Traits characteristic of Koreans

There are a few interesting conclusions to take away from this article, "A Comparison of the Korean Minorities in China and Japan." . While it does look somewhat dated (and hence, we don't know how the exact conditions have changed in the two autonomous Korean(Joseon) Prefectures in China, we can grab that:

1. As table 1 shows on page 6, Koreans have not really lived in Manchuria for centuries.

Second, I know that Bruce Cumings devotes an entire chapter in Korea's Place in the Sun to argue against the labelling of Korean-Americans as a model minority group and trying to defend the diversity of Korean-Americans as a "group." Though here, and it may come off as a surprise, but according to I believe the 2000 U.S. Census Data, Korean-Americans are actually the poorest income "group" among Asian-Americans. Of course, it's 4:28 a.m4:51a.m. Sunday Morning here, and I'd rather not try to look it up now, but I remember seeing it from the U.S. Census Bureau website itself somewhere, sometime ago.According to data from the U.S. Census bureau, we have that Korean-Americans are one of the poorer minority groups with an income below that of not only other Asian-American groups, but also of the average American household.

But, what's interesting is to see the parallels between what this paper finds and how it stacks up to how ethnic Koreans are perceived or how Koreans are expected to be in the United States. Considering that China too is a very diverse, multiethnic country and that, at least on paper, the Chinese have a similar definition of identity as that of the United States, I'd like to argue that it can be shown that the expectations or beliefs that Americans may hold towards Korean-Americans can indeed be validated. We can show by seeing if these same expectations can be confirmed from data found among ethnic Koreans living in China (Joseon-jok, 조선족). Hence, we have that:

In terms of achievement in standardized tests and percentages of high school and college graduates, the Koreans not only do better than any other minority group in China, they also outperform the Hans, the majority group in China. For example, 175.3 Koreans completed four years of college per 10,000 Koreans six years old and over, compared to 72.9 for the total Chinese population and 31.6 for all minorities (C. Lee, 1986)

Now, I couldn't get the primary source for this data, but based on what is said here, it wouldn't be to hard to say that Koreans as a people very much value education (I can also recall reading that another source puts South Korea as being the largest source nation of foreign students in both China and the United States). Recall that South Korea is half a country of less than fifty million. I'd also argue that by extension that this also quantifies the argument that Koreans have been most influenced by neo-Confucian values and institutions as well as a number of other conclusions. But, I'll leave that for either a future posting and/or to the reader..

With respect to why I changed the name of the title: The term model minority group is just one interpretation and not necessarily one I am in favor of. Though what I am saying is that it if can be argued a model minority group is defined by a certain set of desirable characteristics and these characteristics can then be found to describe a certain minority, then it could also be argued that this group constitutes a model minority group. Nonetheless, I feel I am treading on thin ice here and I feel the title takes away from what I'm trying to say here so that's the reason why I changed the title from "A model minority group." Anyways, I wrote the exact reasoning here.

The Power of Words and of Democracy, Japan, and Sarah Palin

I remember a few years back during the Good Ol' Days we had ... a George W. Bush as president of the White House. I didn't really appreciate what people meant when they believed the United States was the country most dangerous to world security and stability at that point in time yet. (See my post America the Dangerous). By the way, just as in the post below, please send me corrections. I would hate to think that I would be propagating something untrue.

Ahh. Those were the good ol' days. The U.S. economy was booming (after a sharp, but short-lived contraction after 9-11). Well, the U.S. President at the time, George W. Bush was in Japan for a summit with then Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi (I guess those were the good ol' times for Japan too... at least on a relative basis, considering the past twenty years now).

Oh, and on a side note, for those thinking the decline of the LDP and the recent dissolution of the Diet in Japan after the humilitating defeat of the ruling LDP in recent elections in Tokyo is the start of a new multiparty democratic regime in Japan.

Think Again.

Compare how Shinjiro Koizumi (former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's son has been "annointed" to succeed his father). This is straight from the Japan Times (Kim Jong Un is the son of Kim Jong Il reported to succeed his father once he returns to Mount Paekdu as the next ruler of the North Korean regime) :

"And, as Aera pointed out, the strategy for making sure Koizumi Junior gets the seat is strikingly similar to the one currently being carried out in North Korea. Even if Shinjiro is Koizumi's second son and not his third, he's 28 years old, the same age as Jong Un and Hidetada when they were picked for their jobs" ("My son, I give you power over the people" : Japan Times).

Anyways, well, when George W. Bush was in Japan, he did something amazing; he confused the word "devaluation" with "deflation." You see, Japan had been experiencing problems of falling prices -- deflation, for a very long time and it was the biggest issue in Japan at that time. So, if he were to meet the Japanese Prime Minister, it would be quite natural to talk about U.S. backing for Koizumi's strategy to flight deflation.

But, during the press conference after the summit:

"A remark by US President George W Bush about "devaluation" in Japan has caused confusion in the currency markets. The yen fell as some traders interpreted the comment as meaning the US favoured a devaluation of the Japanese currency" ("Bush gaffe hits yen" : BBC)

His exact words were:

"He [Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi] said I want to make it very clear to you exactly what I intend to do and he talked about non-performing loans, the devaluation issue and regulatory reform and he placed equal emphasis on all three" (Feb. 18, 2002).

The problem, you see, though, is that there was no devaluation issue at the time (Where, the U.S. would tacitlty approve a Japanese policy of trying to rid deflation by the Japanese Central Bank lowering the value of the Yen versus the Dollar -- in effect, exporting Japan's economic problems, which of course, the U.S. was not in favor of).

Ironically, that is exactly what the U.S. seems to be doing. But, more on this perhaps some time in the future since I just started studying this (it's basically what the second half of the course I am taking about is: EC321: Money and Banking), so in all fairness I don't really have an informed opinion.

But, on paper though, the U.S. enjoys an Exorbitant Privilege as the U.S. enjoys the ability to issue debt in her own currency (dollars) andat lower comparative interest rates (for example, treasury bills are considered safe debt to own) so depreciation is much more beneficial to the U.S. than say it would have been for Japan (but on a personal level, I think Japan should be commended for not depreciating her currency during this time when competitors in China and particularly South Korea went through a period of protracted depreciation, either explicitly (Korea) or implicitly (Japan)).

Of course, the fact that he "misspoke" cost like I believe a sharp drop in the value of the Yen, but the fact that one wrong word by this President led to billions of losses (or gains) by investors who were taking George W. Bush's words seriously is/was a pretty scary thought -- Thank God that there is no chance of a Palin adminsitration:

"This bombshell was unexpected, and makes it highly unlikely that she will ever be president" ("The passing of Palin" : Economist)

Anyways, when I first read that I just couldn't believe it. How on Earth could this not have gotten more media coverage? No, not with respect to Sarah Palin. That's more like (How on Earth could she have gotten so much media coverage?) But, more interestingly, here's this word that when spoken recklessly and carelessly by one person it has the power to affect all those that take him/her seriously -- especially if we are speaking of billions, well trillions, of yen.

North Korea, Koreas Update

On the North Korean front:

Nothing exciting to speak of as North Korea really is running out of things to do, firing missiles on July 4th has been done before and no missile came close to Hawaii. Kangnam I safely returned back to North Korea. But, what has recently begun appearing on the news is if the North Korean succession story is for real or just to grab Hillary Clinton’s (United States) attention. More on this later.

South Korea – Japan held a summit. Of course, nothing came of it since still the dominant relationships in East Asia are still the bilateral relationships with the United States. Of course, what should be interesting for Korean nationalists, whose national psyche or “han” has not fully healed yet, is how they react to the trilateral meeting between the United States-China-Japan that will be held shortly. Previous overtures by China on such a meeting were declined on the part of the United States to assuage South Korean insecurities. However, with the financial crisis the United States consented this time.

With this in mind, South Korea’s foreign policy priority number one should still solely be on unification and nothing else. Ideas such as being a neutral or balancing party (former South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun) or of building closer ties with ASEAN (South Korean President Lee Myung Bak’s New Asia Initiative) might seem great, but it’s just fanciful(wishful) thinking on the part of a confused half nation. This has been a repeated theme in this blog. Zhiqun Zhu writes:

“Korea's dream to become a leading player in international affairs will also likely be wishful thinking if the nation remains divided. Nevertheless, Lee, just like Roh, is commendable for his attempts to enhance South Korea's international profile and to contribute to peace and development in Asia” (South Korea in a new Asia initiative Asia Times).

China is NOT the key to North Korea

I'm actually in the middle of studying for a make up test later today, so I have a flight in a few hours, but this editorial caught my eye. To be honest, it’s flimsy editorials like this one that make me want to write this blog. I can’t find exactly who the author is, but somehow it made to the Los Angeles Times.

"North Korean leader Kim Jong Il decided long ago that nuclear weapons were his best protection against an external threat of regime change" ("China is the key to North Korea" Los Angeles Times).

A couple posts down, I describe why South Korea’s foreign policy is held hostage at least with respect to North Korea due primarily to the location of Seoul. But, what I didn’t mention in that post was how while the United States could attack North Korea without much risk to being attacked at home, U.S. foreign policy too is held hostage to the fact that there are still about 28,500 U.S. soldiers in South Korea. An invasion by North Korea with or without nuclear weapons would not only destroy Seoul, but kill most of those U.S. soldiers overnight. Former President George W. Bush was told this exact same thing by former Saudi Ambassador and Crown Prince Bandar (Check out Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III ). If twenty thousand U.S. soldiers died overnight from a North Korean invasion, then there would be no need for a congressional or public debate about the need for a U.S. invasion of North Korea. It would be done (Another reason why as I wrote earlier that Extended Deterrence was solely for propaganda purposes).

If North Korea has artillerly that can flatten Seoul and kill 28,000 thousand American soldiers and about twenty million living Koreans overnight, then this should be enough to protect against a "regime change." Then which country would have the most to lose if North Korea actually developed a full-fledged nuclear program? So, it’s not the U.S. and it’s definitely not South Korea. Japan, maybe? Recall the United States decision to notify Japan only twenty minutes before taking North Korea off the list of states sponsoring terrorism. The only terrorists North Korea actually harbored were those of the Red Army (Communist Japanese Terrorists). And, moreover, if Japan feels it “necessary” that to protect against North Korea that Japan too needs nuclear weapons, when of course, the country doesn’t (remember, Extended Deterrence covers Japan as well), then who loses?

China.

So, if China would lose out the most if North Korea developed nuclear weapons and China is not doing too well as the more North Korea backtracks the more China’s lack of power shows (i.e. failure of six party talks, continual and unending foreign aid from Beijing), then does China really have the power to do anything in North Korea?

Perhaps. But, what if North Korea had let’s say dozens of nukes that couldn’t go thousands of miles, but could fit on its Rodong missiles that could hit Beijing?

So, no. It is to protect the North Korean regime from a China rather than a United States and China does not have the power to change North Korean policy and will see the country’s ability to do anything at all get smaller and smaller as North Korea’s nuclear program matures.

Anyways, I will be taking a break for a few days – unless I see articles like this again, and I will actually be flying on July 4th with more than a slight bit of irony to London to attend summer school there for the next 6 weeks.