|
|
Friday, March 25, 2005
Takeshima Versus Dokdo The Japanese Embassy has written a letter to the editor to complain about the Wapo's use of "The East Sea" as opposed to "The Sea of Japan" and Dokdo instead of Takeshima. (for all your Dokdo V Takeshima news see the Marmot's indepth coverage) While possibly it is understandable that the Embassy has a duty to defend its nation's position against negative press of in this case, contentious 'facts', it remains that sovereignty of title over a piece of water and a barren rock is a tad farcical. The moreso, in my most humble opinion, because the real issue is not the land or the name of the sea, but representative only of the deep-seated resentment and mistrust between these two nations. As long as petty bickering over things that barely matter continues, true reconciliation among the sentiments of the people will never be resolved. The Dokdo versus Takeshima is also different to the textbook issue. The textbooks are educational tools for the next generation and it is important to ensure a level of objectivity in these. Koreans I believe have a much bigger duty to speak up on this issue where and when appropriate. But at the same time, it is also important for the protest to be within reasonable bounds. The Korean's emotional approach to arguing their point would indicate that Japan is never going to have a textbook that is sympathetic enough of the Koreans for the Koreans to accept it. Afterall, every country has bias text books. One only needs to recall some of the propaganda in text books during the Cold War to remind us that no country is fully innocent when it comes choosing objectivity over national pride. Fighting for objectivity is important, expecting perfection in it is unrealistic.
Permalink Post a Comment
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
State, No More the Family Writ Large The matter of Korean women going abroad to have their children is not really new. As the article notes, figures are not kept on this but one travel agency tells us that, " 3,000 maternity trips were estimated in 2001, 5,000 in 2002, 7,000 in 2003, and peaked to nearly 10,000 last year." Like most trends in Korea, the uptake rate is quick and large. However, it should be noted that about half a million babies were born in Korea last year making the number going abroad still quite small. The argument goes that Korea's hypercompetitive education system and military conscription are what drives women to give birth abroad. By doing so they are granting their children a foreign passport, one that presumably leads to better opportunities in life. Apart from the obvious point that a US or Australian, or other Western nation's passport does not guarantee a successful and wonderful life there is a more poignant and disturbing issue here. By giving birth overseas these parents are undermining democracy and refusing to take responsibility for the problems in their own country. Presumably if you live in a democracy and are THAT unhappy with a government service, in this case education, then you should get involved to do something about it. But rather than demand the government clean up its act and do something about the ridiculous state of education competition in Korea, these parents shrug their shoulders as if its an inevitability that education in their country fail them and their children. Its as if they don't believe they possess the right to demand the government improve the situation. Odd coming from a country where people chop off their pinky for the right to fly the nation's flag on a rock in the ocean that nobody will see. In the face of such apathy the chances of the government changing the education system becomes very slim. If people think the best solution to Korea's education failings is to take care of themselves and let the real problem fester for others to suffer with then it seems logical that the problem itself will remain. These parents are doing their country a disservice by failing to recognise their democratic duty and they are selfish. With that kind of attitude we may expect that when the next generation is ready to have kids the Korean education system will be in the same mess it is now without any bothering to fix it up. Wednesday, March 16, 2005
US About to Appoint New Head of WB CNN is telling us that Paul Wolfowitz is about to become the new head of the World Bank: Readers of this site may guess my opinion on this but since this is my place of employment I won't add any comment. Tuesday, March 15, 2005
I don't mean to harp...but I will This is the last time (I promise) that I will comment on John Bolton's nomination to the UN. But the article has some points which I agree with. A snippet: "The president and I have asked John to do this work because he knows how to get things done," said Rice. A hard-line unilateralist and an aggressive opponent of multilateralism and international treaties, Bolton has served as the Bush administration's designated treaty breaker. From the early days of the first Bush administration, Bolton mounted a campaign to halt all international constraints on U.S. power and prerogative, fiercely opposing existing and proposed international treaties restricting landmines, child soldiers, biological weapons, nuclear weapons testing, small arms trade, and missile defense.And a bit more: In a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 1997, Bolton articulated his dismissive view of international treaties. "Treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes," he wrote, "In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations." In other words, international treaties signed by the United States should not be considered as a body of law that the United States should respect in its international engagement but rather just political considerations that can be ignored at will.The rest of the article is worth a read as well. Friday, March 11, 2005
BANDS After a slew of political posts I just thought I'd mention that I saw the Kings of Leon at the 9:30 Club last month which I thought was great and the review agreed (at the end of the article). And last night Ash played at the Blackcat which was also great. Ash is huge in Australia but their obscurity in the US guaranteed a cheap ticket and smaller crowd - bonus! Thursday, March 10, 2005
Anne Applebaum has a Wapo opinion piece defending Mr. Bolton arguing that he may just be the man to shake up this undemocratic behemoth by being his outspoken and blunt self. I see two factors that will prevent this from being the case. First is that Mr. Bolton is a nationalist and not a globalist. His “achievements” are predominantly times when he took the initiative to disregard what the rest of the world was saying and did what was in the interest of the US. There is nothing wrong with that but it seems that building up lost credibility and restoring some dignity to the UN (especially as a more democratic body) is not necessarily in the national interest of the US. What Mr. Bolton may see as being in the interest of the US is likely to not be in the interest of the UN or member countries and it is difficult to see how this might be reconciled. Second, I think it is crazy to think that one man can change the UN. Nobody denies that the UN needs reform but the ability to do so rests on gaining the support of member nations. It seems highly unlikely that change can be achieved by charging forward alone or by aggravating other members of the UN to the extent they became a greater hindrance than ever. Mr. Bolton has shown distinct lack of tact and charisma that would be needed to coax reluctant nations to join the US vision of UN changes. And he simply cannot make any changes without support from other countries. I personally do not see him as being the person who can drum up a coalition supporting change. Especially if some of those changes will diminish the power of some the nations whose support is requisite. Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Logic to make your brain explode
The most logical reason to advocate such a figure would presumably be to promote reform in the UN. Yet, despite many claims that Mr. Bolton is an intelligent man, one thing he has clearly demonstrated on so many occasions is that he is not a diplomat - this man has no tact. More disconcerting is that rather than having a record calling for UN reform, his mantra has been to call on the US to ignore, avoid, and circumvent the UN. His credibility to be a genuine mover for reform seems highly questionable. I am only comforted by the knowledge that such a position in not able to direct policy. Friday, March 04, 2005
The LA Times has run a few articles on North Korea over the last few days. Getting a lot of comment is one by Barbara Demick relating an interview with a North Korean assigned to help his country attract foreign investment. The other one getting some blog space is also by Ms. Demick and outlines what the North Koreans see as being the conditions necessary for proceeding with negotiations. Hugh Hewitt is strongly against these articles and doesn’t hold back: The Times' "media relations" director, David Garcia, sent my producer an e-mail yesterday explaining that the Times' "has published as well the perspectives on the history, the living conditions, the point of view of the U.S. government and general Western view of North Korea." We can only conclude that today's piece is another from the North Koreans' "point of view," with a little "America" point of view added on at the end.In contrast to this view, it would seem to me that hearing the opinions and views straight from the proverbial horse’s mouth is great reporting. The role of reporters is to inform us of all the hues, opinions and angles to a story. Any reporting would be lapse in the extreme if they simply provided one standpoint (in this case the US point of view). Perhaps if more of Hitler’s words and opinions had been published in Western papers there might have been fewer people willing to try and appease him and more who would have recognized the words of a nutcase. That of course is pure supposition and not intended to generate discussion - maybe he would've gotten a wider fan base - the point is you never know and journalists shouldn't try and guess. If journalists and reporters are there to inform us then it is their responsibility to tell us what each stakeholder is saying about an issue of interest and leave judgment to the reader. They should not make decisions about who is credible and who is not and they shoud certainly not print only those people they like or believe. They should, as a matter of necessity, disclose as much information as possible about who the person is, their role and background, and why they think their opinion is valid to read about. In this case, learning that the man is a North Korea assigned by the government tells us plenty about where he is coming from. Hugh also takes offense at an article that questions the credibility of political prisoners claimng that chemical weapons were used against them. Defectors and refugees are notoriously not credible. David Hawk who oversaw publication of "The Hidden Gulag" noted this when he spoke last year at Stanford. Refugees often are looking for support and asylum in the country they flee to so it makes sense for them to embellish the hardship and danger they have faced. They may be looking for fifteen minutes of fame or they may hold a personal grudge against the establishment or there may be reasons for them to make up stories which we can't guess at. The Wapo also noted recently a sob-story they had published about an Iraqi woman which turned out to be mostly bogus. The Iraqi case emphasises that stories from all sources need to understood in context and taken as hearsay (which is what it usually is). It is good sense to check facts, gain as many opinions as possible and take every story with a grain of salt. Just because someone says they have suffered horribly doesn't mean they are an honest broker. There is strong evidence to back up the stories of suffering we hear is going on in Korea but that doesn't mean that everyone with a story is telling the truth. Also at issue is the fact that the article fails to talk about the human rights atrocities going on in North Korea. However, clearly the subject of the regime's atrocities is not the topic of the "Rancor" article, the nuclear issue is. It seems unjustified to suggest that all articles on North Korea should focus on human rights. Surely there is plenty of opportunity to write on different topics from different perspectives. I think the story by Ms. Demick was great. The North Korean’s opinions seemed to fit mostly with what the US government has been saying about them. They story gives a perspective of how the North Koreans (who support the regime) see their position in this whole situation and how they expect things might progress. The North Korean’s opinion is obviously bias but his story in the context of what we have read on how US, Japan and South Korea see things, is very informative. Its also great that they are talking to US reporters and maybe being asked some tough questions that might provoke them to think more about what they believe and to ask the reporter for more information about what the US/others think of them. Thursday, March 03, 2005
Be Mature or Else I Won't Talk to You - So there! On February 10th it was reported that the North Koreans had came out blazing saying that they not only possessed nuclear weapons but they were also suspending for an "indefinite period" the six-party talks. And then on February 21st headlines informed us that the North were now saying that they will return to the talks if conditions are "mature." And since nobody had any idea what the hell that meant responses generally came via a reiteration of a desire to persevere with the thus far result-less talks. The latest (and best so far) came in today’s papers, which informed us that North Korea "called on the US to "rebuild the groundwork" for multilateral talks on its nuclear weapons programmes by apologising for labelling it an "outpost of tyranny". This comes on the heels of their famous statement that they "will go to the talks any time if the US takes a trustworthy sincere attitude and moves to provide conditions and justification for the resumption of the six-party talks". So we may conclude that after claiming to have nukes, unilaterally suspending talks, threatening to scupper their missile moratorium (among their regular antics of threatening a 'sea of fire' and more) it is the US by comparison who lacks sincerity, trustworthiness and maturity. The absurdity of this situation is staggering. Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Surprise, Surprise Prolific as ever Nicholas Eberstadt has released his latest jingoistic prose concerning North Korea via an opinion piece in the Washington Post ? “What Surprise?” And indeed his first point that the North’s declaration of possessing a nuclear arsenal was, among those following the issue, no big shakes and certainly no surprise. This concurs with my earlier post noting that the biggest surprise was that people were surprised. However, as usual, there are more points over which I disagree with Mr. Eberstadt than those I agree with and this article offers no exception. The article argues that nuclear development on the part of the North fits is in accordance with three intertwined ambitions. That is, their state of war mentality; their desire to eventually rid the peninsula of US troops (and unite it under their own regime); and to achieve their ideological vision of juche. He further argues that achieving these ends cannot be done by possessing conventional capabilities and that the threat of being able to strike the US with a nuke will fill the gap. The goal of developing long-range strike capability is given as the rationale behind North Korea’s nuclear development. If that is the case, the North Korean leaders are a bunch of dolts (something I believe to be true). Having nuclear weapons gives the North no advantage over the US. It does not improve their chances of winning the on-going conflict with South Korea. The North does not need nukes to hit the American enemy, all they need do is fire across the DMZ. Moreover, if the aim is to prompt the US to withdraw troops it is likely to do the opposite. Even if US troops withdrew, the North does not need nuclear weapons or long range ballistic missiles to be able to strike the US or even Japan to ensure that US would be engaged in any renewal of hostilities ? that is a given. Korea is not Taiwan, there is no ambiguity about US involvement. For North Korea conventional weapons are sufficient deterrent because of the damage that can so easily be afflicted on Seoul. The other idea is that nuclear weapons will drive a wedge in US-South Korea relations. Eberstadt argues that diminished credibility of US involvement in an renewed outbreak of the Korean War would upset South Korea. I’m sure it would. However, it is difficult to see how a heightened threat from the North against the South would reduce the likelihood of US resolve to maintain a commitment they have proved in blood and sustained for over fifty years with the support of the UN. If anything, in the era of pre-emptive war, the increased threat from the North only serves to strengthen the resolve of US to jump in if South Korea is attacked. The underlying message of the article seems to be that US should be more belligerent against the North, show resolve and forget about trying to make a deal and save face with the North. I also think that trying to cut a deal is all but pointless but rather than being more belligerent I believe indifference would serve the US better. The final sentence of the article states that, “For America and its allies, however, the costs and dangers of failure are higher?incalculably higher.” This statement is profoundly lacking in explanation. The nuclear weapons are presumably for deterrence and not first strike, and the North has no chance of winning in either a conventional or nuclear war. So how is it that the costs are higher to the US to let the North have their useless deterrent? Before the nuclear weapons came on the scene the US wasn’t planning to attack anyway. On the Topic of Neocons The Financial Times has a piece on Wolfowitz's chances of landing the top job at The World Bank. I would consider such an eventuality to be a decidedly unfortunate as I perceive his skills lie in fields other than development and poverty alleviation. Access to Official Records on Korea This exciting development on the release of Korean archives regarding normalisation of ties with Japan will hopefully lead to new insights into this period. Hopefully the information will generate some discussion that reaches the public either through newspaper, academia, books, etc.
|
Korea Blogs 
Newspapers |
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}