Kathreb

Friday, May 26, 2006

Lazy on the Blogging Front

I have been slack on the blogging front. It feels like I've been busy but can't quite figure out what it was that made me busy. The daily occurrences of life I expect. I went to Brighton last weekend for my birthday (happy b'day to me!) and the weekend before that I was the official minute taker for an Amnesty International meeting. Time gets away from you when the weekends are busy.

And this weekend I am going...wait for this...reenacting. That's right, dressed up for the British civil war (Parliamentarian) I am going to spend Friday to Monday camping - authentically - somewhere north of Birmingham. On Sunday and Monday we will reenact some civil war battle with some regiment of the King's army. I am armed with a camera and plan to document the event. That is if I don't die of cold.

In addition to that post I also have a couple of draft posts nearly ready so hopefully the next couple of weeks will see much more blogging that the last couple.

In sad news I read that the Flying Yangban is shutting down. He informs us that he will still be blogging via the Marmot but its not quite the same. I like and read the Marmot's site regularly but its has SO much stuff, it is easy to miss or just glance over posts on that site.

Permalink

Post a Comment

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

The Rational Choice for Developing Nuclear Weapons (or "How to read an article you don't agree with in a constructive way")

Is North Korea's decision to develop nuclear weapons rational or not? This question is simple enough. Yet is seems to encourage a lot of bickering and misunderstanding. The latest round has developed over Gaven McCormack's recent article in the Asia Times. I read this article and then I read the Korean Liberators rebuttal. And then I was confused.

My confusion was partly solved when I realised that KL starts by rebutting the article at hand but then dives much deeper and criticises other articles by Mr. McCormack. For future readability, I would humbly recommend to the KL that he start similar posts with a reading list so that we can know in advance what articles are under scrutiny.

From the start let me clarify that this entry goes through Mr. McCormack's current article in the Asia Times and parts of the KL's rebuttal only. It does not venture into other works or critcisms on other works. My entry is based on the assumption that Mr. McCormack's article is asking the question that I started with and is not, as KL seems to think an article defending North Korea’s nuclear program. By doing this I aim to highlight what I see as erroneous comments against Mr. McCormack's article. I hope this will bring the discussion back to a level where constructive argument from both sides can be addressed in a reasonable manner.

The Asia Times' article begins by noting the failure of the NPT in stopping nuclear proliferation. He says that,

In May 2005, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference collapsed in failure. . . Responsibility was equally shared by the established nuclear powers whose hypocrisy discredited the system and those outside the club seeking to justify themselves according to the superpower principle: without nuclear weapons there is no security.

Quote with emphasis taken from KL.

In the Asia Times' article Mr. McCormack goes on to point out examples to support this claim. These examples include the fact that the NPT signatories turn a blind eye to Israel's nuclear program; that India, despite not joining the NPT have become recognised and accepted nuclear states eligible to receive (civilian) nuclear technology; that nuclear arsenals are increasing, notably in the US despite commitments to decrease stocks. And then you have countries like Japan which follow the letter of the agreement by not having nuclear weapons but not quite the spirit since they have everything ready to go the minute they change their mind.

Confusion may now start to set in if you read KL's post. The next part of the quote taken by the KL from the Asia Times reads:

[Rather than North Korea] The "problem" is the United States, and the half century of hostile, violent and always intimidating confrontation from the intervention that divided Korea in 1945 and the devastating war of 1950 to 1953 to the hostility that continues to this day.

To which KL adds the comments:

The "America-made-North-Korea-do-it," argument. Rather ironic ? and problematic for that position, as circular logic often is ? that those nations currently under the most pressure, the "Axis of Evil," oddly enough, would not be in such situations if not for their illicit weapons programs.

Firstly, in the Asia Times' article this second quote appears twelve paragraphs after the first quote. So the second qutoe in fact is not discussing the failures and problems with the NPT. Nor, is it saying that 'the "problem" is the United States'. The reason the word problem is in inverted commas is because the article is discussing what North Korea thinks is the problem. In other words, Mr. McCormack is not saying that "America-made-North-Korea-do-it". He is saying that North Korea perceives that America has driven them to develop nuclear weapons in the name of self-defense. Preceding KL's quote is an important phrase which he has opted to omit. But one which I think is critical to understanding what is being argued:

from North Korea the world looks very different. The "problem" is the United States, and the half century of hostile, violent and always intimidating confrontation from the intervention that divided Korea in 1945 and the devastating war of 1950 to 1953 to the hostility that continues to this day.

It should also be noted that the quote comes under the section "The Problem of Perspective," which I think re-emphasises that the point being made is one of perception, not fact.

The argument of Mr. McCormack is simple and not new. It states that condemning North Korea as an irrational player who is entirely to blame for its own nuclear program is erroneous. Rather, it is more productive for the western world to see the rationality behind North Korea’s decision in order to better understand how why the choice was made and how the West can better coax North Korea to a different path. Or indeed if there is any point trying to do so. This article addresses what those grievances are/might be and it shouldn’t be dismissed or criticized simply because it suggests that US should consider how its own actions may be interpreted by North Korea.

At this point the KL gives up with article at hand and goes into the other readings. I am too lazy to read them (the links to the other, long articles) so I won't address his comments to the other articles.

Permalink Post a Comment

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Who has the moral high ground when it comes to human rights in North Korea?

There is growing tension between the US and South Korea over how to handle North Korea's human rights situation. In the absence of progress on the nuclear issue, human rights are starting to get much more attention. But agreement is proving as elusive in this matter as in the Six-party talks. Fundamental to the disagreement, in both cases, are the disparate priorities held by the US and South Korea.

The US favours an 'action now' policy. In early April the US State Department released "The US Record 2005-2006: Supporting Human Rights and Democracy". In the section on DPRK (under Asia Pacific) the report briefly outlines its efforts to bring the human rights issue to the fore. One measure was to appoint "a Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea under the NKHRA." The report notes that

Since his appointment [August 2005], the Special Envoy has urged other countries, including the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan, to join the growing international campaign urging the DPRK to address and improve its human rights conditions.

That Special Envoy is Jay Lefkowitz.

Part of Mr. Lefkowitz's efforts has been to talk openly against the South Korean approach to dealing with North Korea. Lefkowitz is appears frustrated that South Korea is not heeding his call for them to join the growing international campaign in urging the DPRK to address and improve its human rights condition. South Korea has been prompt to counter Mr. Lefkowitz arguing that their own strategy has merit in the context of its own priorities and that Mr. Lefkowitz is not giving credit to the progress South Korea has made. Notable bloggers The Korea Liberator and the Marmot have both made comments on Lefkowitz's comments and the Unification Minister, Lee Jeong-sok's response.

It seems that the 'growing international campaign' refers, most notably, to the General Assembly resolution passed in November 2005. The State Department report notes that

In November 2005, the United States co-sponsored a similar resolution before the UN General Assembly that condemned the country's poor human rights record, marking the first time the General Assembly passed such a resolution on North Korea.

A different source states that the EU were the sponsors and doesn’t mention US as a co-sponsor. On an informal inquiry at Amnesty International I was told that it was the EU who sponsored the resolution. But that is an aside. It doesn’t really matter if US co-sponsored or simply voted in favour. The GA Resolution, is in addition to resolutions passed by the UN Commission for Human Rights since 2003.

The international angle is a bit misleading. Mr. Lefkowitz blames South Korea for not doing enough and for not supporting the international movement. This message may be okay but it is arguably inappropriate coming from Mr. Lefkowitz - he is the US Special Envoy for DPRK. Perhaps the right person to be saying this is the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights for the DPRK, Vitit Muntarbhorn. Surely Vitit is better spokesperson for a 'growing international campaign' than the US Envoy.

The US also argues a moral high ground in pushing North Korean human rights due to its lecture series. The conference series is fronted by Freedom House. According to the report,

the first conference was held in Washington DC in July 2005. The Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs and several Members of Congress addressed the conference. At the second conference in this series, held in Seoul in December, the Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea and the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea expressed concern about the human rights situation in the country, and urged the North Korean Government to respond to growing international concern about its human rights conditions. The third Freedom House conference is scheduled to take place in Europe this spring.

I attended the first conference and would not have called it 'international'. The three main groups, as far as I could tell, were Churches, Korean-Americans, and pontificating US politicians - all US-based groups. From what I heard/understand of the Seoul one it was a similar mixture. We'll have to see what happens with the Europe one. And for all that, the international conference series is not a strong argument against Korea since South Korea has its own series of conferences going on.

This is a delicate situation. Lefkowitz has valid points to make about South Korea’s lack of support to international efforts to highlight North Korea’s abysmal human rights situation. However, even though what he says might be correct, as a US government appointee Lefkowitz lacks credibility as a voice of the growing international movement. His comments are easily dismissed by officials in South Korea as being the voice of the US rather than the international community.

Both US and South Korea have solid reasons for following their different strategies. It is unfair to suggest that South Korea does not support human rights in Korea. South Korea's strategy for dealing with North Korea reflects priorities that are different to those in the US. An approach for getting South Korea to support (assuming that 'support' can take many forms) should include encouragement, sound argument and understanding of the South Korean situation vis-a-vis North Korea; not criticism and quarrelling. As for South Korea, it is probably not accurate to suggest that Lefkowitz is ill-informed simply because he sees the situation of Gaeseong differently to the South Koreans. As for bias, of course he is bias. So are the South Koreans. Nothing is going to be solved by arguing who has the better plan or the higher moral ground for taking action. Both the US strategy and South Korean strategy are weakened by the disagreement rendering them both ultimately ineffectual.

Permalink