A Case for Action (Speech on North Korea)

[Lumine]

A Case for Action:

Regarding North Korea and Foreign Policy:

Press Release: Upon learning of the latest news in North Korea and the ongoing civil war, former President Lumine made an extensive speech on Nyman regarding foreign policy and the situation in the Korean Peninsula. In it he made the case and pushed for greater intervention, while acknowledging that with a prevalent non-interventionist mindset in Atlasia further intervention appears very unlikely.

Introduction:

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

I come today to speak to you on a subject which is very close to my heart, one that I’ve championed perhaps even longer than game reform as a concept: foreign policy. Having taken the time to draft two potential plans for different degrees to reform our government (the reformist Sulla Plan, and the parliamentary Montfort plan), I will take my time to craft a comprehensive plan for foreign policy as well to promote my own beliefs and ideas for this sector of policy.

In the meantime, however, there is a point I feel compelled to press on given the latest events in the foreign stage, and the response received to some points I’ve made.

The topic, of course, is North Korea.

North Korean Civil War: The Context

The issue has taken center-stage for the past few months ever since the admittedly less than competent actions of a particular administration pushed us into a very complex situation (it still is a shock to me Congress refused to investigate the matter in greater detail). In the span of these few months we’ve seen what seemed like the collapse of the tyrannical, unacceptable totalitarianism of the Kim dynasty, we’ve seen bravery displayed on behalf of South Korea, Japan and many North Koreans fighting for a better future. We’ve taken damage ourselves in the form of strikes and treasonous acts, and suffered humiliation at the hands of China and the Russia for the sake of an uneasy peace.

Today marks a turning point in the current civil war, a war that we no longer are an active part of despite its far-reaching consequences. Today, my friends, as forces from South Korea, Japan and the PRK continue their fight, Yun Jong Rin has died. His death marks the collapse of the dangerous Nationalist forces which have opposed our allies for the past few weeks at a considerable cost in human life. But his death does not mark the end of the war, it marks the start of the truly dangerous part of it.

As we speak, the Kim dynasty rises again in the form of Kim Jong Nam and the so called Loyalist forces, beholden to the terrible, dangerous past of totalitarianism which oppressed and starved North Koreans for decades. More than a 100,000 men, many of them seasoned. A rebuilding air force. The all but open support of the Chinese, an act which in a stroke sinks most of North Korea back into darkness as a Chinese satellite endangers the position of our allies in Asia.

And we sit back and watch things develop.

At the Crossroads:

With that I do not mean that our current leadership is inactive. Certainly, it cannot be denied the present Administration has pondered on the issue, kept a watch over it and done about as much as they are willing to do, and to state they have been inactive would be unfair and misleading. What I say to you today, my fellow countrymen, is that what has been done is my opinion far from enough. Just a few weeks ago there was hope of a different, more democratic North Korea and eventual and peaceful unification. Those hopes have been dashed away by the installment of a militaristic government which has fallen only today, at the cost of Japanese, PRK and South Korean troops bleeding, fighting and giving their lives as we sit back and not even provide air or logistical support.

Today, most of North Korea appears set to return to Kim-led tyranny in the person of Kim Jong Nam, with the Chinese government’s apparent support for what should be their newest puppet. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the treaty which put an apparent end of the war not long ago has become void in many aspects. It is also hard to avoid the conclusion totalitarianism could well return to all of North Korea in an openly hostile, militaristic regime, which puts us very close to where we started and into a familiar context which we allowed to get out of control until it was too late.

I believe we should be there. Not because of intervention for the sake of intervention. Not for the sake of war. Not for nation-building, not for revenge. Not for political gain or popularity.

We should be there because it is the right thing to do.

[Lumine]

The Case for Intervention:

If there is something we cannot allow to thrive across the globe is totalitarianism, and the threat it represents to global security, to the values and principles of liberty and democracy, and to the lives of millions of human beings who will suffer under the yoke of uncontrolled tyranny. We should not sit idly by and allow the historic, unique opportunity for a more prosperous, democratic North Korea to go away, and be replaced for another Kim-led totalitarian dictatorship. We need to see this conflict through, and to do so fast. It is not in the best interest of Atlasia to see another totalitarian North Korea. It is not in the best interest of our allies, who fight and bleed as we sit. It is not in the best interest of global security and instability. It is not in the best interests of the North Korean people either, who are about to be subject to untold terror and suffering.

I cannot, and I will not condone leaving millions of North Korean citizens to suffer such a miserable future under a totalitarian regime when we could, and should act.

That is not to say that I am not fully aware that the political context is hostile, not just to a particular course of action, but to a whole narrative and way to conceive foreign policy. After all, all three Presidential tickets have their own differences in foreign policy (and have varying levels of detail on it), but do not necessarily appear to disagree with non-intervention in Korea as a principle. Regardless of whether I make this speech or not, it does not seem likely Atlasia will take decisive action at all.

Atlasia and Non-Interventionism:

After all, for years the foreign policy maxim in Atlasia has been non-interventionism and even isolation at times. Hawkish or even internationalist administrations have proved more of an exception than a norm, at least for the six years in which I’ve been around (and having been a constant commentator on foreign policy for the past four). If anything, I would argue our officeholders have taken even stronger non-interventionist stances and beliefs, to the point in which such foreign policy visions could be understood as part of the Nyman Consensus itself and therefore far more “establishment” (much as I hate the misuse of the term) than they would otherwise be outside of the game in which our Republic is based.

Indeed, something which at times concerns and irritates in public discourse is that you will always find someone willing to denounce what they claim is a hawkish, “neo-conservative” (which is about the laziest term) foreign policy predominant in Atlasia. What follows is always championing isolationism and non-intervention as if those were a bold, brave novelty, and it usually comes associated with a denunciation of our defence budget for supposedly being out of control. My friends, this nation may be based on the (IG) defunct United States, and even marked by it in post-reset terms. But we are not the United States, we are the Republic of Atlasia. I, for one (and particularly because like other Atlasians I do not come from the US), do not feel we should always be bound by the terms and logics of current political discourse in the RL United States.

To give you a more concrete and demonstrative example, to claim Atlasian foreign policy is the same (and has the same flaws) as US foreign policy would be as silly as to argue there is “Trumpism” in Atlasia (or the opposite, arguing there is some sort of a “Resistance”). And considering that by the time of the rest the military and the defence budget were underfunded, weakened and crippled to the point no longer bearing any resemblance to realism, you’d have to forgive me for rolling my eyes at times with a part of this rhetoric. Pacifist rhetoric (as espoused by the Peace Party) I understand and respect despite the disagreements I may have from time to time, as genuine full-blown pacifism is an alternative with a degree of consistency which we can argue hasn’t been fully tried. The same cannot be said from non-interventionism/isolationism.

It seems to me that it is very easy for some to caricaturize “hawks” or even foreign policy realists, interventionists or liberals rather than have a more responsible, more argument debate on the issue. But when it comes to our foreign policy, my fellow citizens, strawmen and argumentative fallacies should not prevail. Nor should it be conducted by seeking to appeal as many voters as possible.

Conclusion:

We need to expand the support of the Allied coalition fighting in North Korea, through logistical, intelligence, air and naval support. We need to promote the necessity for the UN and NATO to intervene as they did once. We need to push for increasing diplomatic support for the PRK across the globe and for a stark rebuke of the loyalists, or any Chinese puppet which would in effect make the latest peace agreement null and void. We need to seriously consider doing our own sacrifices to help those who have helped us back in our time of need, and to save millions of North Koreans from a grim fate. I do not believe we need to storm Pyongyang with two dozen divisions, and I do not believe in engaging in decades of nation-building. But I do believe in acting when acting becomes necessary.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a historic and decisive moment. The fate of North Korea is about to be decided, and with it the future of the Korean peninsula, the balance of power and stability in Asia, and so many issues and processes which are more important than we can suspect.

To do nothing, or not doing enough would be in my opinion an enormous mistake. One which we may very well bitterly regret.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I just wanted to note, for what it is worth, that all 3 of the tickets appear to be in agreement on a relative non-interventionist note, or at the very least opposed to war in North Korea.

[Lumine]

I just wanted to note, for what it is worth, that all 3 of the tickets appear to be in agreement on a relative non-interventionist note, or at the very least opposed to war in North Korea.

Aye, it's noted on the speech (although perhaps I could have said it in a less tactful way) and accepted as one of the reasons why intervention is admittedly very unlikely:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[wxtransit]

I just wanted to note, for what it is worth, that all 3 of the tickets appear to be in agreement on a relative non-interventionist note, or at the very least opposed to war in North Korea.

Aye, it's noted on the speech (although perhaps it could have said it in a less tactful way) and accepted as one of the reasons why intervention is admittedly very unlikely:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there is still any question as to where the candidates stand, a very question I asked in the debate hopes to address that, which means hopefully we will have a clear answer.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I understand your points well and I understand that you do not want another several decades of an unstable Korean Peninsula where we wait for one side to blink, but there are a few reasons that I'd be hesitant, if I were still President, I would be unlikely to intervene (although I would consider providing strong air support and maybe opening up a no fly zone), of course if I had just served out my full term we would not have bombed North Korea in the first place and would likely be back to square zero, but for my sake lets ignore that for now

So, I guess my main concern is another Vietnam situation building up. Sometimes I do wonder if the reason North Korea is so hostile to us in the first place is because we stopped them from unifying or anything else like that, now you may see that thought is insane in that it should be obvious that we stopped them from annexing the South. That being said, Vietnam has moderated a lot and has become an ally almost at this point of Atlasia (and America ooc). In practical terms however, I do agree we should probably provide air support with our large air force and maybe establish a no fly zone, but I'd be opposed to sending ground troops, for the moment.

[wxtransit]

I understand your points well and I understand that you do not want another several decades of an unstable Korean Peninsula where we wait for one side to blink, but there are a few reasons that I'd be hesitant, if I were still President, I would be unlikely to intervene (although I would consider providing strong air support and maybe opening up a no fly zone), of course if I had just served out my full term we would not have bombed North Korea in the first place and would likely be back to square zero, but for my sake lets ignore that for now

So, I guess my main concern is another Vietnam situation building up. Sometimes I do wonder if the reason North Korea is so hostile to us in the first place is because we stopped them from unifying or anything else like that, now you may see that thought is insane in that it should be obvious that we stopped them from annexing the South. That being said, Vietnam has moderated a lot and has become an ally almost at this point of Atlasia (and America ooc). In practical terms however, I do agree we should probably provide air support with our large air force and maybe establish a no fly zone, but I'd be opposed to sending ground troops, for the moment.

But Vietnam is still an oppressive, undemocratic regime, and the Vietnamese people would be way better off without it, so that point is moot. North Korea also does not have to become another Vietnam. The Loyalists must not, and can not, under any uncertain terms be allowed to annex North Korea, and by extension, the entire Korean Peninsula. Don't subject the prosperous, thriving South Korean people to a regime that has the potential to inflict the same damage that happened to North Korea over the entire peninsula. In Vietnam, the southern government was relatively new and not terribly stable. However, South Korea is a well-established, stable, developed democracy. Letting the Loyalists annex South Korea would be insanity.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I understand your points well and I understand that you do not want another several decades of an unstable Korean Peninsula where we wait for one side to blink, but there are a few reasons that I'd be hesitant, if I were still President, I would be unlikely to intervene (although I would consider providing strong air support and maybe opening up a no fly zone), of course if I had just served out my full term we would not have bombed North Korea in the first place and would likely be back to square zero, but for my sake lets ignore that for now

So, I guess my main concern is another Vietnam situation building up. Sometimes I do wonder if the reason North Korea is so hostile to us in the first place is because we stopped them from unifying or anything else like that, now you may see that thought is insane in that it should be obvious that we stopped them from annexing the South. That being said, Vietnam has moderated a lot and has become an ally almost at this point of Atlasia (and America ooc). In practical terms however, I do agree we should probably provide air support with our large air force and maybe establish a no fly zone, but I'd be opposed to sending ground troops, for the moment.

But Vietnam is still an oppressive, undemocratic regime, and the Vietnamese people would be way better off without it, so that point is moot. North Korea also does not have to become another Vietnam. The Loyalists must not, and can not, under any uncertain terms be allowed to annex North Korea, and by extension, the entire Korean Peninsula. Don't subject the prosperous, thriving South Korean people to a regime that has the potential to inflict the same damage that happened to North Korea over the entire peninsula. In Vietnam, the southern government was relatively new and not terribly stable. However, South Korea is a well-established, stable, developed democracy. Letting the Loyalists annex South Korea would be insanity.

I am not saying to do so now, I am saying why they hated us in the first place.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Letting the Loyalists annex South Korea would be insanity.

Who is doing what now?

[wxtransit]

Letting the Loyalists annex South Korea would be insanity.

Who is doing what now?

DFW, while he may not have said it, implied that letting the Loyalists taking free range may be a better idea, since we've been oppressing them (or something like that).

[Lumine]

I understand your points well and I understand that you do not want another several decades of an unstable Korean Peninsula where we wait for one side to blink, but there are a few reasons that I'd be hesitant, if I were still President, I would be unlikely to intervene (although I would consider providing strong air support and maybe opening up a no fly zone), of course if I had just served out my full term we would not have bombed North Korea in the first place and would likely be back to square zero, but for my sake lets ignore that for now

So, I guess my main concern is another Vietnam situation building up. Sometimes I do wonder if the reason North Korea is so hostile to us in the first place is because we stopped them from unifying or anything else like that, now you may see that thought is insane in that it should be obvious that we stopped them from annexing the South. That being said, Vietnam has moderated a lot and has become an ally almost at this point of Atlasia (and America ooc). In practical terms however, I do agree we should probably provide air support with our large air force and maybe establish a no fly zone, but I'd be opposed to sending ground troops, for the moment.

Best not to dwell on "what might have been", for I feel we would all start feeling much regret!

I would caution against viewing this conflict through a Vietnam lens, it would most certainly not apply in many aspects to the current scenario despite the structure of a divided nation into two separate entities.

We can argue that there are concrete reasons for resentment from both South and North Korea towards the US and the USSR for not giving immediate independence to a unified Korea back in 1950, but whatever questions there are about those crucial years it is undeniable the Kim dynasty has stoked the flames as much as humanly possible through decades of brutal regime and ruthless propaganda which would make 1984's Oceania blush. Rebuilding trust is no easy task, but to me it is far easier to achieve by helping to secure the position of a stable government in North Korea committed to peaceful reunification and democratic rule (in this case, the PRK), than by standing in the sidelines and allow the bloodshed to extend when we could cripple the Nationalist and Loyalists forces and shorten the conflict.

Has Vietnam moderated? Yes, you can find worse dictatorships. That is not to say it is an ideal regime, for it is defined by undemocratic, oppressive rule via single-party government. But if we must compare, the example is still misguided to judge Korea, for Vietnam is no longer as aggressive and militaristic as it was in the 1980 across Indochina, and while it may be defined by totalitarian rule the work of the Kim dynasty is still comparatively worse, and far more of a threat to its neighbors and to global security. After all, the Kims did pursue a nuclear program with aggressive intent.

[Lumine]

Furthermore, we can only have a brief look at the "Loyalist" leadership to understand the fundamental danger of not acting. We're not talking about any random Kim loyalist, we are talking about a member of the Kim dynasty (Kim Jong Nam) who was heir at one point to Kim Jong-Il (and subject to a propaganda campaign before being dropped from the succession). Kim Jong Nam, furthermore, is known for having very strong ties to China and has been noted in the past as a prime candidate to be a Chinese puppet.

Shall we return almost to where we started, the hostile, dangerous, insane Kim dynasty in power propped by the Chinese as their satellite?

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Letting the Loyalists annex South Korea would be insanity.

Who is doing what now?

DFW, while he may not have said it, implied that letting the Loyalists taking free range may be a better idea, since we've been oppressing them (or something like that).

I did not even imply such a thing lol, you need to re-read it

[wxtransit]

Letting the Loyalists annex South Korea would be insanity.

Who is doing what now?

DFW, while he may not have said it, implied that letting the Loyalists taking free range may be a better idea, since we've been oppressing them (or something like that).

I did not even imply such a thing lol, you need to re-read it

It came off as that way.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Letting the Loyalists annex South Korea would be insanity.

Who is doing what now?

DFW, while he may not have said it, implied that letting the Loyalists taking free range may be a better idea, since we've been oppressing them (or something like that).

I did not even imply such a thing lol, you need to re-read it

It came off as that way.

don't be racist.

[wxtransit]

Letting the Loyalists annex South Korea would be insanity.

Who is doing what now?

DFW, while he may not have said it, implied that letting the Loyalists taking free range may be a better idea, since we've been oppressing them (or something like that).

I did not even imply such a thing lol, you need to re-read it

It came off as that way.

don't be racist.

That's misogynistic.

[Lumine]

Bumping this on account of recent events, particularly now that Chinese forces have crossed the Yalu River and invaded Korea. I ask this of the public (not yet of the Administration, which I imagine is working hard behind the scenes on this), how far does this situation have to go before we finally consider acting and not dismiss this as an internal conflict?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

One truly difficult hurdle to cross in terms of foreign policy game play is the fact that a large proportion of players on the left and a good number on the right are very much against foreign intervention, even so the point of not wanting to have their names attached to any authorization. That RL influence we talked about the other day via PM.

It was painfully difficult last fall to get a declaration of war passed, even after we were attacked. People fell back into their comfort zones ideologically. The only way it even passed was through aggressive assurances that we would minimize our involvement to the most minimal extent possible at the soonest possible moment. I am certainly less interventionist then Lumine, but I am a realist and common sense tells me that sometimes you don't have a choice.

We have avoided with good reason the risk of military confrontation with nuclear powers, throughout this.

[Lumine]

One truly difficult hurdle to cross in terms of foreign policy game play is the fact that a large proportion of players on the left and a good number on the right are very much against foreign intervention. That RL influence we talked about the other day via PM.

It was painfully difficult last fall to get a declaration of war passed, even after we were attacked. People fell back into their comfort zones ideologically. The only way it even passed was through aggressive assurances that we would minimize our involvement to the most minimal extent possible at the soonest possible moment.

Certainly, and if anything one can make the case the current playerbase is actually less anti-intervention than it was back in 2014. It is very frustrating in the sense that it closes many avenues for action in foreign affairs (not to mention hurt our own national interest) in a manner which proves excessive, and I get the feeling there's always an officeholder who will find it necessary to proclaim being anti-intervention to secure reelection.

Perhaps it is because I've turned into an old veteran (oh, how times change!), but somehow I find it necessary more than ever to offer a counterpoint to this belief that we must sit on the sidelines.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

One truly difficult hurdle to cross in terms of foreign policy game play is the fact that a large proportion of players on the left and a good number on the right are very much against foreign intervention. That RL influence we talked about the other day via PM.

It was painfully difficult last fall to get a declaration of war passed, even after we were attacked. People fell back into their comfort zones ideologically. The only way it even passed was through aggressive assurances that we would minimize our involvement to the most minimal extent possible at the soonest possible moment.

Certainly, and if anything one can make the case the current playerbase is actually less anti-intervention than it was back in 2014. It is very frustrating in the sense that it closes many avenues for action in foreign affairs (not to mention hurt our own national interest) in a manner which proves excessive, and I get the feeling there's always an officeholder who will find it necessary to proclaim being anti-intervention to secure reelection.

Perhaps it is because I've turned into an old veteran (oh, how times change!), but somehow I find it necessary more than ever to offer a counterpoint to this belief that we must sit on the sidelines.

That certainly sounds like me. Though you are still not old in my book.

I think the left is slightly more anti-war. And the presence of peace means that PUP will be reluctant to appear interventionist less Peebs and company, start chewing them up from the left. Also DFW at least, is militantly anti-interventionist or at least was.