Comments on: N. Korea Marks Terror De-Listing By Threatening to Turn Seoul into ‘Debris.’

By: KCJ

KCJ — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:25:35 +0000

Joshua, colleagues:
This may sound zany, but there is some scuttle online about the following possible scenario.

Let me preface by saying I am not an ambassador, a state dept official, and I have not slept in a Holiday Inn Express in months. So my comments are the summation of a rank amateur based on my own ground level view and some erratic data mining on the internet.

There are some that believe de-listing was a choreographed procedure performed in anticipation of an imminent collapse. The thinking is something along the lines of preparing the world opinion shapers to view the US as a ‘good guy’ here, trying to work with implacable Pyongyang, and that the collapse of the Juche state will be seen as unforced and inevitable. That may free the US for a larger menu of strategic options in dealing with the aftermath of a failed state in serious humanitarin crisis.

If any of this is true, and there is enough evidence to credibly predict an imminent collapse of the DPRK, then the de-listing will have no serious long-term consequences and may even be a shrewd move in anticipating the type of legal and trade policy reversals that will surely be required in a post-Juche North Korea.

Now this could be total baloney. And it could be partially true. But there is a great deal of posturing and posing that occurs here on the peninsula and choreography plays a role here, for good or for evil. I am hoping that regime collapses with the ‘soft landing’ scenario, but starvation could be a strong motivation to welcome peacekeepers from the ROK and the UN – and *gasp* even the US Military.

By: Stewart

Stewart — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:11:50 +0000

In response to the article posted by James, I am honestly searching for an answer as to what explains State’s idiocy over the last several years. Can it really be as simple as that – that State is peopled by incompetent bufoons? I really don’t believe that is the explanation, these people are not dumb. Could it be explained by Condi’s and W’s desire for legacy building? Going back to my last statement, if they are not stupid they would know that banking a legacy on the good word of the Dear Leader makes about as much sense as feeding your child Chinese made baby formula based on high Chinese food standards. Do they know something we don’t: that the regime is on the verge of collapse, and all this masturbatory diplomacy is aimed at keeping them from doing something really stupid until they cease to exist in a few years? Again going back to the assumption of intelligence, State can’t possibly believe that drafting deliberately ambiguous agreements, and giving significant benefits to the DPRK for the simple act of signing the worthless agreements is accomplishing anything? Are they a bunch of masochists who take some sick pleasure in being repeatedly humiliated? What? Honestly, someone please explain to me what is going through those “minds” at State?

By: james

james — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:18:06 +0000

oh please come back joshua.

is this enough?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/world/asia/13korea.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

i want all those loser chris hill cronies at the state dept. that read your blog to know that….well….they are losers.

good one state dept. good one.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:37:39 +0000

Similarly, they have linked the return of Japanese abductees to “reparations,” which sounds a lot like code for “ransom.”

By: xyzzy

xyzzy — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:31:56 +0000

I saw this the other day, and I’m wondering if “cleanup costs” is code for “bribe”. They say they want $300 mil to cleanup Yongbyon, but I don’t see how the money can be properly administered:

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200810/200810170022.html

By: james

james — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:08:04 +0000

and they keep on pulling crap and not getting called on it publicly.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122549443144289535.html

By: Stewart

Stewart — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:21:40 +0000

Isn’t the language and interpretation of the text of the statute irrelevant? There was never any attempt made by the administration to justify removal from the list in terms of North Korea’s progress in having ceased terrorist activities. The value of the designation has now forever been debased as to all nations against which it is applied. If nations can be removed from the list for “good” behavior wholly unrelated to its terrorism related activities, then isn’t the flip side of that an argument that designation in the first place was just an illegitimate attempt to extort non-terrorism related concessions of some kind from designated nations? (I’m not arguing that North Korea’s designation was illegitimate, only that we’ve provided fodder for other nations to argue just that.)