But leading on from what Arthur Cordell wrote as a comment to my previous blog about North Korea (“Kim Jong-un isn’t mad — just fragile”, 15 August) what’s needed for the sake of millions of North Korean people is a total breakdown of the country.
What’s needed by South Korea is tit-for-tat, the oldest practical ‘morality’ of them all but, when carried out carefully by the ultimate victor is these days called diplomatic game theory. It’s what saved the world from a possible nuclear holocaust in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis when the Soviet Union belatedly discovered it and realised that Kennedy’s next step would have been US nuclear missiles directed against Moscow. But was it Kennedy’s victory alone or was it Krushchev’s, too? Because Kennedy’s public threat was accompanied by a secret promise to withdraw US missile sites in Turkey directed against Moscow.
What we didn’t know at the time of the Cuban crisis is that not only would Kennedy and Krushchev have re-learned the game of tit-for-tat but it also caused the beginning of internal political unwinding in the Soviet Union which ultimately caused the alcoholic break-up into Russia and other countries under Yeltsin. (Which also probably meant the further unwinding of America also — and all other countries under the nation-state format — once the impossibility of using modern weapons had been fully realised by all concerned — that is, by electorates as well as politicians.)
But back to North and South Korea, if North Korea wishes to break North Korea then it has got to play the tit-for-tat game. Never mind the 30-hour peace conference going on between North and South Korean delegates. Nothing ever good comes out of such things. It’s humanly impossible for more the three of four people ever to agree about the long term of anything. Even the four-person Beatles and ABBA broke up and, today, One Direction. Assuming that North Korea has been loudly loud-speakering North Korea as a response to a provocation by North Korea, now that North Korea has responded by drawing up its troops to the frontier means that the only sensible response by South Korea is to draw up its own troops instead of the peace conference which North Korea will interpret as turning the other cheek. A peace conference, whatever form of words it may possibly arrive at, will only encourage North Korea to try another provocation whenever it has the need to hold its own country together.
Tension would rise. North Korea would probably start shelling South Korea, in which case South Korea should reply — so long as, and this is very important for the correct use of diplomatic game theory, South Korea respond with exactly the same number of shells as North Korea — no more. What would North Korea do by way of response? Invade South Korea? Not a chance. In addition to its own forces, South Korea has 25,000 US troops there also and they’re equipped with tactical nuclear weapons. Or, if it didn’t do that, would North Korea threaten nuclear attack? Not a chance. China was step in immediately.
I think Kim Jong-un’s bluff would be called very soon. The North Korea regime would fall apart just like the Soviet Union’s. And then South Korea would have to put its troops on the border because, otherwise, most of the North Korean population would evacuate promptly and swamp South Korea. Unlike the European Union which hasn’t the courage to prevent the increasing migration into Europe — of people similarly needing help — such has already been decided by a previous South Korean President, I understand.
Such won’t happen in Europe until Angela Merkel finally overcomes her democratic scruples of having to work hand-in-hand with the President of France and takes the obvious decision herself of sealing the EU’s borders completely. But she will have to do this soon or her own country will be in danger of being as ungovernable as Greece, such are the numbers of migrants (800,000 so far this year) piling up in Germany.