|
whatever7 posted:How come the last two South Korean disasters were both boat sinking? Was there any older major boat sinking accident from either Korea? South Korea has a proud history of ferries sinking and killing a vast amount of people every ~20 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Korean_ferry_disasters
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
There was also a neo-"Maoist" glorification movement that became pretty influential and posing as a rival faction to the pure neoliberal wing of the party, and one of its leader, Bo Xilai, was slated to join the Politburo Standing Committee. Obviously he wasn't really socialist but he called for wealth distribution and relied on a lot of Maoist rhetoric and imagery. In addition, the rapid expansion of Chongqing (which he used to rule) made him a political force to be reckoned with. But his wife murdered a British businessman, his chief enforcer tried to defect to the United States, and he is in jail now after a highly televised political show trial. As far as I know that took a lot of the wind out of that particular movement, but it's not like Maoism is completely discredited in political discourse there. That said, as far as I know the primary motivation for propping up North Korea was to avoid having a more powerful, unified and pro-West Korean state on China's border.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, it's because they know that anything going down in North Korea means suddenly getting a ton more North Korean refugees. Talking about the motivation during the 90s, before China Strong
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Again, during the 90s their concern was all about dealing with North Korean refugees. South Korea was also weaker then too. They are both concerns. It's true that refugees are a huge consideration in this policy, but I guess its a matter of judgment which is the "primary" factor driving the policy, unless you're a member of the Politburo and actually know what their priorities are. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41043.pdf Congressional Research Service posted:PRC leaders have conflicting political and strategic motivations governing their North Korea policy. On the side of the ledger supporting China’s continued close relations with Pyongyang are: shared socialist political ideologies; the human and capital investment China has made in North Korea; Beijing’s credibility as a patron and ally; increased economic ties (particularly between China’s northeast provinces and North Korea’s northern region); Beijing’s desire for a “buffer” against South Korea; and the potentially catastrophic consequences for China’s economy and social structure if something goes terribly wrong in North Korea, with which China shares an 850 mile border. Congressional Research Service posted:Another collapse of North Korea’s economy (such as occurred in the 1990s) would severely tax the economic resources of the Chinese central government and, depending on how it dealt with the flood of refugees across its border with the DPRK, could shine a world spotlight on how China treats the refugees and open Beijing to increased criticism from the world community. Armed conflict between North and South Korea likewise would be disruptive to PRC economic and social interests, in addition to risking conflict between the U.S. and PRC militaries on behalf of their allies. Beijing would face a different set of challenges should North Korean political upheaval mirror the demise of East Germany, in which North and South Korea would unite under the latter’s terms. The PRC could then have a nuclear armed and democratic U.S. ally, and possibly U.S. troops and military facilities, directly on its border without the benefit of an intervening buffer state. Anyway I'm not saying that you're wrong, so please don't do your patented insufferable fishmech shitpost response.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 07:02
|
|