<html>
The way the question "why should not the academics speak the truth
louder to the (obviously, American) policy makers and public
opinion" is formulated implies two questionable assumptions:<br>
<br>
1. That the "policy makers" are making their decisions with
benign intentions, in a rational way conducive to the "common
good", and thus may mend their ways once persuaded in a logical way
that their "policies" may lead to some disastrous things. In a
way, that is a very Weberian assumption - that the "modern
states" are governed by "rational bureaucracies" in a
common good-minded fashion. But, from more Marxian point of view, why
should we actually think that the imperial elites of our late capitalist
times - faced with resource depletion, heightened resistance on the world
"periphery", and generally diminishing returns - are abiding by
any canons of "common good" at all? Be it Russia - where the
military-industrial complex is reaping its profits from the massacres in
Chechnya which will have disastrous consequences for the Russian
statehood as a whole - or the USA (where very similarly-minded people are
doing now just the same in Iraq), the imperial elites are tending today
to maximize their own short-time returns while largely ignoring long-time
fallouts. I suspect some systemic crisis in this, but anyway - it is hard
to see any ample grounds for belief that, once "told the
truth", the "masters of the universe" will "repent
and never relapse". But another thing is that the understanding that
any large-scale violence in Korea will lead to some serious short-term
losses, may by will really influence their minds?<br>
<br>
2. That "public opinion" really means something for the ways
the system works - in other words, that we live in a
"democracy". Well, I am looking at Spanish and Polish
servicemen going now to the war the majority of the respective country's
populations is opposing, and wonder what the word "democracy"
is supposed to mean? i am afraid that to make an imperial adventure on
the "periphery" a serious issue for the general populace may
require several years of protracted war and thousands - if not tens of
thousands - casualties (on "our" side, of course). By the way,
the tally in Chechnya may well approach somewhere around 10 thousands,
but it still doesn't seem to matter.<br>
<br>
In the view that the above mentioned two assumptions are highly
questionable, I would suggest that rather "telling the truth"
to South Koreans may help much more - because what looks like an
"adventure on the periphery" from the Center, looks more like
the life-and-death issue closer to the front line. By the
"truth" I mean the structural explanation of how the imperial
power is working - which may help to subvert the dominant narrative of
"benign American hegemony" among the conservative majority of
the people in their 30s and 40s.<br>
<br>
Tikhonov <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 18:38 10.08.2003 -0400, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite> <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
>From: dmccann@fas.harvard.edu (David McCann) <br>
>Reply-To: Korean Studies Discussion List <br>
>To: Korean Studies Discussion List <br>
>Subject: Re: [KS] Re: literature types on NK perspectives <br>
>Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 08:34:13 -0500 <br>
> <br>
> <br>
>My thanks to Morgan Clippinger for an edifying post. Points taken.
<br>
> <br>
>Further analysis-- or not exactly analysis, the point is so obivous,
if <br>
>curious; call it an elemental sorting: on the one hand, academic
types, <br>
>CIA analysts, and others who may be said to know something about a
place <br>
>and its history, and on the other, the overly busy or otherwise
preoccupied <br>
>policymakers who don't read any of the analyses. <br>
> <br>
>Where does this go? <br>
> <br>
>It might be possible that the policy making is informed in some other
way. <br>
>It might be possible that behind or beneath the obvious provocation
of the <br>
>speech in Seoul, there might be some other line or objective of
<br>
>communication between the US and the DPRK which encouraged the DPRK
to <br>
>ignore or dismiss the -- What should one say if not 'yapping'? Maybe
<br>
>'highly insulting remarks'?-- by the White House spokesperson, and
keep <br>
>pursuing multilateral talks. (-- efforts underway to avoid
Armageddon--) <br>
> <br>
>Assuming there is little if any transfer of information from the area
<br>
>specialist realm to the policy making realm, one might reasonably
suggest <br>
>that it doesn't matter much, in a literal or figurative sense, if
some <br>
>expert on Korea makes an error, or reaches a faulty conclusion. That
isn't <br>
>the case on the policy making side, however. <br>
> <br>
>But one might push this line of thinking along a little farther... Do
the <br>
>economists read what the historians write? Do the historians read
what the <br>
>lit types write? Does the West Coast read the East Coast? Does the US
<br>
>read Europe? <br>
> <br>
> <br>
>David McCann <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
<br>
<hr>
Tired of spam? Get <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMNENUS/2734??PS=">advanced
junk mail protection</a> with MSN 8. </blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Vladimir Tikhonov,<br>
Department of East European and Oriental Studies,<br>
Faculty of Arts,<br>
University of Oslo,<br>
P.b. 1030, Blindern, 0315, Oslo, Norway.<br>
Fax: 47-22854140; Tel: 47-22857118<br>
Personal web page:
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/volodyatikhonov/volodyatikhonov.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.geocities.com/volodyatikhonov/volodyatikhonov.html</a><br>
Electronic classrooms: East Asian/Korean Society and Politics:<br>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/uioeastasia2002/main.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.geocities.com/uioeastasia2002/main.</a><a href="http://www.geocities.com/uioeastasia2002/main.html" eudora="autourl">html<br>
</a>
East Asian/Korean Religion and Philosophy:<br>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/uioeastasia2003/classroom.html" eudora="autourl">http://</a>www.geocities.com<a href="http://www.geocities.com/uioeastasia2003/classroom.html" eudora="autourl">/uioeastasia2003/classroom.html</a><br>
<hr>
</html>