Talk:Kim Jong Il/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Misc

I wrote this great article about the greatest man alive, didn't I?

-172

Don' forget: His birth assumed the appearance of a lodestar over Mt. Paektu

The propagandistic version was better than nothing. It gives the reader a sense of how the cult’s promulgated. -User 172

What is Juche? -- Zoe

---

172, thanks for incorporating my material into the article a little better.

I still think that the article paints an overly favourable view of a despot who starves his own people whilst living in luxury and wastes money on monuments, mass displays and a huge military, and runs a stupid foriegn policy that ensures that the West will always remain implacably hostile - in comparison to Deng Xiaoping who did genuinely improve the lives of most of his people.

A laundry list of points that I'm wondering about in the context of this article:

• Madeleine Albright might have said that Kim was "decisive and serious". In what context did she say that, and what else did she say about him and the regime he heads? Have you considered that politicians say nice things about despots to try to cajole them into doing things they might otherwise do?
• Is your portrayal of Asian opinion of Kim realistic? They might have realized that he's not as insane as he was made out to be, but I can't see too many volunteering to have him run their own countries.
• Amongst other things, the North Koreans kidnapped dozens of Japanese citizens, and IIRC there was a dispute about the role of Kim Jong-Il. Isn't that worth addressing in the article?
• As I've said, isn't it arguable that rather than saying it's all the West's fault that North Korea is economically isolated and under military pressure, might it not be arguable to lay much of the blame at Kim's feet?
• What does, say, Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch, have to say about the methods by which Kim Jong-Il keeps himself in power?
• The anecdote about the film director is true [1] and says a considerable amount about the man if you ask me. Don't you think it's relevant? It is interesting that it appears that they have some nice things to say about him, too.

Oh, and this is probably offtopic, you seem to spend a lot of time defending people like Mugabe and now Kim. Why? Do you really think the West gives them a bum rap or something? --Robert Merkel 10:44, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'll somewhat busy now; so I'm going to wait about another 12 hours to respond. BTW, I'll try to ignore it, but you know that such a snide rhetorical question toward the end isn't going to illicit a positive response from anyone. But I actually will respond even to the last question in time. For now, I will just say that I've never had much respect for the personalization of history. 172 00:04, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Look, if you don't want to respond, don't. It is offtopic for the purposes of getting the article right. My interest is purely personal. --Robert Merkel 00:39, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

If you'd like to respond to my questions I raised some time ago, I would appreciate it. --Robert Merkel 06:50, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Those questions are rhetorical. I don't give a damn about making personal judgments. In addition, the article does not state that it is "all the West's fault that North Korea is economically isolated and under military pressure." Stop with the straw man bullshit. I'm not interested in debating some Sean Hannity type. 172 08:23, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As you can see from his snide response here, 172 is quick to be rude to people who don't just agree with everything he says. And the bias! Say something that might possibly reflect poorly on an anti-Western dictator, and he's all over it to revert, but he has no problem mentioning Nancy's astrologer and repeating every unsupported anti-Reagan insinuation as if it were an important part of History of the United States (1980-present). It makes me weep to think of how much authoritative-sounding but biased material 172 has been getting into WP because people get tired of dealing with him. Stan 09:35, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stan:

I don't take these snide, mindless rhetorical flourishes seriously, that's all. And this last smart-ass remark of yours is just another canard. Keep in mind that we simply don't know enough about Kim Jong Il's activities to cover him in the same way that we treat a US president.

As someone who has spent endless hours up to my knees in documents from administration archives, I am fairly well-acquainted with the availability of day-by-day accounts of White House activities. On the other hand, our understanding of what the hell is going on in Pyongyang's imperial palaces is a bit less clear (to make an understatement). We have a better idea of what's going on in Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch than the intrigues going on in this tin-pot totalitarian theocracy, alright? 172 10:04, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As an aside, Stan, I'll admit that I view international relations from a neo-realist perspective. Instead of a crude way of analyzing the behavior of "rogue states," it's possible to work under the assumption that Kim's preoccupied with the survival of his regime (because we know so little about the internal decision-making process there). That way, one can avoid mouthing platitudes and working on the basis of personal judgments of Kim Jong Il's character. 172 11:38, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If we're so short on information, then why do you persist in deleting negative material, characterizing it as "irrelevant", while keeping all manner of adulatory trivia? Then when Merkel asks you honest questions about your deletions, you dismiss them as "rhetorical". What a convenient way to avoid discussing your unilateral deletions! Also, to "work under an assumption" is to substitute your judgment for that of authorities - as an pseudonymous editor you can't be your own authority. You may fool others, but I'm onto you. Stan 16:57, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. What do you want added to the article? What do you want removed? Be substantive and direct and you will get a thoughtful response from me. 172 00:53, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Robert Merkel asked substantive and direct questions about six points. Why don't you start by addressing those? In addition, I'd like to see the three quotes praising him balanced by three quotes that are more objective - how about ones by uninvolved leaders in each of Europe, Africa, and South America? Stan 07:02, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fine, I'll do that, although they were more rhetorical than "substantive and direct." I'm hoping that this might get you to leave me alone. First, the context of the Madeleine Albright statement is stated in the article. Second, Robert sees some sort of non-existent "portrayal of Asian opinion of Kim" in the article. Anyway, I'll try to make sense out of this nonsense. The article did note ostensibly deferential gestures on the part of Kim during his meeting with the elderly South Korean president. How this suggests that Asians wish Kim Jong Il were their leader is beyond me. Third, if Robert can deal with the issue of the kidnappings of Japanese citizens while refraining from emotive language (and while keeping it short, concise, and relevant), then he should go for it. Forth, the article does not state that "it's all the West's fault that North Korea is economically isolated and under military pressure." How he conjured up this one is beyond me. Fifth, keep in mind that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are advocacy groups. Nor is this an article on North Korean politics. Sixth, some Washington Post article may tell Robert a "considerable amount about the man." My suggestion is that he write an op-ed piece and try to get it published. This is for philosophers to pronounce on, and not historians, because it rests on general interpretations of causation and human motivation. Values judgments are pointless in this context (and a violation of NPOV). And finally, to address your request, I'd like to remind you that counting quotations doesn't tell us anything about POV. You can address the matter of the quotations you’d like to add in context when you dig them up. 172 07:39, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You know, instead of talking down to people, you'd get better results if you gave them the benefit of the doubt. Context makes it clear that Robert's questions were not rhetorical, and you're being insulting by characterizing them that way - and a little further on as "nonsense".

• On the fourth question, Robert is clearly not asking about this article's characterization specifically, and I'll note that North Korea has a whole section on the economic isolation. It's fair to expect that all the WP articles be consistent with each other.
• If this is not an article on North Korean politics, then why is this here? "Since then, some critics of the Bush administration claim that the administration's North Korea policy has forced the regime to focus more on defense than economic reforms. / With a hostile international evironment, and given the structural imbalances stemming from decades of allocating resources to the defense sector, North Korea under Kim Jong Il has shown no signs of shrinking its huge military. In addition, North Korea continues to work on missile production, and claims to have constructed nuclear weapons, despite its dire economic position. "

Come on, stop playing these games. You know what I meant. This is not an article on North Korean politics per se, but of course it's going to be addressed in an article on a "dear leader." At a certain point, the article addresses Kim's ongoing work on missile production and the international and domestic ramifications of these actions. Why doesn't this belong in the article?

• I don't understand your op-ed piece remark. What on earth are you talking about?

Robert said that he figured out "considerable amount about the man" from some Washington Post article. But we have no business trying to figure out "considerable amount" about Kim's personal character. As I said, this is for commentators to pronounce on (perhaps in a ploemical op ed piece).

This is an entry on Kim Jong Il. Call me all kinds of names if you will, but I have this funny idea that somebody reading an encyclopedia entry on a person might want some insight into the character and personality of that person. He had kidnapped two foriegn citizens to make movies, an event that is well-documented and was stated straightforwardly in the entry before you removed it. How in the heck is that not relevant enough to mention?--Robert Merkel 04:38, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why are you two assuming that I'm against including this in the article? I never said that I was. I just said keep it NPOV and avoid regurgitating the emotive drivel spewed by advocacy groups, bellicose Bush administration pronouncements, or Fox News. Write a sentence or two, refrain from emotive language, stay matter of fact and direct, and keep it in context. And refrain from calling it an "insight into his character" in the article. It's a weird story, to say the least, but there are many other far more salient issues requiring greater amounts of emphasis. 172 04:54, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• On quotation POV, I'm sure you're aware that the context of the three quotes was the big diplomatic effort to butter up Jong-il in the hopes of getting some kind of cooperation. Presenting diplomatic doublespeak as if it were authoritative assessment is a new and creative way to sneak in POV, haven't seen it in WP before. But now that the bar has been lowered, it should be perfectly fine to add a bunch of quotes by world leaders who say he's a nutcase. Are you going to leave them alone, or delete them as per your usual practice? Stan 08:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For crying out loud. Albright met with him. A visit to North Korea by a sitting US Secretary of State was quite a noteworthy event. That's why she's being quoted. If you do a yahoo or a google search you can find a lot of interviews with Madeline Albright in which she discusses the visit. If you want to find out if the statement quoted in the article is consistent with most of her public statements or official pronouncements, go do some research.

Obviously, having made a public statement, she can't say something different later, even if the first statement was unfactual. That's Diplomacy 101. I remember analysts who were covering the talks snickering about how she was having to say nice things about Jong-il, because that was the policy the US had chosen. But we shouldn't be so brainless as to imagine that she was making an objective assessment, any more than we would take the "tyrannical dictator" statement by current undersecretary John Bolton as an objective assessment, or add the North Koreans' "human scum and bloodsucker" response to Bolton's bio as the authoritative assessment of his personality. [2] (Actually the Bolton quote would be good to add, because it clearly shows that US characterizations of Jong-il have more to do with vagaries of administration policy than the actual character of the person.) Stan 08:52, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Now, let me give you some advice for the next time you try to bother me. You've been rendering it impossible for me to give you a constructive response. You haven't been addressing me at all this whole time, but rather some straw man. It's really annoying and I don't know how to begin addressing charges that are utterly baseless and nonsensical. And you know what I mean. If you quit addressing me as some Stalinist and crude economic determinist using Wiki as a forum for pro-Kim Jong Il agitation and propaganda, perhaps I'd respond in a more helpful manner. 172 09:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If your lengthy response to Adam below is the "more helpful manner", I'll stick with the direct approach. A thousand-word rationalization is just a rationalization that takes up more disk space. BTW, it's interesting, in a Freudian way, that you use the word "Stalinist", because I haven't used it of you, nor do I think that - not least because the term has been much misused, and so it's not really meaningful to me. "Economic determinist" I derive from your own words; it's one of the many factions of historians, which is cool. What's not cool is when you try to present it as NPOV, rather than as one of the many different POVs adopted by historians as a tool to understand the past. Stan 08:52, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Might we have just a small mention of that the fact that this wise and benevolent leader lets his people eat grass while he designs software and builds atom bombs and statues of himself? Or is this too provocative? Adam 10:19, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, there's already perhaps too much on the personality cult. The weapons program is mentioned as well. Perhaps we can add the tag Stalinist somewhere to specify the nature of his regime if all this is unclear. BTW, I've only seen statues of his father and mother. I'm not sure if he is building statues of himself. 172 10:31, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but this is the first time I have read this article, and if I didn't know anything about Kim I would come away from this article thinking that he was basically a constructive and responsible leader, albeit one with a personality cult, rather like a Korean Tito or Nasser perhaps, rather than a delusional megalomaniacal tyrant, which is what he is. I saw no reference to the fact that the DPRK can't even feed itself, no reference to the drug-running or the Japanese kidnappings or other lunatic things the Kims have done. Adam 11:16, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Things aren't so black and white. Consider, for a moment, that we're dealing with one of the most diplomatically, economically, and culturally isolated regimes in the world; a regime bogged down by military expenditures, and deprived of Soviet support and the other international subsidies that it once enjoyed; a regime with decaying, highly centralized system of administrative command; a regime with leadership core buttressed by, and at the same time, constrained by, unwieldy layers upon layers of old guard generals and planning ministries; and a regime whose legitimacy rests on utter fantasy and mythology. In addition, the North, with its rough, mountainous terrain, is by no means Korea's traditional breadbasket. The unusual weather patterns of the mid '90s came at an unfortunate time – to say the least.

Then, consider the difficulties that Gorbachev - a genuinely well-intentioned and even able leader - encountered when he embarked on a program of internal reforms to save the Soviet system. Reforming the DPRK, given a far more extreme set of initial conditions, will be many times the uphill battle. Nor can one be so glib about wanting to see Kim's regime immediately collapse. Seeing the Stalinist regime collapse on its own weight would not be a pleasant sight, considering the sharp decline in aggregate consumption in other post-Communist regimes (even ones starting off with far more enviable circumstances).

On a positive note, before the "Axis of Evil" speech, there were many signs that the DPRK was interested in a gradual path of reform (e.g., the pronouncements and agreements with neighboring South Korea, Russia, and China; the price and currency reforms in mid-2002, official statements vis-à-vis Chinese economic reforms; the rapprochement with the South; the plans for a special economic zone, although loosing steam now; and the establishment of trade and diplomatic ties before 2002 with a good number of Western states). Perhaps, this approach (one on which the DPRK has been finding common ground with its giant neighbors and their investors) would be far less wrenching for the population than sudden regime collapse. In addition, if absorbing the DDP was a burden on western Germany, the gap in developmental levels between the ROK and the DPRK is far, far greater. Certainly, the recognition of this bolstered the appeal of the former president's "Sunshine Policy" in the South.

And honestly, the weapons program isn't really irrational. By this point, structural problems are so pronounced that maintaining military expenditures not only drains the economy in the long-run, but also keeps it afloat and alive in the short-run. Moreover, the nuclear program is probably just a bargaining chip to maintain the strategic status quo on the Korean peninsula and deter the US. After all, over the past five decades, this form of brinksmanship has emerged as somewhat of a form of art for the North. The party, state, administrative, and military structures are just so rigidified now. Kim may be an absolute dictator, but his capacity to improve conditions without knocking down the delicate stack of cards on which his regime rests isn't too impressive. 172 12:31, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There are some valid points in that, but it lacks any moral dimension, as does the article itself. Kim is an evil and odious tyrant, and the article needs to say that, if not precisely in those words. You may well be right that having the regime just collapse (or be overthrown from outside) would be pretty calamitous in the short-term, but it is not morally acceptable to argue that Kim should be propped up in power indefinitely because the alternatives are too difficult. He certainly shouldn't be allowed to blackmail the rest of the world the way he is doing at present. He should be told that humanitarian aid will only be available if distributed directly by international agencies, and that any other kind of aid will be contingent on a agreed phase-out of the Stalinist economic model and the one-party state. Kim would no doubt refuse, and the DPRK would starve. At that point outside intervention would become both necessary and a moral imperative. Adam 12:51, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This would entail the endorsement one approach to, and model of, international relations over others. This might be wise, but it would be a violation of Wiki's NPOV policies. While the conversation has gone beyond the scope of the article, I cannot resist adding a little more in response. I agree that aid (and I'd add trade and diplomatic ties) should be contingent on a phase-out of the Stalinist economic model, but this cannot be stated. An "agreement" along the lines of what you're describing is simply not realistic. It would be tantamount to the regime admitting its illegitimacy, which would result in its all but certain collapse. Moreover, the issue of the one-party state would have to remain off the table for the foreseeable future, considering the complications that arose from simultaneous glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet Union. The developments we saw under Clinton and Kim Dae-Jung were quite positive. Resurrecting the "moral imperative" just stalled the progress of the late '90s, which was good for the both the northern and southern populations, the security and stability of the region, and prospects for a smooth transition in the North in the future. In contrast, letting the DPRK starve if Kim doesn't behave (as you put it) is less effective. As a general rule of thumb, when a regime loses legitimacy and its capacity to pay off enough segments of society (which are essentially forms of power), it compensates for these losses with more primitive tactics and strategies (i.e. coercion, militarism, and state terror). The ramifications of imposing unrealistic terms on the DPRK would not be too pleasant for the population, to say the least.172 13:38, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't believe in smooth transitions. I recall a Russian comment during the Gorbachev years. "If you have a horse and you want a tractor, you cannot turn the horse into a tractor by stages, by nailing wheels to it. You have to shoot the horse and buy a tractor, even if it means that your wife has to pull the plough while you save up for it."

Anyway, to come back to the point, I still think the article contains far too many rationalisations and excuses for Kim's tyranny, and not nearly enough about what a nasty man he is and how miserable it is to live under his rule. As a general observation, I think NPOV can be taken too far. Encyclopaedias like any other forms of writing exist within a moral universe. Glossing over despotism with bland explanations is itself a POV. Adam 14:12, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that smooth, gradual transitions rarely do work out. But hopefully change will come without Seoul and Tokyo being nuked beforehand. Considering the alternatives, I'm in favor of the approach of Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-hyun, not Bush's "Axis of Evil" posturing. 172 14:37, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And my second point? It's interesting that you seem to be taking my side on this question at Saddam Hussein while opposing it here. Adam 14:42, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That isn't to say that I won't raise some concerns when or if your Saddam alternative is promoted to the main page. But as things stand right now, your alternative is more matter-of-fact, direct, and concise than the existing one. In effect, it gives the Saddam article a much needed liposuction. 172 14:58, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)