Resilience of the Kims

By Andrew Salmon

Last weekend, global eyes were glued to TV screens as North Korea's Workers' Party celebrated its 70th anniversary in depressingly predictable style.

Many, viewing this bizarre mutation ― a communist-polity-turned-monarchy ― doubtless wondered: "How can such a brutal, backward-looking regime resist all modern trends and continue in its third-generation?"

In fact, a widespread assumption that the Kim regime is unviable, long-term, prevails.

The White House, Blue House and innumerable pundits apparently believe that North Korea must inevitably "collapse," "implode" or "rise." Perhaps military pragmatists will seize power? Perhaps a bold insider will assassinate Kim Jong-un? Perhaps poor, desperate citizens will rebel?

Once this happens (the assumption goes), there will be instability, chaos or even civil war ― but then unification will dawn and the peninsula will advance into sunlit uplands.

Alas. If we examine recent history's worst, most ruthless, most totalitarian dictatorships, there is no proof that good prevails, that dictators inevitably meet justice.

For his murder of millions of Jews and Slavs, Adolf Hitler is reviled as history's most evil man, but although he dragged Germany into a moral and physical abyss, he was not overthrown by Germans. He survived assassination plots; an attempted military coup drew little support and collapsed immediately. Most citizens remained loyal and his soldiers fought to the end, even while Germany was pulverized from all sides. Hitler only shot himself when the Red Army stormed his ruined capital.

Hitler's nemesis, Josef Stalin, killed millions with preventable famines, purges and gulags that effectively removed opposition/potential opposition. Despite these deaths, and the mass slaughter resulting from his inept command in the early stages of Germany's invasion of the USSR, no internal player moved to topple him. After World War II, he remained in charge, dying of a heart attack.

Mao Zedong may have buried even more than both Hitler and Stalin, as a side-effect and result of his catastrophic policies. But when party elements challenged him following his disastrous "Great Leap Forward," he unleashed the "Cultural Revolution" and successfully marginalized them. He died of a heart attack, his position unchallenged.

Pol Pot, the murderous radical who oversaw Cambodia's genocide, was not challenged during the mass killings in that country. His end, like Hitler's, resulted from an external (Vietnamese) invasion. After successive defeats, his party and military crumbled. A subordinate placed him under house arrest, where he died of a heart attack or (perhaps) poison.

Saddam Hussein beggared his oil-rich country with disastrous wars against Iran and Kuwait. Yet even after the Gulf War defeat, he ruthlessly mastered rebellions in Iraq's north and south and was only (finally) dislodged by a full-scale invasion.

So, however murderous and disastrous their leadership, Stalin and Mao retained power, were never seriously challenged from within, and died peacefully. Hitler maintained Germany's loyalty; his death was a direct result of external invasion. Pol Pot and Hussein fell for the same reason.

Italy's Mussolini, Rumania's Ceaucescu and South Korea's Park were killed by internal players, while Spain's Franco, Chile's Pinochet and South Korea's Chun oversaw power transitions. But none of these leaders were as murderous as the above dictators.

Nor were their states as totalitarian as North Korea. Kim Il-sung died peacefully, unchallenged and venerated. Many South Koreans were convinced that their Northern brethren would reject Kim Jong-il's leadership after his father's death. Wrong.

American pundits then predicted collapse following withdrawal of economic support from European ex-communist states and lethal famines. Wrong again. Two military revolts took place (the "Frunze Academy" and "Ninth Corps" coups); neither came close to success. Despite presiding over his country's plunge into famine and poverty, Kim's power remained intact and he died peacefully, aboard his luxury train.

Now, we confront a third Kim.

Because he has replaced, exiled or executed several officials and generals, some believe his powerbase is fragile. Nonsense. By such logic, Hitler and Stalin could never have survived. Stalin wiped out hundreds of thousands of officials and officers; Hitler sacked countless commanders and killed thousands. In totalitarian dictatorships, terror is effective at dissuading dissenters and crushing dissent.

Let us stop daydreaming about a coup, "implosion," or rebellion: Power grabs generally fail in totalitarian dictatorships; North Korea's economy is growing; and the citizenry lack power to mobilize or challenge the state.

As for external overthrow, there is no guerilla army massing on the border, and given Beijing's support for Pyongyang (and endless other reasons) a Seoul-Washington invasion is a non-starter.

So, it is time for a rethink. We may hope that justice ― violent or otherwise ― awaits Kim, but recent history suggests otherwise. Dictators are not necessarily fated to fall.

Kim may be on Pyongyang's throne for another four decades. Given this, let us map out long-term policies based on the real situation and real politick, rather than indulging in wishful thinking and unification fantasies.

Andrew Salmon is a Seoul-based reporter and author. Reach him at andrewcsalmon@yahoo.co.uk.