Kim Jong-un’s First Five Years Saw Large Economic Growth for North Korea
Obviously the sanctions put on North Korea are not working when Dr. Andrei Lankov writes about the large economic expansion Kim Jong-un has helped to usher in during his first five years of ruling North Korea:
Next month it will be five years since the sudden death of Kim Jong-il led to the second dynastic transition in North Korean history. Kim Jong-un’s reign is approaching the five-year mark, the length of a presidential term in many modern democracies, so it is probably a good time to say what we think of the young North Korean leader.
To an extent, we can see the directions that Kim Jong-un wants to take and the trajectory that he wants to steer his country toward. I would dare to describe Kim Jong-un as a modest, perhaps hyper-cautious, but rather determined reformer in economic matters. Unfortunately, his foreign policy is difficult to appraise in anything but a critical fashion: it is quite likely that, in the long run, his diplomatic blunders will be his undoing.
But let’s start with the good news. In the last five years the North Korean economy has grown faster than any time since the early 1980s. Economic statistics are murky, speculative and controversial, but the majority of inside observers (diplomatic staff in Pyongyang) tend to estimate growth as being 3 percent to 4 percent per annum. This is much better than anything North Korea has seen since the 1980s, if not the 1970s. The results of such growth are felt through the whole of society, though the results are highly unevenly distributed. [Korea Times]
You can read more at the link.
Trump’s SOS candidate, Rex Tillerson, is pro-Russia and will likely take a pro-Russia stance, being more open to North Korea.
Remember when Liberals were all “We should become friends with the Russians?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHylQRVN2Qs
Anyways, Tom Lite, why are we in Syria? What clear and present danger did the Syrians present to the U.S? I’ve noticed the Left really wants to go to War with Russia these days. Hillary’s No-Fly Zone, constant sniping at Trump, vague and contradictory accusations of the Russians interfering with the U.S. elections but pretending forgetfulness when asked about the U.S. in the Ukraine.
What brought you to this site, if I may ask?
I’ve been posting on this blog since 2006. I just haven’t registered my name. I usually post just once a week, but been posting more since the election. I’ve been critical of both Bush and Obama administrations, and will do the same of Trump administration.
Denny, be critical…
…but don’t chase after nonsense.
In this case, how does taking a pro-Russia stance make him more open to North Korea?
…and what is wrong with a pro-Russian stance?
We all agree communism is no longer worth bickering over.
With Islam being America’s ideological enemy and China being America’s economic enemy, why not work WITH Russia to counter these threats?
There is no gain in conflict with Russia.
P.S. We are pretty sure who you are, acorn.
There isn’t a contradiction between having good relations with Russian people, as in the Sting song, and being concerned about the actions of the Russian government. That’s like suggesting that anyone who criticizes the policies of Netanyahu in Israel is automatically anti-Semitic. I have friends from FSU countries and some of them are concerned about Putin too.
Former president Dmitry Medvedev seemed much more agreeable and somebody we could have worked with, but Putin has been blatantly expansionist and willing to make bold moves reclaim the former Union.
Trump apologists say, ‘Don’t take too seriously what he says. Wait to see what he actually does.’ I’m willing to do that, up to a point, but early signs are already troubling. He seems to be about to staff his government with Putin friendly, oligarch-like appointments. I hope we are not about to start ‘making deals’ that compromise our long standing alliances. Let’s not forget who we stood with in 40 years of Cold War.
There will be subtle but telling indicators in the coming months. 300 Marines are scheduled to be stationed in Norway next year. Obviously not a military threat, but a strategic trip-wire. If we re-neg on that it will not only send a wink to Putin but a message to our old and new European allies that our commitment to them may be wavering.
Screwed up the link.
For the sake of context, I’m very surprised that Lankov left out a very important fact: the North Korean economy had been sinking lower and lower ever since the early ’90s when Communism fell and much of its support got cut off. That precipitated the arduous march of the ’90s and all the starvation. North Korea’s current industrial output is only around half of what it was in 1990 – and that’s AFTER five years of incremental growth under KJU. Yes – things have gotten a little better. But after sinking so low, there pretty much was no other way to go but up.
@JoeC, one could argue that Putin only implemented his expansionist policy after the US and Europe double dealed him in Libya, then tried to overthrow the elected government in Ukraine followed by the attempted overthrow of Assad. Then you throw in past NATO expansion into the Baltics and then even possibly Georgia and this all just further increases Russian paranoia against the West.
Did anyone really think Putin was going to sit around and let all of this happen without responding?
There are alternative interpretations of all history. The Japanese only attacked us in 1941 because we were trying to cut off their flow of resources. I guess it’s only a matter of personal preference which versions you prefer to go with.
I don’t think this is alternative interpretation of history, but rather common sense. If China was meddling in Mexico and trying to get a leader elected that would join a security alliance that could host Chinese troops I definitely believe the US government would respond in some way. That is basically what Ukraine is to Russia. If China was meddling in South Korea to get the ROK government overthrown and get it to unify with North Korea the US would respond there as well. That is what Syria is to Russia, a strategic ally host to a major Russian military base. I believe it takes some wishful thinking to think Putin would not respond to events that have significant strategic importance to Russia.
If the EU has their way, NATO might be replaced by EU troops and the US effectively evicted.
Not to mention Norway sold their old Sub base to the Russkies. http://www.newsweek.com/2015/03/27/secret-submarine-base-norway-accidentally-handed-russians-314989.html
And coming in here while Obama’s still President and talking about Presidential weakness and sending messages is a bit thick, don’t you think?
Remember “I can be more flexible after the election”? How about the red lines in Syria? What about the way he has kowtowed to every dictator on the planet and insulted all our old allies, especially GB, Australia, and Israel?
http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1209/obamas-foreign-policy-failed-appeasement-liberals-embolden-t-politics-1347680976.jpg
Sheesh. “Si vis pacem, para bellum” is still true. And People who say they’re afraid of Trump ignore that he got the Teamsters and other unions in NY and NJ (and elsewhere) to deliver supplies, construct buildings, and staff successful businesses. That takes someone who is a Master Persuader, not a self-important tyrant..