Regime Survival: The Bottom Line to the Kim Jong-Il Dynasty

Monday’s headline-making North Korea nuclear test only emphasized what many experts have echoed about the isolationist regime: The government will survive at all costs.

And those costs, by the best estimates, are $6 billion annually. That’s the amount the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) spends on its military – including the program that led to the apparent nuclear test on Oct. 8.
 

“I think that they believe that having nuclear weapons is central to the survival of their regime, politically and militarily,” said Dr. Marcus Nolan, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics, and a noted expert on North Korea.

Nolan said best guess estimates put Pyongyang at spending upwards of 30 percent of its annual gross domestic product (GDP – estimated at $20.6 billion in 2004) on military spending. By all accounts, that makes North Korea the most militaristic society on the planet today.

And it’s a policy that has kept the Kim family regime in charge since his father took over in 1948 following the end of World War II, when Japan vacated and the country was divided between the southern half controlled under the protectorate of the U.S. and the U.K., and the northern half, under the umbrella of the USSR. The regime has survived through thick and thin, even a famine during the 1990’s that by all estimates killed one million people.

“This is a regime that has a history of being able to survive a high degree of hardship,” Nolan said.

But could North Korea’s flagrant disregard of international condemnation mean the regime is much more fragile and closer to collapse than expected? Not likely. If anything, nuclear capabilities are one of the fundamental directives of the DPRK foreign policy, a policy which includes the eventual reunification of the Korean peninsula under the influence of the DPRK government, said Nicholas Eberstadt, author of “The End of North Korea.”

 
Comments 1 - 5 of 5  
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

Hi Anonymous: Boy, your ignorance and political bias is glaring. No offense. First, N. Korea is the most militaristic society on the planet not because of the total amount they spend on weaponry and the military, but because that amount as a percentage of the country's Gross Domestic Product is the most of any nation on the planet. While the U.S. spends billions a quarter on the military, it still accounts for less than 10% of the GDP. Secondly, what the hell is the Korean war about? N. Korea never invaded another country? So that little DMZ zone is just there for aesthetic reasons? And Iran never invaded a country? I guess that eight-year war with Iraq was just an exercize... It's people like you who need to read more and speak less.

Posted on 09/27/2007 at 9:09:00 AM

Oh, they're the "most militaristic society on the planet" now, because the "best" (maximum) estimates say they spend 6 billion on their military? Not the United States, which spends about 500 billion and invades other countries every ten years, or Japan's "self defense force" which merely spends about 45 billion. Nor could it be Israel, where men and women are both conscripted at the age of 17 and the military frequently violates the territory and airspace of its neighbors, trying its best to provoke yet another war. No, North Korea must be the "most militaristic" - along with Iran, I suppose - both of which haven't ever invaded another country.

Posted on 09/12/2007 at 6:09:00 PM

Nancy Hutto are you sure you you have not had too much mulberry wine and the weasel in your head went pop?

Posted on 02/07/2007 at 7:02:00 AM

Failures in leadership from Washington contributed to the ability for North Korea to pull off a test, and Washington needs to try to right those failures through negotiation, especially in the framework of the six part nations. On a side note, Nancy-shame on you! Has the real estate market dipped so badly that you must try to sell on a political opinion piece?

Posted on 11/04/2006 at 8:11:00 AM

Good article. My bottom line is we need to send the CIA or someone, & with the agreement of Canada, & England, (UN is worthless) take him out & continue to take new leaders out until they get a progressive leader who will make a fair democractic gov't. his #1 goal.

Posted on 10/13/2006 at 10:10:00 AM

Comments 1 - 5 of 5