<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P><BR><BR></P>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P></DIV>
<P>Some of the preceding makes me think that it is important for us not to over-rate the predictive value of our disciplines. The historian says policymakers are "stupid" not to recognize the historical tenaciousness of Koreans. Does he really think our leaders are such fools? Tenacious yes. Everyone knows that. That is why Pyongyang acts like, and perhaps is, the last Marxist country on earth. But does this mean North Korean socialism isn't failing just as utterly and completely as the rest? Possibly, but probably not. When we see rampant inflation, even dollarization, occurring outside the capital city, my guess is the end of the regime is near. History in other countries suggest as much as does economics and common sense. Tenacity then would simply mean a delayed but harder fall. The regime's last best hope is yet another multi-billion dollar bail out to help it eek out a few more years. Korea, of course, by any reckoning, will last another thousand years.</P></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>From: dmccann@fas.harvard.edu (David McCann) </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: Korean Studies Discussion List <KOREANSTUDIES@KOREAWEB.WS>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>To: Korean Studies Discussion List <KOREANSTUDIES@KOREAWEB.WS>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [KS] Re: literature types on NK perspectives
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 08:34:13 -0500
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>My thanks to Morgan Clippinger for an edifying post. Points taken.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Further analysis-- or not exactly analysis, the point is so obivous, if
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>curious; call it an elemental sorting: on the one hand, academic types,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>CIA analysts, and others who may be said to know something about a place
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>and its history, and on the other, the overly busy or otherwise preoccupied
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>policymakers who don't read any of the analyses.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Where does this go?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>It might be possible that the policy making is informed in some other way.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>It might be possible that behind or beneath the obvious provocation of the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>speech in Seoul, there might be some other line or objective of
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>communication between the US and the DPRK which encouraged the DPRK to
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>ignore or dismiss the -- What should one say if not 'yapping'? Maybe
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>'highly insulting remarks'?-- by the White House spokesperson, and keep
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>pursuing multilateral talks. (-- efforts underway to avoid Armageddon--)
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Assuming there is little if any transfer of information from the area
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>specialist realm to the policy making realm, one might reasonably suggest
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>that it doesn't matter much, in a literal or figurative sense, if some
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>expert on Korea makes an error, or reaches a faulty conclusion. That isn't
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>the case on the policy making side, however.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>But one might push this line of thinking along a little farther... Do the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>economists read what the historians write? Do the historians read what the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>lit types write? Does the West Coast read the East Coast? Does the US
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>read Europe?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>David McCann
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Tired of spam? Get <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMNENUS/2734??PS=">advanced junk mail protection</a> with MSN 8.</html>