If sunshine is the best disinfectant, then giving the North Korean people the same access that the rest of the world has to information about their country, its history, and the world would probably be the best strategy for change. Their compliance with their government effectively supports it more than anything else. That compliance makes sense, despite it appearing from our perspective against their long-term interests. Not complying can cost dearly. From what I hear The country's network of informants surpasses that of the East German Stasi. The government punishes your family members for your actions. Punishments can be unilateral and draconian, including lifelong imprisonment, torture, and death. No system of free speech or communication network exists to organize protest. North Korea's military is the…

I've written at length on this page on how I think direct interactions between North Korean people and people from the rest of the world increase communication and understanding between the two groups. I mentioned in my post on the ethics on visiting North Korea that I expect increasing tourism will open the country. I think such interactions could change North Korea, mainly by bringing new information to the population. The North Korean people comply with their government's systems, effectively supporting it. The government creates that support with propaganda. The histories of North Korea, its leaders, South Korea, and the United States that the North Korean government tells its population differ from those the rest of the world understands. I don't know which stories are…

I have to be careful in this post. Parts of it will sound distasteful so some. But the basic idea is the same as witness protection programs for criminals. As a society we have decided that at times we will protect criminals for their cooperation to achieve more important outcomes. North Korea's decision-makers are not criminals (everything they do is probably legal). I'm just using the analogy to explain. I noted something I believe motivates North Korea's leaders more than anything else -- from their perspective consequences of failure include their deaths as well as those of their families and probably everyone they know. We know what happens to most authoritarian leaders who lose power. North Korea's decision makers probably know very well the outcomes…

One place I could see changing things in North Korea is its relationship with China. I'm sure the lack of knowledge I show in this post will make me look ignorant, but I'll share anyway. Most of what I know about relations between China and North Korea come from three sites The Council on Foreign Relations' report The China-North Korea Relationship The Council on Foreign Relations' report The Six-Party Talks on North Korea's Nuclear Program Wikipedia's article People's Republic of China–North Korea relations The first CFR report seems to cover the main topics well. I'll distill what seem the most salient points for strategy. The main point is that China has the largest border with North Korea and it is relatively unguarded. North Korean leadership…

I've described a system where when all actors act in their interests, everybody loses, except perhaps a few dozen decision-makers in North Korea. I've described what I think won't substantively change the situation in North Korea. Yesterday I wrote about what wouldn't change things. One of the greatest lessons I learned in business school applies here, as well as to all so-called moral problems: If the system leads to only undesired outcomes, change the system. Changing a system rarely happens by changing one part of it unless the system depends on that part. To understand systems, I know of no better resource than Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows, which I recommend reading. For thoughts on how to change systems, I recommend her essay Twelve…

I have found people outside North Korea quick to express feelings of moral outrage, indignation, and injustice by judging North Korean leaders. They call them monsters, bad, evil, and so on. I have found such judgment counterproductive to influencing others (as well as my own well-being). If you don't like what's happening there and want to change it, expressing judgment may make you feel better, but you sacrifice ability to change things. I guarantee decision-makers there don't consider themselves monsters, bad, or evil. If you say they are, you polarize the situation, contribute to them digging in their heels, and stabilizing the situation you wanted to change. You may be right.They may be monsters, bad, evil, or worse. My goal isn't to label or categorize.…

Last post I pointed out the stakes to individual North Korean decision-makers. That perspective implies North Korean decision-makers are part of a larger system they have little control over and have little choice not to follow their roles within it without grave risk to themselves and everything they care about. With so little choice, what do they want? What do they pursue? Of course they want material prosperity and security, like anybody else. Kim Jung Il famously buys hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cognac annually. As individuals, they probably want to rise through the ranks, but probably in a limited way. Those desires we all anticipate. North Korea reminded me a lot of Nineteen Eighty-four, but I think the underlying systems differed. In…