I trust I won't be courting controversy with anyone when I assert that the government of North Korea is the closest thing we currently have to a purely evil state. Why, then, is the New York Philharmonic actually considering playing there? Given that pretty much everyone agrees that the North Korean state is obsessed with seeking legitimacy outside its self-inflicted purgatorio, I find it hard to understand why that august musical institution would seek to grant it. Newlywed Terry Teachout (congratulations to you & your adorable bride) has the scoop.
« Reminder on comments | Main | Ivy madness » Assuaging the evil empire27 Oct 2007 02:11 pm Comments (14)
I trust I won't be courting controversy with anyone when I assert that the government of North Korea is the closest thing we currently have to a purely evil state. I thought that was Myanmar. 
No argument that the North Korean government is evil, but isolating and boycotting bad-guy states never seems to work. See Cuba, Maoist China until Nixon, Iraq until we invaded, Iran... and somehow I don't think some kind of cultural exchange is really going to make Kim Jong-Il more entrenched than he already is.
It's hard to imagine this visit having any real, major impact either way, and thus it's mainly a question of personal morality. Going there means showing respect for Kim Jong Il. If the members of the NY Philharmonic are comfortable with that, that tells us something about their core values.
What I wonder is how they all got home again. When Kim Jong Il was responsible for the film industry of North Korea (while the 'Great Leader' was still in charge), he figured that the best way to develop it was by kidnapping his favorite South Korean director and actress (who both managed to escape after 7 or 8 years, so no harm done). Either Kim Jong Il isn't currently trying to build up North Korea's classical music abilities, or the Philharmonic didn't pass muster.
Isn't Zimbabwe also a strong contender in the "most evil" contest?
No argument that the North Korean government is evil, but isolating and boycotting bad-guy states never seems to work. It worked on South Africa.
Given the current initiatives under way with NOrth Korea, I think such a visit is fine. It's like a harmless little carrot. We lose nothing, they get a healthy taste of western culture. And if he holds them hostage, that's more jobs for career switching unemployed investment bankers and mortgage brokers in NYC. Win, win. (And somewhere, Stanley O'Neal is busting out that oboe from high school). I lean toward engagement in those hard cases where other sanctions really have not had an impact. We can look at China now, and no matter what they say, they are pretty much headed toward democracy, having adopted nearly every other western process. It's a matter of waiting for the current old timers to drop off. There is no progress without communication and some level of engagement, whether on the individual or national level.
Kim Jong Il is anti-Bush, so he's okay. Rumsfeld is the real criminal. Ask Yglesias, Kleiman, Balkin and the rest of the lefty blogosphere and they'll agree: engage with Kim, arrest Rumsfeld. Why are McArdle's priorities so warped?
It worked on South Africa. Very different situation. To the best of my knowledge, power isn't distributed on ethnic/racial lines, & the N. Korean populace is isolated from outside information, & internally propagandized into believing that the U. S. is out to get them. I doubt any harm will come of this tour, if N. Koreans even hear about it it will only expose the dichotomy between what the gov't. tells them & whatever "reality" is. Going there means showing respect for Kim Jong Il. If the members of the NY Philharmonic are comfortable with that, that tells us something about their core values. Oh, for heavens sake. Going to N. Korea means nothing of the sort. Do all the Philharmonic members have to sign loyalty oaths to Kim, or line up to kiss his ass? Maybe their "core values" are about music, & sharing it with others, & attempting to communicate that the U. S. is not the evil empire Kim wants to paint us as to the N. Koreans. Does my not leaving this country mean I have the slightest respect for Bush? (Trust me, it doesn't.) Your statement tells us that your "core values" are a respect for the shallow, superficial & outward. Did you have a hissy fit when Barack Obama stopped wearing a flag pin in his lapel?
M. Bouffant - Do you have to obtain the personal approval of Bush in order to leave the US? Of course not, but the Philharmonic members could only be allowed to enter North Korea at Kim Jong Il's personal invitation, regardless of who officially invited them. Bush is simply the current head of a democracy and shares powers with other elected representatives of the people. Kim is a repressive dictator with a cult following. Nothing major happens without his personal approval, particularly when it's related to contacts with the outside world. The Philharmonic were there as the personal guests of Kim Jong Il, even if they didn't like to think of it that way. The vast majority of the North Korean population - the serfs - probably won't even hear about this, but the elite that might be allowed to hear them will know that this was brought to them only through the 'good graces' of Kim Jong Il. And no, I'm not particuarly concerned with Obama's wardrobe. I don't see how the wearing of a pin even remotely compares to showing respect for a regime in which an 8 year old can be thrown into a concentration camp because his grandfather used the wrong bit of newspaper to wipe his behind, or one where women that give birth in those camps are forced to watch their newborn child's head bashed in before their eyes, shortly after the birth.
A couple notes: The US has trade restrictions against NK, but does not have a travel embargo. As noted before, a huge problem as far as ending the Kim regime is concerned is that information is highly limited in the country. I was there a couple years ago, and it's not a stretch to say that the vast majority of Koreans do not know man has walked on the Moon, or that NK started the Korean War. A policy of isolation has not worked; indeed, since the 1950s, Korea has pursued its *own* policy of isolation in line with the ruling ideology (Juche, roughly self-reliance). The most successful dissident policy has been the availability of cell phone and radio service along the Chinese border. Though it's nigh impossible to talk to everyday Koreans alone, I managed to talk to a couple without my minder listening (quite a few Koreans in the tourism industry speak Chinese, as do I, and my minders only spoke English and Korean). In general, these people were pretty excited that I was American, and had no ill will toward our country. I think engagement will be a net positive for these people. Finally, there's no legitimacy problem from this trip. Kim has near 100% legitimacy in NK already. His family has ruled since the end of WW2, the calendar is based on his Dad's birthday, all but a few old Koreans have never known anything but the present regime, etc.
A policy of isolation has not worked; It is hard to say a country getting support from a major world power / neighbor sharing a border (China) and petro dollars and other assorted dollars (Iran, Syria, United States) is really all that isolated.
What would you have thought if Franklin Roosevelt had encouraged the Philharmonic to accept an official invitation to play in Berlin in the spring of 1939? Hmmm, maybe I'm reading too much into the analogy, but is Terry suggesting that North Korea is about to invade Poland and overrun Western Europe?
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
 Should I call myself a feminist? Series III Tivo
Claremont Review of Books, Summer 2007 Lord Have MercyThe Atlantic, July/August 2007 Crises of Faith
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Money seems like the obvious answer.
The argument over whether evil states should be isolated or engaged is obviously still open and cases differ, but my guess is the opposite of yours. I'd say North Korea's isolation has only helped Kim Jong-Il centralize his power further and made North Koreans more miserable.
Posted by Bo | October 27, 2007 2:43 PM