|
|
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Downer Shows His Age Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer obviously went to school at a time when realism was the norm as evidenced by this article. He makes an outdated arguement and obfuscates some points. Downer's argument is that Australia is not just a "middle power" but a relevant and important player on the world stage and that Australians should be proud of such. To back up his point he reverts to realist measures of power such as economy, population, land size. He also notes military prowess but only through anecdotel evidence such as our role in East Timor and our role in the "coalition of the willing". He notes that our economy is ranked 12th in the world, our land mass is sixth largest in the world, and notes even "our weakest measure, population ranks us at about the top 25% of the world's nations. Apart from the fact that realism is no longer considered a relevant IR theory for explaining the current world, we can also see that the information is misleading and/or weakly argued. The first measure of the economy, as being in 12th place - as every Australian (should) know(s) - represents a decline in Australia's economic world rankings over the past years. Our overall economy has lost ground and at the industrial level this is also pronounced with some of our key industries such as steel, sugar and others (I'm guessing coal, and other agriculture products but am less certain on the state of these) where we ranked top or near top in the world but have declined over time relative to other economies. This is not a strength, this is cause for concern. As for land and population, aside from being outdated measurements of nation's power, our land is largely uninhabited and desert and "top 25%" in terms of population would appear to be middle power status to my mind. However, apart from the inappropriate theoretical application and archaic measures of national power applied by Downer, the underlying arguement of this article is contentious. He suggests that Australia should stand up and be counted as a bigger-than-middle-power and insinuates that to think of Australia as less than a big player is to not be proud of Australia. He states: The tendency to regard Australia as a second-class state infects baby boomer members of the commentariat, although thankfully most Australians, especially the young, remain uninfected.Well, I have a big beef with this sentiment. Firstly, to be a middle-power is a great thing and in no way does being a middle power infer that Australia is a second-class state. The link that being middle ranked is akin to second-class is unjustified. His comments on the sentiments of young people and of baby boomers is an over-generalisation and out of line. I'd like to know what he means by "wierd kinds of self-disgust". I can't comment on that since I don't understand what he means but I'm pretty sure I disagree. When it comes to our "achievements" in foreign policy he notes our use of the military in pushing for peace. He states, Not only do we refuse to apologise for our values and beliefs, we will help those in our region and beyond who aspire to the freedoms we enjoy. This has occurred, for example, through our continuing nation-building efforts in East Timor, our work to help Iraqis rebuild their country, free of tyranny and oppression, and through our engagement in dialogue on, and advocacy of, human rights.I'll steer clear of the East Timor and Iraq debates but I just wanted to put in a reminder that Australia's own human rights records towards aslyum seekers and indigenous Australians is not really anything to boast of and hardly gives us the right to pontificate to others. Particularly with asylum seekers we can notice that the policy is that those who aspire to the freedoms we enjoy better not try to enjoy them on our land. Australia is really a beautiful and wonderfully lucky country with so much going for it. It has much to do yet to improve on aspects of human rights and environment and other areas at home and it does have a key role to play on the world stage. However, that role is as a proud middle power, which we are, will probably always be, and should be grateful/happy to be. As a middle power country we have wealth, political freedom (except for Pauline Hanson who we threw in jail), access to world markets, and a competitive and vibrant economy. This is no longer a realist's world, and rather than taking stock of hard power we should be considering more carefully about our place in the new world of ad hoc international alliances, and economic interdependence. I think its a good thing it is to be an stable middle power in a world of failed states, ethnic and civil clashes, and terrorists.
Permalink Post a Comment
Friday, November 21, 2003
The Buan Riots
Buan county was the sole bidder and consequent awardee to construct a nuclear waste dump in Korea. However, the somewhat surprising outcome of this project has been the mass and intense riots that have broken out over the issue. It was only about two months ago that the mayor/county head was roundly beaten to a pulp by angry protestors over this issue. And yet the riots have continued and gotten increasingly violent with molotov cocktails and other weaponry coming into play. You can see some fairly graphic footage of the riots and read (in Korean) a chronology of events at this site. The footage is well worth viewing. The Joongang Ilbo is criticising President Roh as being too lenient. By tolerating illegal demonstrations and showing leniency, the administration might gain popularity temporarily. But the tolerance will result in the collapse of national discipline and social order. Demonstrators who use violence and the leaders of groups that lead or instigate violent rallies should be held accountable. By punishing them, we must let others who stage rallies often understand that they cannot get anything out of violent demonstrations. President Roh has reportedly said like of the project itself that the results of the scientific investigations won't come out until July next year after which the initial administrative procedures can follow but at present things are only in the preliminary stage and there are still procedures to be followed according to the law for situations like this. (or if my translating is bad, he said nothing like that at all). Now, perhaps I haven't read enough information about this but I have a large amount of questions. What was done during the bidding process by the public to express their opposition to this project? How many letters and to which levels of government were written and what was the tone and content of these? What activits have sought to engage in the political process to overturn this result? What intermediary measures were taken before arriving at the protests to overturn or express dissatisfaction with this project. And if the scientific study is still over seven months short of coming out, what exactly are they complaining about and what basis are they using to support their argument? In short: in what way and to what extent were democratic processes available to the public utilised before we got to this?
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Kickstarting Talks Stanford held the first of three panel discussions this afternoon under the rubric of "The North Korea Nuclear Crisis: The Perspective from Three Allies". This panel comprised (and I don't have the flyer with me so I'm a bit sketchy on offical position/titles) of a former Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Trade in Korea, a former negotiator for the Agreed Framework under the Clinton Administration and a person representing the Japanese point of view whose position/former position is unknown to me. After arriving late and spilling coffee all over myself and the floor (carpeted) I had missed the first two speakers. However, the guy who worked for the Clinton Administration gave some insight into the difficulty of negotiating with the North Koreans via four-way talks and surmised on the obstacles facing the larger arena of six-way talks. He also noted the deterioration of the situation compared to 1994 and how this is making things even more difficult. In particular he noted that we currently don't know where the plutonium is and that since 1994 the trust each party has in the other has declined significantly. In the question and answer part the main point of discussion was how things might evolve that would actually take us from having talks about talks to actually having talks about addressing the situation. That is, what would each party might have to do to begin meaningful discussion and how might we plan a roadmap that would outline the path along which progess can be gauged. It was mainly thought that the first step to progress would have to come from North Korea. That is, North Koreans would have to re-freeze their program and allow inspectors back in as a first step before moving on to the next point. But since that doesn't seem likely we also discussed what else might happen that would move things away from the current 'muddling through'. One possible outcome suggested was a terrorist attack with material traced back to North Korea. It was generally thought that if that was to happen then the current situation toward North Korea would definitely change (though that is more the nightmare scenario) or otherwise some other vague means that no-one currently can predict. Against any progress was the observation that, there is an absence of a timeframe, or set "markers" to map out a framework through which progress might take place. Also, there is no clear and plainly stated "red line" past which the North would know not to cross and due to the absence of these things we are likely to see more muddling through and maintennance of the current, yet tense, status quo. For the conclusion, the panel in general was 'cautiously optimistic' that the situation won't get worse. Not very encouraging but I'm inclined to agree. I don't think any party at the moment has any incentive to rock the boat for fear of creating something worse than what we currently have. Sunday, November 16, 2003
Korea IS a law Abiding Country and Movement of the Capital CAN be Justified When considering if a country is law abiding the first thing that needs to be remembered is that every country has many, many laws covering a plethora of areas. Kevin at IA had this to say on November 11th (I'm sooo behind in blog reading this is a bit dated; I do apologise) In the same way that I wouldn't bother to read an editorial in a French paper called FRANCE IS A NATION WITH BACKBONE or one in a Japanese paper titled JAPAN DENOUNCES CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, I simply stopped reading right after I saw the headline of an editorial in the Korea Times, titled humorously enough, KOREA IS A LAW-ABIDING COUNTRY.I did take the time to read the article because when I read the title of the article my instinct was to agree with the statement rather than throw it out of hand as Kevin did. Now, I think the reason for that is this: I'm guessing that when Kevin read the heading he thought of the high rates of corruption in the country's political and business circles and came to the quick conclusion that Korea is not a law abiding country. On the other hand, when I read the title, I immediately agreed with the comment as my thoughts went straight to street level crime and the safety of Seoul and other major metropolisis throughout Korea. I thought of street crimes, women's safety issues, car-jackings, pick pocketing, muggings, guns, etc. I recalled how I often walked down the streets lighted or dark with a complete sense of safety at any time due to the very low rates of street crime. I recalled how I often left my bag at a desk and could leave it there in the knowledge it would not be touched or the number of times people have picked up my phone or wallet after dropping it to return it to me. To me, Korea is a law abiding place where people respect properiety and person much more than I have witnessed being the case in "western" countries. But then there is the article itself. What the article was actually referring to was the recent illegal street demonstrations and tendency to violence, particularly the use of molotov cocktails, during said assemblies. Of the demonstrations it says: The KCTU leadership called for the demonstration in the heart of Seoul to stop employers from provisionally seizing the property of unions in damage suits against their illegally-staged labor strikes and to demand the abolition of what they claimed was discrimination against irregular workers.Thats quite a broad agenda. But of course the main concern of all this violence according to the editorial: What would foreigners as well as ordinary citizens think upon seeing the burning streets during peace time, not war time. The article tried to argue (to its 'foreigner' readership) that the protests were selfishy motivated and the perpetrators should not be regarded as being typical and that everyday law abiding Koreans do not condon or engage in such activities. I agree that Korea is a law abiding country to the extent that we can label a whole country as being law abiding or not. We see violent racially motivated riots, and hooliganism in UK, gang shootings, serial killers, and high level corruption in US, violent demonstrations in France and Italy with burning cars and the like, yet I think we generally consider all those countries to be law abiding. I don't see Korea as being more or less law abiding. And I think that the safety of the streets in Korea should be the envy of other nations. Shifting the Administrative Capital
When I first head about Roh's idea to shift the admin capital from Seoul to Daejon I was appalled. Mostly because I worked for the admin and the thought of shifting to Daejon was way less than appealing. Fortunately, like the five day work week, I left before any action was taken. And although I didn't like the idea I could see that there was a practical arguement behind it and that there are some clear benefits to this idea. But first, Goldbrick in Seoul gives us the con side to the argument. Its too expensive, its not conveniently located and he also argues that shifting all the branches of government and not just the executive defeats the purpose of decentralisation. Mr Goldbrick in Seoul also notes: Thank goodness the People's Participatory President has single-handedly decreed that the capital of Korea, which has been in Seoul since about 1392(!), must move out of here just because he says so. Firstly, it is true that it is expensive but so too is the massive concentration of population and infrastructure in Seoul at the expense of other areas. In 1995 when local government was re-introduced to Korea the underlying objective was to achieve more balanced growth across the peninsular and stem the tide of urbanisaiton and mobility toward Seoul. Still nascent, efforts to this end have been underway ever since with mixed results. The move of the admin capital would be a huge step toward boosting another area outside of Seoul and taking pressure off Seoul itself. Reducing traffic and improving quality of life for those in Seoul via a population shift surely should be counted in a cost benefit analysis of this proposal and not just the $ amount. This move would be part of the broader plan of decentralisation and was part of the mandate upon which he was elected. I don't think its quite fair to say that it is solely Mr Roh's doing that is driving this matter. And while Seoul has long been the capital of Korea, that certainly doesn't mean you can't adjust to new circumstances or practicalities and shift the admin part. Seoul is way over-populated and stressed and could benefit alot from this move. Secondly, I think the decentralisation aspect is to separate business and government centres rather than executive branch from judicial and legislative. For example, countries like Australia, and US (and maybe China) are cases where the government (executive, judicial and legislative) are in one city (Canberra, Washington and Beijing) while the business centres are elsewhere such as Sydney, Melbourne, New York, and Shanghai. The decentralisation then is not of the brnaches of government to different cities, which would arguably be unworkable but rather, from government and business. In the case of Korea where the business - government ties are seen as being too close anyway, such a move seems to be justified as a means of weakening those ties. The last point made was the inconvenient access to the proposed new admin capitals. The argument presented here was quite good and I agreed with it totally...until I this Korea Times article which shows the plans to extend the fast rail system to the admin capital whichever one it becomes. This new development would negate the worries of how to get easily to and from the new admin capital. But after saying all that, I don't actually want to see the move of the admin capital away from Seoul. I can't justify my opinion on practicalities as I think the move make sense and is perhaps even over due. But I do think that shifting the admin will take away from Seoul part of the essence of what makes it such a vibrant and interesting place to live. Thursday, November 13, 2003
Washington action toward North Korea The FCNL is an organisation that lobbies in Washington on various issues including North Korea. I;m not saying I agree or disagree with the stuff on the site but I thought it had some interesting sources. We got to hear about their activities a little on Korea Peace Day (Nov 6th) from Karin Lee who gave a talk for the event. She also mentioned this testimony by Michael Horowitz which is an interesting read. And of course Free North Korea is always a good site and also links to the worthwhile report on The Hidden Gulag. There is also discussion coming out about the North Korea Freedom Act. Mostly I get the understanding that this is being supported and lobbied by religious groups. It hasn't as yet (as far as I know) come out formally and so there is no official debate, notably from South Korea on this matter yet. Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Studying in America The Institute of International Education has issued a report on the demographics of international students in USA which the Joongang Ilbo has addressed (in Korean). Which according to my dodgey Korean, says somehting like: Chinese, Indian, and Korean students make up the top three for students studying abroad in America.. It also goes on to say that there are about 586,323 foreign students studying in America of which 55,519 are Korea, representing about 9%. Also by continent, Asians are the greatest source of international students making up around 51%, Europe 13%, Central and South America 12%, Africa 7% and the Middle East 6%. The most popular subject chosen by students studying abroad is Busness Administration at 20% followed by engineering at 17%. Of course, all that is according to my dodgey translating and its late at night so, if possible, read the article. This is hardly surprising stuff though. The fervor with which Koreans work to get into US universities is pretty amazing. The Korean Government also issues scholarships competitively to send a certain number of public servants each year to study abroad - the majority going to US to do business admin, public policy, or economics. I used to think there was little need to study abroad in US but after living in Korea and talking to so many people who had spent time here to study I changed my mind to the extent that I decided to do the whole study-in-US thing myself. I think value of studying abroad cannot be overestimated. Saturday, November 01, 2003
In Brief CNN is reporting that a guy has been arrested for exporting use in North Korea. Fred Kaplan at Slate has comments about Hwang Jang Yop. I think Mr Hwang is due to give his talk at the Senate sometime this week which may prove interesting reading. And finally, Congressman Curt Weldon and co who were planning their second Peace Tour to North Korea have had their plans scuppered by the White House.
|
Korea Blogs 
Newspapers |
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}