Thread by @Robert_E_Kelly

THREAD: Why North Korea would Prefer Leaching Off South Korea to Absorbing It

There is a lot of debate on whether NK still seeks full-blown conquest/absorption of SK.

I am skeptical, bc I think the ruling Kim family are more degenerate gangsters than nationalist ideologues.

1

https://twitter.com/fcaidan/status/1435597431798915073

They won't seriously risk their rule or material perks for a psychological (nationalist) pay-off. In fact, IMO, both Koreas are de facto status quo states, despite de jure revisionism:

1. Talk is Cheap

So sure, both Koreas talk tough and maintain formal commitments to

2

unification, but talk is cheap obviously and leaders lie a lot. Unification might be formally retained as an end-goal, but only as a far-off, de rigeur ideal recited ceremonially, rather than actually seriously planned for or built into NK strategy. I could be convinced of the

3

opposite, bc we don't know that much about NK strategy. But is NK taking any kind of serious strategic risks to bring about unification? Not that I can see for awhile. Its subversion and terrorist efforts in SK have subsided a lot. Tactical actions on the DMZ and NLL are not

4

bids for unification but for attention and a short-term pay-off. The sinking of the Cheonan was aggressive and might have provoked real escalation, but it seems to have been a one-off. NK nukes could have potential offensive value, but other nuclear weapons states have found

5

that nukes usually end up as deterrents rather offensive tools.

2. Tough Unification Talk is Domestically Ideologically Valuable

Nationalism is NK's domestic ideology, so it has to keep talking about unification whether it wants it or not. This is the regime's raison d'etre.

6

The only way NK can explain why it has not already unified w/ wealthier, more successful SK is to insist that the South is a subservient Yankee Colony that has to be cleansed and all that. But that too might just be rhetoric - for domestic consumption & ideological clarity -

7

rather than strategy. The Kims are living the gangster high life well. Why rock the boat?

3. Could NK even absorb SK without bringing itself down?

3a) At some point, realism must confront even the most blinkered 'Kimist' ideologue. It would be very hard to conquer SK. Among

8

other things, the US might nuke NK to prevent that. This must feed thru and temper all but the most ferocious dogmatists

3b) Could NK's songbun system be extended to 52 million S Koreans? This very stylized, punitive system has been customized around NK's unique circumstances

9

for decades. To suddenly extend it to a tripled population would almost certainly overwhelm it, particularly since almost everyone in SK would necessarily land in the bottom 'hostile' class.

3c) Could the KPA occupy SK for years without being massively corrupted and facing

10

endemic revolts from S Koreans accustomed personal freedoms? Almost certainly not and all these new costs and stresses would create discontent back in NK too.

4. Conquering SK ruins its value

Absorbing SK - and thus disconnecting it from the global economy - would ruin the

11

material (although not nationalist/psychological value) of victory. SK is only valuable if connected to the global economy. Take-over would kill the golden goose and burden the already grossly inefficient NK economy with new costs.

5. Why Not Just Take the Money and Run?

12

The SK left wants a 'peace economy' in a 'peace regime.' In practice, this would mean a paper-thin inter-K covering federation, with the North's domestic politics effectively unchanged, BUT the very juicy semi-permanent subsidization of the North by the S. Why not just let SK

13

pay your bills? To be clear, SK should not do this, IMO, but NK permanently leaching off of SK wealth is almost what a (bogus) federation would be in practice. And if you're the Kims, that is a pretty great outcome.

Again, I think the core debate is to what extent NK elites

14

are genuinely committed nationalists willing to take strategic risks, versus complacent, bloated thugs content to just stay in power and looking for cash. I'd say the latter.

15