Which Path as the North Unravels?

The defection to the United States of Chang Sung Gil, North Korean ambassador to Egypt, and his brother Chang Sung Ho, a senior trade representative based in Paris, inevitably raises questions about the unraveling of the regime headed by Kim Jong Il. The ambassador is the highest ranking diplomat ever to defect from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and his move follows the defection in February of Hwang Jang Yop, a former secretary of the regime’s powerful Workers Party.

The seeming inevitability of North Korea’s collapse is accentuated by its disastrous economic circumstances, which stand in stark contrast to the robust economic growth experienced by its neighbors and most gratingly, by its rival sibling South Korea. Imagine the humiliation of having to seek food aid from sworn enemies while posturing an allegiance to a political philosophy of juche, or self reliance. North Korea’s food production this year is expected to be one-eighth its normal output while the remainder of its economy steadily implodes. Yet apparently its people are so “self-reliant” in their isolation that they do not require information about what goes on in their own country, much less the world.

The real question is not whether North Korea will undergo a dramatic transformation; the question is when and how. The present situation is simply not sustainable, politically, economically or otherwise.

There are three basic possibilities for how North Korea’s inevitable transformation may come about. One path is that of a dramatic but essentially peaceful collapse similar to the sweep of events that consumed the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Another possibility is for a gradual transformation more similar to that experienced by China with its steady, progressive opening beginning in 1978. A third possibility, one that is dreadful to contemplate, entails violent confrontation with South Korea and possibly the United States and others.

Which of these is most likely? The answer depends on many factors, including actions taken by the United States.

The first possibility, that of a dramatic collapse, is the default option that would arise from a misguided attempt to sustain the unsustainable. Economic output continues in a downward spiral as fewer and fewer resources are available to meet basic needs. No longer able to rely on ideologically motivated financial aid from Moscow or Beijing, and unable to compete economically with its neighbors, North Korea relies increasingly on arms sales, including missile transactions with Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. To make matters worse, the ideology-bound, paranoid state that is North Korea is ill-equipped to respond effectively to crises due to a self-created political paralysis. It is difficult to respond to a crisis when you are not allowed to admit that there is one.

The second possibility, that of a reasonably stable transition to a more open society with a market-based economy, remains the one we must hope for and work toward. It is not clear, however, where the internal leadership is for such a transition. It is no mean feat to preside over the dissolution of one system of governance while cobbling together the beginnings of a new one. There remains a small but hopeful potential for peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula--a reunification that is no less plausible before the fact than was Germany’s.

The remaining alternative is horrific to contemplate. Seoul, a world-class metropolitan area of 19 million people, is within commuting distance of the border. A peaceful invasion of refugees from a shattered North Korea would be a tremendous burden on the South. An outright military invasion by the North would be a disaster.

The United States, South Korea, Japan and China are, to their credit, working intelligently to create a stable, firm, nonaggressive geopolitical environment that is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a stable transition in North Korea.

Ultimately, history is influenced but not strictly determined by such preconditions. Individuals, both prominent and obscure, making thousands upon thousands of intertwined decisions in response to their own perceptions, fears and hopes propel history from one epoch to the next. Put your VCRs on fast-forward.