Good Korea Move

Just a quickie today, as I’m running from appointment to appointment. For a long time, I had wanted to bring up the compelling topic of Mongolia’s diplomatic relations with North Korea. I’m not particularly well-versed in the topic, but I’m taking advantage of a recent Washington Times article that gives a decent overview. The article begins:

“Nongovernmental organizations from Mongolia are working quietly with North Korea's totalitarians to help bring democracy to the Stalinist state, said Mongolian President Nambaryn Enkhbayar.
Based on years of cooperation with North Korea, Mongolia has developed close ties to the isolated regime of Kim Jong-il, Mr. Enkhbayar told The Washington Times.
‘We are just trying to show North Koreans that when the whole world is changing, somehow you have to respond to these changes, and it's better by changing yourself,’ said Mr. Enkhbayar, who was elected to office in May. ‘And that there is no danger in changing by yourself.’ ”

How interesting that Mongolia, a democracy that is all of 15 years old, is already trying to export what has worked for them, and help others avoid its mistakes.

There’s more to chew on here, from the tricky balance of power and interests of strategic alliances with large, strong nations, to coping with refugees, to Mongolia’s understandable wish for a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.

I’m sure Christian will weigh in here, and I’ve invited The Marmot over and hopefully he will do the same, as well as any of the rest of you with thoughts on the subject.

UPDATE: The Marmot, in fact, sheds light, somehow managing to do so without leaving his hole.

Comments

[Aarlene]

Youthful democrocy teamed with ancient wisdom. If we could just get our wisdom to show here...
Thought provoking post as usual.

[Christian]

“Nongovernmental organizations from Mongolia are working quietly with North Korea's totalitarians to help bring democracy to the Stalinist state [...]"

I am not really interested in politics and I often do not understand politics, but I am concerned that the Mongolian president neither.

I mean: "*Help* bringing democracy" to a "totalitarian state"? This is ludicrous, isn't it?

This kind of discourse "bring democracy" and export "free-market economy" and being "a model" is typically American, am I wrong?

Don't get me wrong: I think that democracy is not bad (even if it requires that the people is virtuous -- a prerequisite that is never mentionned nowadays, you have to read the Greek philosophers or Montesquieu -- otherwise a good monarchy is probably better). But it is crazy to think that the problem with North Korea is that the regime is afraid to make changes. They are not, they don't want to change, they would rather die rather than lose their power, rather die than be killed. I don't believe the Mongolian president believes what he says.

That is why I don't like politics:-)

Anyway, I would bet that this discourse of the Mongolian president is a signal to the USA to tell them, "Hey look, despite all your problems with North Korea and elsewhere, we are here and are good students." Do Mongolia expect some reward from the "other neighbor"?

[Konchog]

Christian -- I had a similar reaction. When Enkhbayar says he wants to show there's "no danger", well, of course there is! The danger is to the totalitarian leader, who controls the army, secret police, etc. And there is therefore great danger to those who oppose him. Mongolia was rare in having its "velvet revolution", and the elements are not there in NK, I don't think, for such a (relatively) smooth transition. There's plenty of danger, but where else do you start than from the bottom? I think Mongolia simply doesn't like the idea of a nutball dictator with a huge army and potential nukes living virtually next door. Who can blame them?

In addition to a virtuous population, Jefferson argues persuasively that for a democracy to flourish, the people must be well-educated. That seems to be one of the many problems in Iraq. You can't just say, "OK, your dictator's gone, here's your democracy." America at its outset benefited from one of the most astounding collections of political thinkers the world has ever seen, and still we burst out in a vicious, bloody civil war less than 100 years later. And yet their basic framework still held together.

The same difficulties present themselves in Mongolia. "Having a democracy" is one thing, but to really benefit from it, a country needs profound education and experience.

[Christian]

Konchog -- Good point.

I am still disappointed by the Mongolian president because he endorse and promote the Bush doctrine:

(1) export democracy everywhere
(regardless of the virtue and education of the people),

(2) export wild capitalism ("free-market", i.e. the government should not interfere with the Market, which, theus, in the end, is the real power), and

(3) claim to be a model for other countries (so if other peoples hate me it's because they are jealous or because they have no freedom to express their true love for me, they have no democracy -- goto (1)).

[Konchog]

Now now, Christian. Our president is a simple man with simple ideas. Transformationalism. Global Free Trade. 'Course they're not exactly his ideas, and just because when they're put into practice they don't benefit anyone except defense contractors and multi-national corporations doesn't mean they're not...ideas. No, you wait, they're getting ready to strew flower petals in his path on this South American visit, I'm sure of it.

[Roeland]

Dear Christian, Konchog,

I'm not certain myself if it is a good thing or not that Mongolia has diplomatic ties with North Korea.
However, I disagree with the idea that spreading democracy is a bad thing. Admittedly the USA messed up in Iraq by not having some proper plans available for the (re)building after the war. But I would like to quote Winston Churchill: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Yes, I agree with you that democracy works better in a country where the people are virtuous and well educated; however, for myself I prefer people being free to tell me that they hate me or love me, whatever the reason behind the emotion.

I also think that you have to make a distinction between democracy and capitalism. Many countries are democracies without being capitalist (Sweden, the Netherlands) whereas other countries can be considered as very capitalist but not democracies at all (Russia, a number of former CIS countries).

As a general rule democracies don't declare war on other democracies. If for no other reason than that I wish for more democracies in the world. How to go about it that is another question all together.

[Konchog]

Hello, Roeland, and welcome!

Christian and I are being flip, and he can speak for himself, but in general I love our system and I bet he doesn't mind the results of 1789 in his land either.

No one, I think, objects to the spread of democracy. The objection comes from the way in which this is tried. BushCo.'s 800-lb. gorilla approach, IMO, and based on the evidence, is not the way. Such transitions take real time, and really work when initiated by a country's own population. They have to have a sense that it's "theirs", you know?

Anyway, your points are cogent and appreciated, and I hope you'll visit often.

[Roeland]

Hello Konchog,

I've visited frequently in the past and will continue to do so.

I will not comment often as on those subjects that give rise to the most heated debates (all kinds religious) i have no knowledge. I rather read and be informed that give an uninformed opinion.

But, as a capitalist - as a philosophy in the wider sense, not just the economic definition, i think i'd have to describe myself as a poor capitalist :-) - i could not stop myself reacting to Christian's posts.

On your last point i already agreed that Bush cs really botched the build up of a democratic state in Iraq, but I still think that occassionally the 800lb gorrilla approach might be necessary. It worked to remove the taliban in Afghanistan - now more and more on its way to a functioning democracy, not there yet, but much improved from a number of years ago -, it stopped the killing of many civilians by the Serbs in the Yugoslav/Balkan wars in the 90's and of course the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. If a nutball dictator, (to use your words on Kim) who has killed or was responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of people, is removed for the wrong reasons, how do we value the result?

[Christian]

Hi Roeland,

You are right that we must distinguish between capitalism and democracy. This distinction is lacking in the Bush doctrine and in the interview of the Mongolia president the ambiguity is present too. Good point.

About democracy, don't forget that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority on the minority. Think about it quietly. This is why Churchill could not think it is a perfect system (even without the interesting mathematical problems it involves -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox). The danger here is to idealize democracy or to demonize it. Because I think we all value it, it is useful to be the Devil's advocate for a moment.

Thus, let us go for another counter-example: Athena was the first democracy in the world. They invented the concept there. Well, since then until the XIX century, democracies thought themselves as compatible with slavery. Even Jefferson, mentionned by Konchog, owned slaves, as well as Washington. So when you say: "I prefer people being free to tell me that they hate me or love me", imagine you are a slave in Athena of the mid-fifth century B.C. Or think that during the dictatorship of S. Hussein in Irak, daily bombings did NOT happen. Even if we don't like this observation, it is the reality.

And Athena did not launch wars against other democracies just because there was no other democracy in the world at that time, but Athena did declare war on other countries (Persia) and Greek cities (Spartha).

Now, if someone think that democracy always favours democracy, consider the example of France and how the parliament dissolved itself as a result of the defeat against Germany during WWII (1940) and gave full powers to Marechal Petain, who instated a fascist and racist state. Or think about democracy which legally brought Hitler to power.

Therefore, democracy must be completed by ethics and knowledge, otherwise it is a nightmare or simply not what you expect. That is why I am not in favour of a blind spreading of democracy, with or without guns (as in Irak).

Virtue and education, then democracy is a safe option.

[roeland]

Hi Christian,

didn't have time yesterday anymore for another reply. I have however thought about your remarks and have to say that i find some faults with them. After all, what's the use of a devil's advocate without a good discussion?

First of all, the way that i was thaught democracry is not the dictatorship of a majority over a minority, but perhaps more as an enlightened dictatorship where the majority takes into account the interests of the minority. Perhaps it is my dutch background where we always have coalition governments that influenced our education system.

Second, by today's standards Athens would not be considered a democracy. Any nation that doesn't allow a majority of its people to vote and allows ownership of people can hardly be considered a democracry.

As to your argument about the Iraqi people having changed suffering from a ruthless dictator to daily bombings, i don't think that the effort of bringing democracy is to blame. Actually nothing much changed. Before they had a chance to being killed by the regime for no reason whatsoever; now they might be killed by a suicide bomber again for no apparent reason.
If the Iraqi (and the foreign) insurgents were smarter they would stop all suicide bombings, allows elections and the democratic process. A year from now the Coalition forces would leave Iraq and they would have the place to themselves. However, they are afraid of democracy and of the effects of democracy on the goal they want to reach.

As to your final arguments about Hitler Germany, i'd like say that indeed Hitler was voted to power in 1932. However, immediately after he changed the rules and where necessary rigged elections comparably to the former Soviet Union. Therefore, after 1933 Hitler Germany can no longer be considered a democracy, just as the Soviet Union was not a democracy.
My knowledge about French history is not sufficient to comment on the birth of Vichy France.

I think that for a functioning democracy governmental transparency and accountability is more important than an educated, virtous population.

[Christian]

Hi Roeland,

I was not taught either that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority, but it is. If the majority is virtuous and respectful of the minority, then we get the best of the system. That is why I insisted on virtue and education, otherwise a system is just a system, syntax, a mechanics. It certainly brings excellent opportunities but the people has to be ready for it. And when you mention "an enlightened dictatorship where the majority takes into account the interests of the minority", this "enlightenment" is exactly what I mean by virtue and education.

About Athens, you precisely cannot judge its democracy with nowadays concept of democracy. This would be an anachronism. But it WAS a democracy, no doubt about it. That's my point: democracy is an idea but not an ideal, because it has history, it changes over time.

Another example: until after WWII in France women were not allowed to vote and, despite of that, nobody would have denied France the status of democracy before (except Vichy).

Nowadays, foreginers are not allowed to vote in France because they are not citizens. This is exactly the same rule as in Athens. Maybe this rule will disappear in the future. Would it mean then that nowadays France is not a democracy? I don't think so.

About Irak, I am certain that were no (suicide) bombings between 1990 and 2003. And how can you say that "Before they had a chance to being killed by the regime for no reason whatsoever; now they might be killed by a suicide bomber again for no apparent reason." Do you really think dictatorships kill people randomly?? My family suffered directly and personally from a dictatorship in Spain for forty years, and it was not random at all, trust me.

About Hitler raise to power, democracy allowed it, that was my point. Democracy is neither good or bad, it is comparable to favorable conditions in Buddhism. Democracy can be obnoxious if the people is not virtuous (by not voting for candidates obsessed by hate), and it can be really positive otherwise.

What do you think?

[Roeland]

Dear Christian,
I've been too busy at work for an earlier reaction; as i don't have a PC at home I have to find some quiet time for a reaction. I'm sorry to hear about the sufferings of your family in Spain.

However, where police forces have the opportunity to arrest, torture and execute people without a proper rule of law, the citizens of such country are left to chance, random act of official violence against them. I think you'll have to agree with me on that.
Furthermore, you might (or might not, i don't have data available) be correct in stating that there were no suicide bombings between 1990 and 2003. However in that period thousands of Kurds and Shia's have been killed. For more information see the Amnesty International website: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ

Democracy can have indeed the effect that an undemocratic party is elected to government. It can even have the effect that G.W. Bush is elected president :-) But as long as the voters have the possibility of correcting their mistakes in the next election, as long as democracy is still in place, I prefer it over any other system.

[Christian]

Hi Roeland,

I know what you mean about overwork:-)

"the citizens of such country are left to chance, random act of official violence against them."

I agree on _arbitrary_ acts of violence, but not random since the tyrans know who they target. Hussein never hid his dislike of the Kurds, for instance. That was my point. I may have misunderstood you here.

About Irak, this is a bit off topic, but the thousands of Kurds killed by Hussein's regime are (numerically) nothing compared to the 100.000 civilians killed by US troops, according to the famous issue of The Lancet last year. In this case, these deads were really killed randomly, blindly, without rational grounds and illegally by a *democratic* country.

You see, this is the problem: democracy is a danger when a majority is inclined to war, as the USA have been for four years now. This was my other point: democracry without virtue or education is very dangerous, not only practically but also morally because it involves a majority of persons, not just the few members of a tyranical regime. Morally, it is worse to see what the USA have done in Irak than to consider what Hussein's regime has done to, say, the Kurds, because the USA is a democracy, so expected to be a model and claiming to be so, while Irak was a dictatorship, of which no good was expected.

Don't get me wrong: killing is killing and I am not praising Hussein. But, what is more shocking: a bad guy killing 10.000 people in his country or 100 millions persons leading to the killing of 100.000 civilians in another country?

But I am digressing. You wrote: "Actually nothing much changed. Before they had a chance to being killed by the regime for no reason whatsoever; now they might be killed by a suicide bomber again for no apparent reason."

And I still disagree. I hope you understand why now. There *was* a reason to be killed by Hussein's regime when you were an opponent or a Kurd (which were opponents), so you cannot equate these deaths with truly random deaths in a market due to a suicide bomber. These deads are not the same and another reaoson is because the intention behind these crimes is not the same; these deaths have not the same meaning, morally and politically.

You conclude: "as long as the voters have the possibility of correcting their mistakes in the next election, as long as democracy is still in place, I prefer it over any other system."

How will the Americans correct their mistake in Irak and bring back to life these 100.000 civilians casualties while they are just starting to realize that this war was wrong because... it is too long and cost too much (in terms of soldier's deaths and money)?

Do you remember the elections in 1992 in Algeria? The democratic process was about to bring at power an islamic anti-democratic party coalition (including the Front Islamic du Salut) and the army had to stop the process. There was a huge embarassment among true democracies... Again, democracy without democratic culture first, i.e. respect of plurality of opinions, freedom of speech etc. is a danger. Would you have been prefering democracy in Algeria in 1992, you would have been a danger too.