|
|
Sunday, March 26, 2006
A New PM for Korea President Roh has nominated the former Minister-ess of Gender Equality Han Myeong Sook to become the next PM and the first female PM. Some may remember the debacle of the last female candidate and the debate over her obfuscated cv. This time, the opposition GNP is calling for her to renounce her party membership. It seems that she won't be doing this and is expected to win the nomination without too much hassle. I would've thought that the pre-requisite of the National Assembly to approve the PM candidate should be an inability and open dislike of the game of golf. Since the former PM and quite a few MPs have already clearly demonstrated an inability to tell the difference between appropriate times to enjoy a game as opposed to inappropriate times and the company they keep on the golf course. I don't know if Ms Han is a golfing gal or not but if I were her I'd campaign on a platform boasting no golf membership. Every Little Bit Helps Given the abundance of spare time I am currently enjoying I thought I would spend some of volunteering for a good cause. I only started last week on a part-time basis but am already glad with my decision to help out.
Permalink Post a Comment
Friday, March 17, 2006
Let the Games Begin!
The 18th Commonwealth Games have opened in Melbourne Australia. Its only been going a couple of days but so far Australia has shown its sporting prowess by taking an early lead in the medal tally. It is, of course, expected that Australia will win the Games but our early lead should be put in perspective. The swimming is our strongest sport and that is up first. When the athletics part starts up Australia usually doesn't shine quite so bright. And kudos to the Scottish swimmers who have been putting on a fine show. The TV commentators tell us that the Scottish success in the swimming pool is a reflection of years of improvement and hard work by the Scottish swim team. Thursday, March 16, 2006
North Korea: The Musical Raising awareness of human rights abuses in North Korea is important work. Spreading the message is central to fostering support and prompting people to action. From this perspective it may be thought that, as the old saying goes, any publicity is good publicity. But is this really true? Is it possible to undermine a serious message because of the medium through which the message is sent?
"Yoduk Story" a musical about a North Korean gulag has opened in South Korea. The controversial nature of the topic initially ran foul of South Korean officialdom. The musical also generally didn't truck with government policy of trying not to aggravate the North Korean regime. The South Korean officials noted that the play "dwells too heavily on the negative aspects of the camp". Although it is not easy to guess what positive aspects of the camp might exist that could be highlighted as well. Fortunately common sense and respect for freedom of speech won the day. The story covers the imprisonment of a dancer and subsequent horrors faced once in the camp. The dancer is sent there because her father is accused of spying. I don't want to give the story away but it seems that rape, maiming and death are all involved. I am unaware if musicals have guidance ratings but this one sound like a PG or even MA for sure. This is not the first musical to focus on a serious topic. Earlier works have looked at dark issues including "Oliver!'s homeless orphans in Dickensian London, or The Sound of Music's Von Trapp family harmonizing its way out of Nazi-occupied Austria." But when we think of Oliver it is not usually the tragedy of poverty, homelessness and advances in the social welfare systems that come to mind. It is more likely the larrikin antics of the Artful Dodger. After viewing the Sound of Music one is more likely to walk away with an image of whiskers on kittens than be outraged at Nazi Germany. It is difficult to take a topic seriously when the characters burst into a toe-tapping song and dance routine. That is not to say that a musical about North Korea is not a good idea. It is an odd idea, but not a bad one. The musical is reportedly a tear-jerker which may indicate that it refrains from a more upbeat ending than some musicals. Although, Jung [the director] insists that he doesn't expect "Yoduk Story" to be depressing to South Korean audiences. "It will make them realize what happy lives they have here." I'm not absolutely sure what the point of that message would be. The ol' 'you think you got it bad, look at these suckers' message always seemed rather pointless to me. People are generally too selfish to think in such relative terms. It will be interesting to see how it is actually received in South Korea. As a campaign tool in the struggle to raise awareness of human rights abuses in North Korea it will surely be an interesting case study. Maybe it will spark a new line of docu-musicals for the future: morbidly depressing stories told through the medium of song. It also strikes me that if the musical's program includes information not just on the actors but also the real story which they are portraying and information on steps they can take or groups they can contact would be a practical step. US-Korea FTA Update Extra to the piece I did before about the US-Korea FTA: The Yangban has written a piece on the potential difficulties in finding an agreement on the Gaesong Industrial Park. And Dram Man gives an Economic History 101 piece to put the free trade idea in perspective. The title is labeled Part One so we can expect further fascinating instalments from him on this topic. Can't wait! Friday, March 10, 2006
The M&A Debate There has been a recent flurry of news in Korea over the unsolicited bid for KT&G. The issue of hostile takeovers of companies by foreigners is a story being mimicked around the globe. The US has been in a frenzy over the Dubai ports deal which has been rejected on the ground of national security. Europe too is caught up in a web of hostile takeovers. Although "the European laws protect the free movement of capital, allowing companies to invest money where they choose" that premise has come under fire. France has gone so far as to list industries which it says it needs to protect for the sake of national security. Since the KT&G hostile bid Korea has been engaged in a tough debate regarding its stance on unwanted foreign interest. The bid on KT&G has brought about concerns of similar attacks on companies such as POSCO and the state of regulations regarding foreign investment in Korea. Part of the problem, some say, is that since the financial crisis in 1997 the Seoul stocks are too attractive inviting short-term profit grabbing over long-term commitments. In the Korean case, KT&G can hardly be defended on the grounds of national security. It seems unlikely that those calling for greater protection are going to win this case. Especially since it seems Korea has an (unrealised) ambition of being a financial hub (although apparently it has achieved hub status in one area). It would seem that Korea need only look to US and EU to see that this debate is never going to be resolved. As long as you allow hostile M&A you will have people who think the rules are too lax and people who think they are too tight. You can drag out the ol' 'national security', or 'infant industry' or 'multifunctionality' parlance but its all the same thing. Thursday, March 02, 2006
No Pictures I am informed that my pictures aren't showing. Fine. I may or may not find time to work on this over the weekend. In the meantime just pretend there is a picture of Big Ben and parliament in the banner. US-Korea Free Trade Agreement It is a big mystery to me as to why countries engage in negotiations with the US over supposed "free" trade. No country actually gets any economic good out of it as the US usually tramples all over the inevitably poorer country. I had the good fortune to tell an Australian Congressional liaison who was on Australia's negotiating team for the US-Australia (not so) free trade agreement what a terrible job I thought he and the Australian government had done on that one. He felt it appropriate to dismiss my comments as being spoken in ignorance. I felt is appropriate to dismiss his comments as being spoken in arrogance. If you do wish to follow the events the current negotiations then it seems that Korea Economic Institute has set up a resource site devoted to this topic. At the outset it looks like the negotiations are going to be a rollercoaster ride. A bumpy,jolting, uncomfortable one. Especially if the US thinks it can bully Korea into a deal within one year - that kind of stuff could lead to protests if Roh is silly enough to sign off on a bad deal in short time rather than hang out for a better deal. London Theatre
And last night we saw the comedy, The Creeper. This story revolved around an eccentric old man who hired a seemingly shy and quiet guy to be his companion but who turned out to be more than just a little creepy. It was extremely well done and highly entertaining. Bush in India - The pitfall of adopting an ad hoc nuclear policy President Bush has arrived in India and top of the agenda was the matter of India’s nuclear power. When India’s PM Singh visited Washington last July he was promised that America would share civilian nuclear technology with them. In exchange, India would not export weapons technology and would continue to observe a moratorium on testing. India would also separate civilian and military programmes with the former being subject to an inspection regime. From this background Bush travelled to India and has made a more concrete agreement. This is a momentous agreement: “The agreement, reversing three decades of U.S. policy, would acknowledge India's status as a nuclear military power while clearing the way for cooperation on civilian nuclear energy. Sealing the deal, which requires congressional approval, would remove a major obstacle to closer ties between the two countries.” The key matter here is that this deal was done despite the fact that under American and international law the sharing of civilian nuclear technology can only be exchanged with countries that have “renounced nuclear weapons and joined the NPT”. India has never been party to the NPT and it tested weapons in 1998. IF India were perceived by the US as a threat or enemy the posture of the US would surely be very different. It has gone further than even Iran and North Korea. Unlike Iran, it already has a military nuclear program. Unlike North Korea it has never signed the NPT and has tested nuclear weapons. India too remains in a heightened state of tension with Pakistan, also a nuclear power, over Kashmir. And unlike Iran and North Korea, US is in a very tight balancing act trying to be allies with both Pakistan and India. This position would be impossible to sustain if relations between the two deteriorated into conflict. Yet, for all this India is not seen as a threat (ie: threat as defined in terms of US interests). The precedent of Bush’s deal with India on nuclear technology is poor. The bad reasons for being buddy-buddy with India are to cash in on its economic growth and potential, and that US can’t do anything to stop India’s military nuclear program. The only good reason is that it is a democracy. But again, India has long been a democracy and US interest in it now is hardly a reaction to India’s domestic political processes. From this Iran and North Korea may gain some insights and lessons. Firstly, is the reinforcement of the notion that it is better to deal with US when you have nuclear weapons than when you don't. Second, there is no need to join the NPT as India didn't need to and has now become a recognised and accepted nuclear power. Also US pays no heed to it when it doesn't suit them to either. In fact it begs the questions of who exactly is paying any attention any more to the NPT. Thirdly, if you can couple your nuclear program with economic growth or promises of market opening US is more likely to become your ally than your enemy.
|
Korea Blogs 
Newspapers |
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}