"before hoping for any country to collapse, think of the consequences."
It's not hard to see why people and the western world in general do not have kind feelings towards North Korea. It's a deeply controlling, totalitarian state known for being void of any kind of democracy, freedom and rights. We hear constant news stories (caution: not all of them are accurate) about executions, purges and hysterical levels of glorification and propaganda concerning the country's leaders. As this goes on, the wider and non-privileged population of the country suffers from food shortages, poverty and economic backwardness. Its a terrible humanitarian situation and any rational mind who is not a "DPRK believer" would come to the same conclusion. Consequentially, if the North Korean regime was to suddenly collapse it wouldn't be missed by anyone, in fact it would probably be celebrated; hailed as a triumph of progress and liberty by every Western media outlet. Many observers and scholars endlessly speculate the end of the DPRK regime, having made decades worth of failed predictions. Even beyond the nuclear issue, the United States and South Korea are happy to push to eradicate the regime holding an easy moral high ground against it rather than to compromise with its existence; the South Korean government produce propaganda preaching the economic benefits of a united Republic of Korea. Its collapse is not only treated as a topical given, but also a political objective.
But it's time to think with an open mind, should we really hope for North Korea to collapse? Are we really confident such an event would prove a liberal and humanitarian triumph and a move for progress? I don't think so. Whilst I understand whilst people want to see things improve for the people of the country (and I do too), my argument today is that an instantaneous and unstable collapse of North Korea would prove to be an economic, sociological, humanitarian and geo-political disaster which would plunge the wider region into deeper uncertainty, instability and chaos. External political agendas would continue to clash over the Korean peninsula and cooperation would become as static as it was back in 1945 (as not every power wants a North Korean collapse). Rather, given North Korea is unjust in its existing form, our hope must be invested in it transitioning into a Chinese style developmental state, rather than it imploding.
Firstly, the economic risks of a North Korean collapse. Contrary to propaganda, a reunified, one state Korea would not be an economic extravaganza. This is far a worse situation than when the two Germany's reunified in the 1990s, where East Germany was industrialized and was wealthier than other communist states, rather it consists of a situation where a first world economy (of 50 million people) has to absorb a derelict, non-developed and economically deficient state of 24 million people. North Korea has little infrastructure, limited electricity, limited water supplies, few major roads and what it does have was largely built in the 1960s. A collapse of North Korea would require a rebuilding effort which would cost double the South's gross domestic product to get it up to their standards. This would require the South to place tremendous taxes in its own population and require billions in external aid and investment, which would be unfavourable to the South Korean electorate, sowing a lot of resentment. But that's only the beginning of the effort that would be involved.
Economics is one element, sociological issues are another. A collapse of the North Korean regime would provoke a refugee crisis with scores flowing southwards and northwards into China. A refugee crisis is not only a humanitarian disaster, but as the one in Europe shows, it has enormous politically destabilizing effects on the nations directly affected. Beyond refugee flows, there would need to be an enormous social reconstruction too. Millions of North Koreans would require re-educating just to know how to survive in a modern contemporary society, likewise any skills they had would be effectively useless in a modern economy like South Korea. For example, as Lankov once stated, if you're a North Korean doctor, trained on a 1960s level of medical science and technology and the regime collapses your skills and qualifications become worthless. So everyone would need retraining and not only that, deprogramming from the ideological and political penetration of the regime on daily life. Individuality is still an unknown concept for so many North Koreans who have been brought up to watch and spy on everyone around them, obey without question and attend strange "confession" and ideological indoctrination meetings weekly. An entire new society and order would have to be constructed from scratch. Given that the Kim regime penetrates almost every aspect of life and activity, an end to it signifies a complete dissolution of all social order, fabric and activity, the place would probably descend into total lawlessness for the time being. Once you've got past that, there would be immediate social tensions between the two sets of Koreans who are now deeply culturally and socially removed from each other. Already, North Korean defectors in the South are subject to discrimination, shunning and an inability to fit into the way of life, you can imagine this on a wider scale?
Is a reunified Korea really possible?
But, this is only the beginning of the problems. A removal of the North Korean state upsets a balance of power and political order in the East of Asia which has existed since the 1950s. Russia and China have a vested interest in keeping North Korea going as a strategic buffer against American influence, whilst the U.S is continually seeking to expand its military might in the region. China intervened in the Korean war to stop the U.S destroying North Korea and although its relations today with the hermit kingdom are mixed, it has every commitment to keeping it alive with a policy of maintaining a balance between the two Koreas. The Sino-Korean treaty of 1961 which guarantees Chinese sovereignty of North Korea still stands. This is a dangerous point of tension should the regime collapse or succumb to crisis, as South Korea claims sovereignty over the North (not recognising the state) and China is committed to upholding it. If trouble emerges in the North and the South invaded it (perceiving it would collapse), China might just not accept that, given this who's to say they might not try and intervene first? So already, there are divided political objectives for the Korean peninsula which would make a collapse situation catastrophic. There is not even any guarantee that a unified republic of Korea would emerge from it. As Lankov has further speculated, China might even rush to replace it with a Chinese style Korean state.
Not only that, but is it really a good idea to want a nuclear armed state to just descend into anarchy or revolution? The outcome to North Korea's nuclear arsenal would pose one of the most serious issues and uncertainty would bring grave danger. Who's hands does it go into if the regime collapses? Who controls it in the meanwhile? Where does the technological knowledge go? A collapse of the regime essentially destroys all the limits and political shrewdness North Korea puts towards not actually using them- it might threaten, but given the outcomes they currently never would actually do it. Hence why building these weapons are crucial to their own regime survival, because it lessens the probability of some seeking for it to collapse.
Therefore, are we sure North Korean collapse is a good thing? Western people seem to have a habit of celebrating the downfall of deplorable regimes yet not thinking of the consequences such change brings, combined with the ill judgement of involved powers to deal with them. Regime change in Iraq and Libya, combined with attempted regime change in Syria have had profoundly damaging consequences to the Middle East and North African region and brought about more harm to the people of those countries that regime survival would have ever done. It certainly hasn't brought them the milk and honey of "Human rights", "democracy" and "capitalism", its brought extremism, ISIS terror, insurgency, millions fleeing as refugees and grave instability as geo-political actors scrap to pick up what is left. There has been no victory for liberalism in doing so and the collapse of North Korea would be just as much as a disaster. It's not a liberal triumph to topple a dictator if the situation you create afterwards is worse.
Resultantly, if we want to see change in North Korea then we have to seek for effort and engagement towards a steady reform whilst pushing policies which seek a careful status quo on the Korean peninsula; a more Chinese style North Korean state would be accepted by most of the international community. The two Koreas must somehow learn to live with the other, but given there is a battle for legitimacy over national identity, territory and historic rights this is very difficult. The South doesn't accept the North and the North cannot accept the South, as the existence of one threatens the other. The nuclear issue should be resolved with talks and mutual concessions from all sides. But given now tensions are higher than they've ever been, you can't really be optimistic. Nonetheless, before hoping for any country to collapse, think of the consequences.
