By Tom Plate
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. ― War, natural disaster and stupid manmade accidents are always but a snap of the fingers away.
A fierce hurricane levels some parts of proud Texas, and a railroad routing error triggers a killer train collision in California. Even seemingly eternal symbols could be here today and then gone tomorrow.
Who's to say that the leaning Tower of Pisa might not some day lean over a bit more and topple down on all the linguine below?
Who or what might unnerve the almighty Eiffel Tower and bring French pride down to size? And we all know what happened to New York's Twin Towers, once such steely symbols of capitalism.
Such volatility is present too with the seemingly unchanging geopolitical icon known generally as North Korea: Like the Berlin Wall, its leader Kim Jong-il has looked like a strongman who would never fall. Unlike the Wall, in point of fact, he still hasn't fallen.
But last week the son of the founder of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea started to look shakier than ever. Reports stated he has suffered a bad stroke and might never regain his former self.
The unexpected news, which rattled the watching world, inadvertently raised the question of whether it would be indeed a good or bad thing if Kim actually regained his old self. And this is a seriously tough question.
On the one hand, consider the sheer selfishness of the political-self known as Kim ― heading an isolated elite floating in strawberries and cream, while his lesser people scratch at the bark on trees to survive. What an egalitarian communist paradise!
On the other hand, consider the view of the North from the people living in the 40-times more prosperous and a little over twice more populated Republic of (South) Korea. There, many Koreans fear dire consequences if Kim does not regain his old self-confident self.
Would a coup in the Northern capital of Pyongyang lead to an even meaner, madder leader? Or might it lead to an utter, crumbling collapse of the North?
The South Korean worry is that the North's collapse would land on them, like a colossal and historic socioeconomic avalanche.
Kim is in his mid-60s; no one lives forever. Something or someone will someday take his place. At least the incumbent Northern maniac keeps the South from having to welfare-ize the North like a rich nanny to a pathetic orphan.
For America, Kim's death could actually sap the life out of the six-party talks with the Bush administration, which has rightly placed its diplomatic chips in the effort to reduce the North's nuclearization.
Dictators in general are very bad ideas except for one item: They are generally and almost always by definition dictative ― i.e., decisive. They can make decisions. As a matter of fact, they are usually the only ones who can make important decisions.
Note that these otherwise productive talks, hosted by China in Beijing, have once again stalled. Is the reason that Kim's cranial stroke put everything in Pyongyang on hold? Or is it that the North Koreans are simply waiting for the U.S. election to produce the presidential successor with whom they will have to deal?
No doubt they are also watching political developments in Japan, their historic enemy, which itself is in the throes of finding a new prime minister. Students of the six-party talks (China, Russia, South Korea, North Korea, Japan and the United States) will observe that currently, the governments of three of the six have a big question mark at the top.
For serious American diplomats, like D. Kathleen Stephens, none of this is academic or unimportant. For her and her State Department colleagues, the non-nuclear normalization of the Korean Peninsula would be like a dream come true.
Stephens, America's new ambassador to South Korea, who is about to take up her new post in Seoul, might as well earmark a small percentage of her Foreign Service pension to the charity of her choice if North and South Korea could be reconciled during her watch.
We spoke with her here in California as she was preparing to move on to her new job. What an amazing woman! Smart, funny, experienced, fluent in Korean ― perhaps it is time to revisit the stereotype of the unqualified Ugly American diplomat?
In fact, the roster of past U.S. top diplomats in Seoul has included formidable figures, such as Donald Gregg, James Lilly and Stephen Bosworth. We have met them all and we like them all, if perhaps for differing reasons.
Ms. Stephens, the first woman ambassador to the Republic of Korea, thus continues a formidable tradition. Who could not wish her every success?
And we're sure she wouldn't mind our mentioning one little comment of hers in an otherwise off-the-record conversation Friday. It is related to the condition of Kim Jong-il.
The comment was to the effect that peace will never come to the Korean Peninsula unless in North Korea there is someone or somebody who can make a darn decision ― a decision about war or peace, stability or instability, nuclearization or normalization.
If Kim does topple, of natural or other causes, will North Korea become more decisive or less? It's a very good and significant question.
Syndicated columnist Tom Plate is writing a book on Asia. He can be reached at platecolumn@gmail.com