[imText1]It is noticeable that N. Korea experts already had a vigorous argument for a desirable management of N. Korea after its collapse, considering the collapse of N. Korean national system and Kim Jong Il’s regime.
Winter 2006 Zeitgeist, New-Right ideology and theoretical magazine, published on the 27th, estimated in the colloquy of “Alternatives to the Collapse of N. Korean National System” that, “The Kim Jong Il’s regime already started to break up as much as we can not call it a “national system”.
The experts suggested as a way to control N. Korea after its collapse the joint management of international organizations such as UN, saying that the collapse of N. Korean national system “is likely to be caused by two aspects; one would be break-up of Kim Jong Il’s Juche ideology and unification strategy and the other would be ripple effect of the collapse of the East European bloc”.
In the colloquy, An Byung Jik as moderator, honorary professor of Seoul National University, Kim Hee Sang, former president of national defense university, Andery Lankov, visiting professor of Kukmin University (professor of Australia National University) and Sohn Gwang Ju, chief editor of DailyNK participated.
They agreed that N. Korea does not function as a nation, and is not likely to accept reformation and liberalization even in the verge of its collapse.
Professor Lankov expected that, “the reformation and liberalization of N. Korea is a political suicide”, and “If N. Korea accepts reformation and liberalization, the N. Korean people who would see the economic development and political freedom of South Korea will rise up against the Kim Jong Il’s regime, bottom up revolt”.
Kim Hee Sang, former president of national defense university agreed on this and stated that, “Some people say N. Korea should adapt the Chinese reformation and liberalization, yet this is not effective”, and “N. Korea does not even perceive it should protect its people and give its people good welfare”.
For the situation, Sho Gwang Ju, chief editor of DailyNK, reasoned that, “Kim Jong Il thinks he is able to preserve his regime only with Suryung dictatorship and prior-military politics”.
Professor Kim Yong Ho pointed out that, “The Son-shine policy of Kim Dea Jung administration and the Engagement policy of Roh administration have kept N. Korea from try to reform its economy and politics” and “Only power change will produce its reformation and liberalization”.
Regarding this, former president Kim of a university gave a supplementary explanation that, “It is natural that the Sun-shine policy failed because it wrongly perceived N. Korea with uncertain purpose in a unreasonable way”.
Regarding N. Korea after the nuclear test, Editor Sohn presumed that, “It is likely that vicious cycle – high tension → talk and negotiation → aids for N. Korea → high tension – keeps going” and “N. Korea would keep up the more and more tension vicious cycle.
Professor Kim emphasized that, “Korea stands between the two choices; to live as a hostage under the nuke umbrella of N. Korea or to solve the nuclear problem” and “the South Korean government should take firm action”.
While they agree on the international joint management, the experts showed their opinions in different aspects.
While Professor Kim weighed the political approach based on the Korean Constitutional Law spirit and International universal values, former president Kim emphasized the leadership of the South Korean government after the collapse of the Kim Jong Il’s regime saying that, “The Korean peninsular should not be in conflict and divided again”.
Editor Sohn strongly claimed that, “We should consider the N. Korean people who are worried about the integrated unification and international cooperation is important” while professor Lankov stated that, “the North and South agree on the specific unification strategy and find out specific steps”.
In the meanwhile, Winter 2006 Zeitgeist put 3 papers studying the possibility of N. Korean reformation and liberalization, analyzing the reality of the Kim Jong Il’s regime and suggesting alternatives to the issues.
