Credibility

Michael Cohen seems to me to be quite right to be skeptical that cultural exchanges of the sort typified by the New York Philharmonic's recent visit to Pyongyang could play a constructive role in "opening things up" in North Korea. The DPRK is just too despotic and locked-down for whatever you might want to communicate to the North Korean people to get through. But that said, I also don't understand the worry that a visit of this sort will "provide international credibility to a terrible regime (probably the worst in the world)." I mean, how so?

Someone says to you "North Korea, that's gotta the worst regime in the world." Then you reply, "no, no, the New York Philharmonic played there, it can't be so bad." And then what -- he's supposed to say back "man, you're right, I suddenly find Kim Jong-Il very credible!" I mean, it is what it is; the DPRK is an incredibly horrible regime and I never hear anyone say otherwise. I oftentimes detect a disturbing level of subjectivism in foreign policy circles, as if people are seriously at risk of forgetting that the US is a mighty superpower and North Korea is ruled by awful despots and thus a top priority to be to find symbolic ways of endlessly reiterating those facts.

Comments

I don't know, if I was considering between two job options and one of them was in Pyongyang and the other in Wrexham, the occasional possibiltiy of a decent visiting orchestra is the sort of thing that might swing an otherwise finely balanced calculation.

Posted by dsquared | February 28, 2008 8:56 AM

Did it help or hurt the US during the Cold War to have these kinds of cultural exchanges with the USSR and later China? In hindsight, it seems rather clear that they helped, by showing the people on the other side some of what they were missing.

Posted by rea | February 28, 2008 8:57 AM

Not sure about the orchestra imprimatur. However you have to have a little scat in your bag to get a movie treatment from Matt Stone and Trey Parker.

Posted by steve duncan | February 28, 2008 9:04 AM

Re North Korea

I seem to recall that the opening to China started with a ping pong tournament.

Posted by SLC | February 28, 2008 9:17 AM

Does this mean that the Philharmonic should only visit liberal democracies and really awful dictatorships?

Matt is obviously correct that no one is going to mistake Pyongyang for paradise, but what about Cuba or Vietnam (or, for that matter, Pinochet's Chile)?

Some of these less awful dicatorships have apologists in the US and Europe. People who would use these sorts of cultural exchanges to further their defense of the regime. On balance, I think the benefits of "showing the flag" outweigh such concerns, but they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. (Should they?)

Posted by heedless | February 28, 2008 9:27 AM

Re Vietnam

There's a big difference between Cuba and North Korea on the one hand and Vietnam on the other. We do not recognize nor do we have diplomatic relations with the former 2 countries but we have recognized and have diplomatic relations with the latter.

Posted by SLC | February 28, 2008 9:41 AM

SLC,

You are absolutely right, and the implied equivalency was careless. I simply offered up examples of autocratic regimes with nostalgic associations for the far left or the far right, more or less as they occurred to me.

Posted by heedless | February 28, 2008 9:51 AM

The problem with these sorts of visits is not international credibility, it's internal credibility. Kim's regime uses these visits to shore up its own legitimacy in the eyes of its "citizens" (subjects). In the case of, say, the USSR I don't think, after the 1930s anyway, that anyone in the US really questioned the Soviet Government's legitimacy, other than perhaps it's legitimacy to rule the Baltic states. Especially since in the Korean case there is arguably a legitimate alternative government in Seoul, we might just want to design a policy that tries to humiliate and shame Kim at every possible turn.

Posted by vanya | February 28, 2008 10:03 AM

Yeah, but Obama is a Muslim. That, and 9-11 changed everything.

Posted by Jamey | February 28, 2008 10:14 AM

Aren't they a bit worried about being abducted, imprisoned, reeducated and being held hostage for several years?

Posted by novakant | February 28, 2008 10:32 AM

Especially since in the Korean case there is arguably a legitimate alternative government in Seoul, we might just want to design a policy that tries to humiliate and shame Kim at every possible turn.
Posted by vanya | February 28, 2008 10:03 AM

To what end? Is it realistic to assume this would actually deligitimate the regime? It feels more like behavior to satisfy our moral vanity.
North Korea established its terrible legitimacy in blood during the Korean War. It's an immoral despotic regime, but it's legitimate in its sovereignty. No one is going to get North Korea to disolved itself without its consent. Unless you want to restart the Korean war. My only advice is, if you go in, get the Chinese on board first.

Posted by Northern Observer | February 28, 2008 10:44 AM

Aren't trips like this how we gather additional intelligence on what is actually happening in the country? Not that much substantial is gathered, but it does give us a chance to see the country with our own eyes which is impossible otherwise.

Posted by Julene | February 28, 2008 12:36 PM

Unlike other despotic regimes, North Korea has friends in some strange places - namely, Seoul.

Surely South Koreans are aware that while they enjoy life in an increasingly affluent, democratic society, their brothers and sisters across the DMZ suffer miserably in what many consider the world's largest prison camp?

I have never understood South Koreans who favor a "sunshine" policy of cooperation over one of quietly destabilizing the regime while making preparations for the DPRK's eventual downfall.

I wonder if the North Korean people really got to hear that concert over the radio. If they did then I would judge the trip worthwhile, if only to give them a glimmer of what exists outside their country.

Posted by Lisa | February 28, 2008 1:00 PM

I have seen comments in the press that Kim Il-Jong may be sick. If so, then what we're really doing is signaling to his potential successors that we will be friendlier than we have been if they will be more sensible than Kim has been. That's a pretty sensible message.

Posted by Jim | February 28, 2008 1:08 PM

Don't forget the lasting effects of Roger Clinton's great North Korea concert.

Posted by Other Ezra | February 28, 2008 1:23 PM

Lisa: the downfall of North Korea can have rather dire consequences in South Korea. Suppose that south of Mason-Dixon line there were a brutal Communist regime, and after its collapse and joyous reunion we would have 80 million Americans immediately qualifying for welfare, with scant infrastructure and very grumpy about being treated as second rate citizens.

On top of that, large part of these reunitied citizens would stubbornly follow Southern Baptist Communist Party.

Posted by piotr | February 28, 2008 3:50 PM

"we might just want to design a policy that tries to humiliate and shame Kim at every possible turn."

I call it: out-petting petty tyrants. If we behave in a crazy manner, we legitimize crazy behavior.

Actually, I am all for shaming and humiliating, but in a nice way. For example, Pyongyang Philharmonic (or Ballet Theater, whatever) should be invited to make a reciprocal visit. They can reject, which is not looking good. They can accept, and then there had to be some charity fundrising so the company members had enough to eat. Then some would defect. And they could get unenthusiastic reviews. And we do not look petty, obsessive etc., and more importantly, we ARE NOT petty and obsessive.

Posted by piotr | February 28, 2008 4:04 PM

Matt: "I oftentimes detect a disturbing level of subjectivism in foreign policy circles, as if people are seriously at risk of forgetting that the US is a mighty superpower and North Korea is ruled by awful despots and thus a top priority to be to find symbolic ways of endlessly reiterating those facts."

Yes, that sounds like much of what I read on these blogs - including yours - about every other foreign policy subject.

It's actually probably true. The average American can't find North Korea - and many of them can't find Italy...Italy! For Christ's sakes, the BOOT! - on a map. They also can't remember anything they read about for more than a day, so if someone reads about a concert in North Korea, some idiots might seriously think about getting a visa to go there if they weren't immediately reminded that they can't or shouldn't.

The level of ignorance of Americans about the world is massive, which is why it's easy for the state to gin up wars and get the idiots all fired up to "retaliate" against whoever based on something they don't understand the first thing about (such as 9/11).

The wonder is that THIS country has any "international credibility".

In fact, I'm not sure it does any more, if it ever did.

As an acquaintance of mine used to frequently remark, "My 'fellow man' is an ass."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 28, 2008 11:46 PM