War broke out when North Korea invaded the South. The death and destruction of the war on the Korea peninsula was devastating – tens of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Chinese, millions of Koreans were killed and the landscape, infrastructure, etc. were left in ruins. When the war finally ended, I wonder if Koreans just wanted peace and safety. They wanted to be able to farm their lands without being shelled or walk outside their homes without being killed or captured. The strong governmental control in the North and (at least starting out) South could also play off the fear of the other invading. Also the Korean peninsula was the ultimate chess board between the United States and Soviet Union. This not only kept resources funneling into these countries but also on US and Soviet Union’s radar screen.
In regards to North Korea, when I was younger, I would have stated this is an easy answer, he did it through fear. However as I have researched this topic and with the help of the video and texts, I would say the answer is more complex. Kim II Sung built a name for himself as a guerilla fighter on truths and propaganda. Then through Soviet financing, fear and controlling the public’s every moment, he was able to build his communist monarchy. The propaganda played up his Korean leadership skills and downplayed connections to Chinese communists. The Soviets elevated Kim II Sung to leader, but he worked hard to make his government independent (and nationalistic), even though it relied on Soviet sponsorship for funding, etc. In the beginning, the Soviets also helped by arresting people who opposed the regime. I also remember when my history teacher discussed the Cuban Revolution – as simple as it might sound – Communists could say do you want food on your table, do you want your kids to be educated, do you want health care, etc.- then you should back us. I think if I was a poor farmer and had to fight for next day’s meal, it would seem like a good deal to me. As one of the readings stated, Kim II Sung made sure this communism also followed a nationalist thread – bringing Korea (at least North Korea) together against foreign invaders, etc. Kim ruled with an iron fist, those that opposed him would eventually be sent to camps or die. He also made sure he was not only leader of the Korean Workers Party but also the Korean People Army. Kim also had the power to control the lives of everyday people (background checks of families, banned communication (radios), movement, etc.) and build his cult. Kim II Sung also could play the role of benevolent leader. As we examined in the pictures of Kim, we saw him listening and then helping people ( a very active role) – making their lives better. Finally Kim II Sung made sure he received credit – so that he could become a God.
Tom MuellerI did post to this forum before, but it seems that I must have not completed it correctly. This was a very interesting video and I was very interested in the power of women in Korea. It sounds like Korean women are like my wife - I call her the CFO of our family...LOL. What are the similarities and differences (in power) between Korean women and non - Korean women (Filapino and Vietanmese, etc.)?
Tom MuellerHello I am Tom Mueller. I am a geography professor at a small university near Pittsburgh, PA. I teach courses in world geography, demographic analysis and geo-spatial technology (computer mapping, etc.). I have been teaching since 1999. My favorite course is my World Geography class. I am taking this seminar to learn more about Korea so that I can add this information to my course.
