Korea: What if we just left?

[Occhidiangela]

Please compare and contrast, in re the Cult of Personality, a few points.

IIRC, it originates from Nikita Kruschev, who used it to describe the method by which Stalin stayed in power. And, as I recall, he too was charged with that by Kosygen.

It is the model of the typical autocrat/strongman. Noteworthy leaders who could have developed one and set aside the opportunity? Geo Washington, for one.

Dame Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were indeed powerful personalities and effective political leaders, as was FDR, but they were not held above the normal political process. They could be unelected, as in Thatcher's case, or be subject to term limits, as in Reagan's. Such is not the style of the autocrat, from whence the term comes.

Someone who exploits and furthers their own Cult of Personality, such as Castro or for that matter General Franco, is cut from a very different kettle of fish. In short, your comparison to how The West works is misinformed.

FDR's long run deserves a look, as he was a pre term limits leader. HIs leadership, charisma, and effective use of the tools at hand were noteworthy. We will never know how long he would have served, so we don't know if he could have ever been beaten.

By the same token, Helmut Kohl was very successful, but I would not accuse him of building or developing a Cult of Personality, and in any case, he like Dame Thatcher stepped down when the votes went the other way. Beintg humble enough to accept the boundary of the law is a key discriminator in the systems you are trying to compare.

One can consider as examples of the "second order" creation of a Personality Cult the efforts of Lizzie Custer or Jackie Kennedy/Onasis to preserve and trumpet as "gilded" the reputations of their famous husbands.

[goldfish]

Vacation, eh? Anything poetry-related? (Pictures Occhi at a regional, or perhaps national, Limerick competition)

There once was a poet named Occhi
Who liked to eat ziti and gnocchi
He wrote poems (quite in vogue)
About sexy young rogues
And their dashing pursuits in the noche.

Hmm, not quite there. I hope you like potato pasta, I'm not a big fan myself but there aren't a lot of rhyming words to work with ;) .

And, I had to add a spanish word at the end. It's a pretty widely known word (noche), but still Spanish, Italian (food) and English is one too many languages for a poem. What's Italian for "night" anyway? (If it's "nocchi" it would fit perfectly).

(I should have known better than to dabble in Limerickry in a thread with the master). :)

[Brista]

They could be unelected, as in Thatcher's case

who was led away from office in tears branding those who de-selected her as leader "traitors"

I am not clear on the distinction you're making

The methods used to stay in power - surrounding yourself with like-minded cronies, forcing your rivals out of power - were very much part of British political life in the 80s as they were in Soviet political life in the 20s and 30s. Sure the tactics were different - Cabinet reshuffles rather than purges - but the underlying strategy was the same

As for

Beintg humble enough to accept the boundary of the law

exactly how does a dictator shooting his bodyguard break the law of his country? While morally repugnant he has the legal authority to do that if he deems it fit, does he not?

I'm not just arguing for the sake of it

I do think there is a line between Kim/Saddam and Thatcher/Dublya. I'm interested in working out what it is. I would like to think through our cultural bias though and work out what exactly it is that they do that is so much more unethical than the actions of our leaders

So far the argument hasn't advanced much beyond we're the good guys and they're the bad guys

[Occhidiangela]

In most Western societies, a leader cannot simply change the law upon a whim. It requires a due process, which typically has built into it a series of checks and balances, or a Parliamentary majority requirement, either as a simple majority or a 2/3 or 3/4, depends upon the system. Courts may or not play into that calculus.

In a no fooling autocracy, such limitations are not in fact in place.

I find your comparison of Thatcher and her allies with genuine autocrats to be remarkable.

Note again the important point: acceptance of the rule of law.

Now, does every political machine do its best to present its man, its woman, as "the best possible choice?"

Hell yes, no one wants to lose. It does not require reverence and worship to serve and to lead.

There is also a very fine line between leadership, service, and ruling.

[Brista]

I think this is getting close to the distinction I'm looking for here

However, what happens when a politician ruling a democratic country breaks the law?

Under Margaret Thatcher there were incidents where our security services performed illegal actions upon our own civilians, it seems with authority from the highest levels

The US invaded Iraq without UN sanction

And surely pretty much anything the espionage agencies do is illegal in the countries in which they operate

So our leaders do not respect the rule of law entirely

It is as you say naive to imagine that world leaders will revere the rule of law

Does it simply come down to the Ancient Spartan maxim: "Don't get caught" or perhaps "stick to what you can get away with"?

[--Pete]

Hi,

However, what happens when a politician ruling a democratic country breaks the law?

They get some form of punishment is what happens.

Under Margaret Thatcher there were incidents where our security services performed illegal actions upon our own civilians, it seems with authority from the highest levels

If so, then both the acting individuals and the persons who gave then the orders are guilty and should be punished. Of course, suspicion and dislike are not proof.

The US invaded Iraq without UN sanction

Something I don't like, but means nothing in this discussion. Neither the USA nor anyone in the USA broke any laws of the USA. Which is what this discussion is all about -- the need for the leaders of a country to be bound by the laws of *that* country and not *be* the laws of the country. International "law" is a complex issue and just whom it applies and when are non-trivial questions.

And surely pretty much anything the espionage agencies do is illegal in the countries in which they operate

Yes. So what? If they get caught, they get treated as criminals (or spies, same thing). They are breaking the law of the country in which they operate, not the law of the country that they serve. Thus, the people who send them out are not breaking any laws that they are bound to obey.

So our leaders do not respect the rule of law entirely

Too broad a statement. No one respects the law entirely. We've all exceeded the speed limit, jaywalked, walked with traffic instead of facing it (or the opposite on a bike). What matters about leaders as leaders is that they obey the laws that apply to them as leaders. What matters about leaders as people is that they obey the laws as do all the other people and that when they fail to they are punished like anyone else -- no more, no less.

Your viewpoint seems to be driven by a moralistic attitude towards laws. Legal and illegal actions are not exactly the same as good and bad actions. And not all the laws of all the governments apply to all the people.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

The US invaded Iraq without UN sanction

A new "UN Sanction" is not, and was never, necessary. The Iraqi failure to comply with SR 687, the cease fire agreement sanctioned by UN, provided sufficient legal grounds to take action, as did 1441.

[SwissMercenary]

I may be incorrect on this, but were not the consequences for the non-compliance referred to as simply "Serious consequences"? Wasn't the part about how serious those consequences were, also a topic for arguments?

[Occhidiangela]

However, a cease fire agreement that ends the shooting war is an agreement to stop shooting On The Condition that XXXXX behaviour is undertaken. Since that behaviour was not carried out in 90 days, in good faith, then hostilities may recommence at any time past the original 90 days.

The real question is: what took everyone so long?

Well, what took them all, including all Security Council members, was use of hope as a method and a dedication to "other means" to enforce the collective political will on Saddam-Iraq.

What happens when a law is not enforced? What happens when a contract's provisions are not enforced? What happens when a treaty's provisions are not enforced? They become Hitler's infamous "scraps of paper" worth wiping your arse on, or lining a bird cage.

Enforcement is required, and the disagreement is: what action?

When the judge is corrupt, sometimes the Sherrif takes action. The Bush Administration, supported by about 30 other UN members, took the line that the UN "judge" was negligent in carrying out its responsibilities and took action. That the nations who sided with the US were all UN members, and one other was a Security Council member, is an irony that should not be lost on anyone. A law or a contract is only as good as its enforceability.

I'd say the biggest disagreement was: when?

However, if nothing was to be done after 90 days (hey, Pres Bush, the first, what's up there? His desire for supporting multilateralism! Same for Pres Clinton.) or even 7 years later when inspectors were tossed out (Hey Koffi and friends what is up with you? Your Marshall was tossed out of town and you did NOTHING about it? Lame Duck Judge) then the trend shows that after 12 years, the "when" would be "never." And all the while, a UN mandated trade embargo hurt Iraq and every nation who usually trades with Iraq. A no win situation all around.

Institutional insanity is well defined as "doing the same thing as usual and expecting a different result."

The legal justification was there, what was lacking was The Will. Saddam was trying to do what kids do all the time: play one (parent) party off against the other. Sometimes, that still gets the kid spanked. :P

Check some of the language of 687. If unconditional action is not taken, then who enforces the contract, or the cease fire's, terms?

If they are not enforced, what is the point of the cease fire? An argument is made that the UN collectively vacated its responsibility to enforce its terms. Twelve years of trying to enforce its terms "by other means" was agreed to have been ineffective in 1441. Irony indeed. What choice is left? "Send in the Sheriff" was a valid solution. Was it The Best solution? Ask me in 12 years, the amount of time the "other solution" was given to "work."

A few snippets from 687: (Of course, 687 references some 13 other resolutions, so this is at best a partial look)

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(B) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;


10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above

12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above;

After 90 days of non-compliance, the cease fire was null and void anyway, due to the failure of Iraq to unconditionally act per the terms. When the mobsters have the judge in their pocket, as the Saddam-Iraqi's had France and Russia in their "pocket" due to the lure of petrodollars, then you have a corruption that allows a "breach of contract." Is that the legal sanction we are supposed to honor and observe, that of corrupt judges?

Communities have had to put up with corrupt judges here and there for ages. When found out, said judges tend to get sent packing. Italy has had trouble with judges being owned by the various Families (the Mafia, the Comorra, the Golden Crown, the Serpent in Calabria) for ages. Funny thing, that, they supported the effort in Iraq.

Coincidence?

[Brista]

Please let it go

Now that is probably very good advice but I have been trying to work something out that is pertinent so I'll visit this thread a last time to explain it

My point concerns the character of Kim Jong Il

I think that this comment is pertinent:

Bun-bun: Gauging the mind of Kim Jong Il seems an impossible task

I also think it's wrong, at least to some extent

Now one thing I think we can all agree on is that North Korea is an autocratic government firmly under the control of one man

The posts in this thread have primarily been concerned with demonising him

Now I'd like to offer an alternative view, a view that the demons are in the system not the personality.

The Western democracies may or may not have great leaders of shining moral integrity. Probably at times they do not.

But what essentially keeps the system working well is the rule of law. Even a crook like Nixon had to give way to a more honest leader when exposed

Now in North Korea, maybe there too what is really at fault is not the leader, not "that fruit loop" as one poster called him but the system itself

Let's consider again the incident of the bodyguard who was shot for using an ashtray. It sounds like a maddog psycho thing to do, doesn't it?

I want to do a little role-play

You are the other bodyguard in that lift. You see the Boss shoot Bodyguard1 for stubbing out a cigarette

Do you
a) keep your mouth shut
b ) make sure the story reaches the Western Press without your boss' permission, even knowing that your boss kills people on the slightest provocation

It's a) isn't it?

So the fact that the story did reach the West means that that is what Kim wanted to happen.

So if Kim wanted a story like that it is not unreasonable to infer that he manufactured it, that he shot the bodyguard not for using the ashtray but to produce a story that would strike terror into anyone thinking of crossing him?

It's basically spin, ie he's basically doing his job

(Not defending him here, I actually view that as more loathsome than criminal insanity, just means that there is a rationale and hence a rational human being here)

So, admittedly that I've built that on a string of speculations, does that not give us a believable characterisation of a power-hungry leader. In fact a very similar leader to the ones who run our countries?

Consolidate power, create spin, intimidate opponents if it's going to benefit you. The methods are different and the crucial difference of the rule of law is absent but the actual behaviour of the Head of State as a political animal is not so different

Now if Kim is calculating rather than mad then it makes him more possible to deal with

Which is why now would be a very good time to withdraw the American troops

Right now America is stronger in world politics than it ever has been. It is the only fully-fledged superpower, it has a successful and aggressive foreign policy and it has a track record of invincibility in recent years. The famous quote (from Liddy?) "Never start a land war in Asia" now sounds like the disgruntled whining of an inferior generation of statesmen

So if Kim is an opportunist the time to remove those troops is now. He still has no window for success because neither China nor Russia will back him in an attempt to take over the South. Nuclear blackmail is pretty suicidal considering that he (almost certainly) can't nuke the US, but the US can nuke him. It's a bad time to bluff when you visibly have much more to lose

Because likewise, if we take Kim as an opportunist, then if at some future time America becomes heavily committed elsewhere and needs to withdraw those forces then Kim is that much more likely to strike

So take the troops out while you don't have problems elsewhere, not when you do

Because at some stage America will lose its international military dominance (simple historical process) and that is probably what this guy and possibly those who succeed him will wait for

Ultimately, the hoped-for solution must be peaceful union of Korea. If the stationed troops offer more hope of that then they should stay. But I just don't see that they do

I think that the troops can be used by the North's leadership to feed the nation's paranoia. What we really need here is a Korean equivalent to perestroika, the crumbling of the Berlin Wall.

And that can only come from Koreans

Finally on the side issue of the legality of the US invasion of Iraq I would like to cite this alternative view:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4624520,00.html

Brista out, thanks very much for a most interesting discussion :)

[pakman]

Last night there was special on the Discovery Channel about Kim Jong Il, and the situation in Korea. Extrememly tense. It showed how Kim and his father manipulated the Korean culture to stay in power. It showed how people are indoctrinated to believing that Kim is the "great father," the "provider." An example, I rad somewhere, can't remember exactly, but the Korean government said that the food donations that are sent to North Korea is tribute. That's right, tribute. In short, I thought it was a disturbing program.

[Occhidiangela]

Your discussion of Kim reflects better, IMO, the crafty sort of man who knows how to acquire, use, and maintain power to stay in charge. It also suggests a mental agility that allowed him to follow his father in power, much to the surprise of some Western Observers.

As to the link, thanks for that as well, I have read a number of similar such treatments. They all stand on the rather thin premise of International Law as an absolute. We are not there yet, but there is progress, to be sure.

The prohibition of the use of force is a foundational rule of international law.

You will note that he used the looser term "international law" rather than "The UN Charter" which is the foundational document that containts that alleged prohibition. He does that to be deliberately vague, and to imply a law that does not really exist in a fundamental form.

The problem of international law, a rather murky but fascinating subject, is that it is nowhere codified with the simplicity and clarity of, say, an International Constitution. The closest anything comes to that is the U.N. Charter, but since the Charter does not provide a framework document for a de facto international government with the full power to govern, levy taxes, hold elections, etc, but rather forms a council of the wise, it lacks some of the necessary ingredients of effective law: an autonomous means of enforcement bound only to the Charter, and Courts tied explicitly via codified procedures that define the checks and balances, and limits, of jurisdiction.

What, then, is international law?

It is a series of agreements, treaties, and protocols, of varying subscription and validity, that form a body of generally agreed behaviours between the parties, the most prominent of which are those agreements governing trade, boundaries, immigration, and the common usage of the High Seas, which are the world's highways of commerce.

International law is frequently cited as though it were as succinctly codified as any nation's laws, but they are not.

Consider the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. If a nation, such as North VietNam is not a signatory, that bit of "international law" in not binding on them, and there is no legally sound method for enforcement or punishment for their breach of those accords. Also, given Iraq's signatory status on a series of non proliferation treaties, the non enforcement of their non compliance up to and including 1990, pre Kuwait, points to a fundamental weakness in international law: how is it valid if it is not enforced? The use of gas in the Iran Iraq war was no secret. Where was the enforcement of those treaties then? Both the US and the USSR, as well as France, China and UK, fell a bit short on enforcement there, don't you think?

The other feature of international law and its loopholes is that any nation may at any time, as an exercise of their sovereign power, publicly renounce or withdraw their support for any given treaty or protocol. Typically a year's notice is necessary.

What then does one do to enforce the treaty, or protocol, when a nation either renounces it or violates it?

You go back to Might Makes right, as per the enforcement of the International Law of the Sea in regards the Gulf of Sidra declarations of Muhamar Khadaffi of Lybia in the 1980's. That was an enforcement of international law, and did not require UN sanction to effect. Call it a citizen's arrest.

Well, I'd go so far as to call this Iraq War another case of "a citizen's arrest." Not sure how many nations hold that as a valid legal practice, but it sure is valid here, as well as in UK, if I remember my roots of common law correctly. (We borrowed a lot of ours from the Brits.)

International law is only as good as its enforcement. If the resolutions of the Security Council are to be held up as valid exercises of international law, they, like the laws against speeding or theft, are only as valid as their enforcement.