What to expect from Clinton's "Summit"

And, Kim Jong Il Gets What He Wants... (Which is ? Scroll to the way bottom)

While former President Clinton goes to North Korea (as an unoffical guest, which is quite convenient for the U.S.), Kim Jong Il finally gets his one-on-one encounter with a (former, Democratic) U.S. president -- before he dies. It made all the headlines here in the U.K. as well, however I couldn't find an equivalent of the one they had at over at the Economist. I nabbed the picture below from "North Korea: Pictures from an exhibition" : The Economist.

At any rate, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il finally got the attention he so craved. While reading one of the U.K. dailies today, I came across this one part, which I thought was quite funny. These are insults that have been traded between the U.S. and the North Korean regime at one point or another:

Kim Jong-il may have been all smiles and handshakes with Bill, but just a few days ago his regime was in something of a slanging match with the other Clinton.

On a recent visit to New Delhi, Hillary, the Secretary of State, bemoaned the North Korean leadership's "constant demand for attention," before adding: "Maybe it's the mother in me or the experience that I've had with small children and unruly teenagers."

The North Koreans' response was firm. "We cannot but regard Mrs Clinton as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric, unaware of the elementary etiquette in the international community," a spokesperson said. "Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes like a pensioner going shopping."

The name-calling between Washington and Pyongyang is not new. George W Bush branded Kim Jong-il "a spoiled child at a dinner table". The North Koreans called Bush a "tyrannical imbecile" lacking "even an iota of elementary reason". And in 1968, North Korea's Major-General Pak Chung Kuk called Lyndon Johnson a "living corpse" ("Two U.S. journalists freed from Korean gulag" : The Independent).

At any rate, there was a lot of press coverage, but with expectations suddenly raised between North Korea and the U.S., although I feel I am a quite an optimist by nature, I cannot be more than a tad pessimistic about what may lay ahead. This "summit" has all the elements that the Koizumi-Kim summit had in 2002 when Koizumi suddenly and unexpectedly arrived in North Korea for a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il for the release of Japanese abductees. Of course, none at the time and nobody more so than former Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi could have anticipated how adversely the Japanese public would consume the news that their citizens had indeed been abducted.

Personally, I believe what will drive North Korea-U.S. relations as well as with the other four parties from the six party framework, is how each party comes to accept the fact that North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons. This stands in stark and direct conflict with the fact that the United States will never accept North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power along the lines that the U.S. has with India -- and rightly so.

But, I do believe the U.S. would be content to see a steady-state where North Korea has nuclear weapons, but doesn't share/sell nuclear weapons or technology to other countries or non-state actors. Of course, this would hinge on North Korea not testing nuclear weapons (you can see this as the U.S. -- I'm thinking Department of Defense here, which has a different definition as to what constitutes a nuclear test than the U.S. State Department). And, of course, this action by the U.S. would in and of itself be a security guarantee for North Korea -- while not directly in the form of an alliance, the U.S. will do everything in its power to make sure a state with nuclear weapons does not collapse (think Pakistan).

But, pessimissm aside, I have a feeling that come one year -- and provided Kim Jong Il doesn't die, not much will have changed from how things were perhaps a couple years ago. If North Korea returns to a posture where it looks like it is going to negotiate, then South Korea can again start trading with North Korea and, well, unfortunately Japan looks like the odd man out (I'm quite concerned about what would happen if Japan's interests were not considered by the U.S., leading to Japan re-arming. Japan has quite a few greivances with all her neighbors: Kuril Islands/lack of peace treaty (Russia), Liancourt Rocks (Korea), No Peace Treaty (North Korea), and the Senkaku Islands (China/Republic of China(Taiwan)). I'm probably missing some others as well.

Anyways, I'm thinking that at best we can expect a return to the status quo and see what type of vocabulary each country uses to come up with a tacit acceptance of North Korea's nuclear weapons program as no country will go to war with North Korea to get rid of it.

(So, Kim Jong Il gets a de-facto security guarantee from the United States with the potential for much more).

China and Another Bankrupt Ideology

All the spare time recently has gone to sightseeing, studying, and just the general process of being overseas and stuff, so I haven't had an opportunity to update this blog. And, the stuff I did want to write about was about the trees here, or the awkward signs, or the language, or the castles, or the villages, you know some of the more pleasent stuff in life -- but the outrageous way in which Turks in Xinjiang(新疆, 신강) have been treated should be recognized as a serious threat to both the United States and Korea for we can now see Communist China for who she really is and why we as responsible citizens should care.

What Does It Mean To Be Chinese?

You see the Chinese flag has five stars. Each of the five stars represents an ethnic group that is supposed to compose the Chinese nation. These five stars represent the Han Chinese, the Turks of Xinjiang, Tibetans, Manchurians, and Mongolians. I was in fact referring to the older flag of the KMT (the pro-mainland party in Taiwan) during 1912-1928:

"五族共和" (Five ethnic groups together in harmony) -- Thank you Gudong.

Nonetheless, it is still indeed the ideology of the current communist regime in China that ethnicity has nothing do with nationality (Hence, Tibetans are Chinese according to this thought).

The ideology is so that just like you have Chinese-Americans in the United States, you have a Chinese nation of multiple ethnic groups, including Koreans. But, they don't get a star (But, of course, the crucial difference would be that Chinese-Americans willingly migrated to the United States whereas those five groups outside of Manchurians, who for all practical purposes no longer exist as a distinct ethnic group, were either physically conquered and/or culturally assimilated by the Han).

This should be of particular importance to Koreans as this was the main reason given by the Chinese government as to why the Chinese government claims Goguryeo as a kingdom in Northeast China as a minority Chinese kingdom. The logic being that since China is not a nation of a single ethnic group -- as in an Israel or Korea -- then it is possible for those people of Goguryeo or even Koreans to be ethnically Korean, but their nationality to be Chinese.

Of course, with uprisings in Tibet last year (and comparisons with Native Americans by Han Chinese) and Xinjiang this year, we all now know that just like communism, this concept or ideology of Chinese nationality is, well, bankrupt. China is a nation of Han Chinese who are systematically taking advantage of her ethnic minorities and continuing a ten-thousand year history of absorbing smaller, neighboring countries and ethnic groups one-by-one. Interestingly, the first character, "Xin" (新,신), Xinjiang, represents new as if it's some new land for the Chinese to settle.

This process of conquest and assimilation is not just a communist thing, you see. The Republic of China (Taiwan), even claims what is left of Mongolia. And, this I believe is more of a Chinese thing. This has been going on for hundreds and hundreds, no thousands, of years (Think about the initial assimilation of the Cantonese civilization). But, the easiest way to look at it is by looking at something none other than where the Great Wall of China is.

You see, for most of history, well, up until 1644 (when the barbarians conquered China for good), the Great Wall was meant to protect civilization (China) from the uncivilized or not as civilized (the rest of the world, pretty much). China was pretty much "contained" to the east coast with tributary states to the northeast (Korea, Japan) and to the south (Dai Viet, though, this state was directly ruled by the Chinese as late as during the Ming period), but did at times directly rule over states in the west. Nonetheless, even as late as the 19th century, when Manchurian rulers finally allowed the Han to settle in Manchuria (those areas northeast of the Great Wall), most of Manchuria was scarcely populated and the region was devoid of Han Chinese, which certainly is not the case today. Much of the lands that were occupied by barbarians are now part of China proper and the barbarians there speak Mandarin.

I remember a few years ago the term that China kept using was the "peaceful rise of China" or so, as if, to tell the world that you know what, the middle kingdom -- literally (中國), is returning to it's proper place as the center of the world and will do so in a very peaceful way. By the way, I'm sorry to tell you Sinophiles out there, but I doubt this will ever happen again, for you see, the United States is now here and by geography and ideology (and, perhaps, even destiny) the country sits right in the middle -- between the West and the Far East.

The last time the Han Chinese tried to conquer Korea (7th century C.E.) when the Tang turned on Silla, the Tang were much bigger than Silla, but nowhere near the proportions that either one of the Koreas today faces (This is one of the reasons why I believe North Korea has a nuclear weapons program and why I believe a unified Korea will need either a nuclear weapons program or an iron tight alliance with the United States for perpetuity). Do you think Korea could have survived up until today had the Chinese borders been like how it is today for the past couple thousand years?

I'm not disputing the territorial claims that Communist China makes with respect to Tibet nor Xinjiang (though Taiwan is a whole another matter, but that's for another day), but I'm pretty sure nobody believes the Chinese government's definition of what it means to be Chinese now.

Effects of an Economic Downturn : Feeling Pain, the Korean Way

As to what is going on in the southern half of the Korean Peninsula, Koreans seem to be going through some very turbulent times (but, hey, this is the downside of having such an overly educated workforce without a strong emphasis on innovation)? Nonetheless, this being Korea, as the WSJ usually loves to say (and I guess from this article, what the New York Times also sees in Korea:)

"Just as distinctly Korean may be the lengths to which some go to hide their newly humble status."

And, perhaps, to point again, at the sense of duty and responsibility that Koreans toward family, the pains of an economic downturn, in thisConfucian society are felt communally. As one native Korean puts it:

"If my parents knew what I was doing now, they would pity me," he said. "Now, I look at the ocean and think, I should have worked harder at the cellphone store, and be a better man for my family" ("With Wounded Pride, Unemployed Koreans Quietly Turn to Manual Labor | New York Times)

I would like to thank a certain Ms. S.J. Kim for pointing this article out on Facebook.

Interestingly, a comment like the one above cited in the New York Times article sounds no different than something a Korean-American or a Korean living in the northern half of the peninsula might say. Aspects such as why this is so will be discussed extensively in the coming semester.

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.

What Is Korean Culture, Part I : Are Koreans Rude?

I was reading this post at rokdrop.com and the enormous number of comments supporting the notion that Koreans are rude, which originally cites an editorial from the Joongang Daily. The editorial states that Koreans are seen to be rude as

"Compared with other Asians, Koreans in general are known to be temperamental ("Why Are Koreans Rude?," Joongang Ilbo).

Here's my take:

We all know that Koreans are, of course, the most respectful people in all of East Asia (lol, I'm serious here).

My reasoning follows from Confucian Culture, which exerts a strong influence on Korean Culture and, moreover, it does so in a highly developed manner. I'd say it's so strong that Korean Culture is basically Confucianism and vice versa; Confucianism is no where more developed in East Asia than in the Koreas and much more so than in Vietnam, (barbaric, lol) Japan, and, even China, herself, respectively (Note, this follows from the historical fact that as the last truly Han Chinese Dynasty was conquered in 1644 by the Manchurians, Confucianism developed independently of China in Korea for centuries). And, no, I don't think Confucius (공부자, 孔夫子) was Korean. Of course, on the flip side, I'd probably say that Koreans may very well be the most racist and xenophobic people in East Asia as well.

A tangent here: I see a parallel with the United States here. Confucianism in Korea developed similar to how the ideals of the Enlightenment in Europe never really died, but lived on in the United States. And, actually they thrived here as they developed independent of Europe (for example, the Declaration of Independence, the preamble to the Constitution of the United States).

Well, this my main post on the site there:

"That’s absurd. The only part of what I’ve read that seems somewhat understandable is the gap between how Koreans treat family and then friends and then strangers. There’s a much larger gap between each group than you might find in the United States. And, let me excuse myself first, before I say some very politically incorrect things. But, from a Korean perspective, or at least my perspective – I don’t want to speak for an entire nation, I’ve always found Southeast Asians and particularly the Japanese to be rude. When I mean rude, I don’t mean loud and shouting and emotional. I mean, just inconsiderate in speech and manner in the way they treat others.

When I was in Japan, I remember taking J-line or something (not the bullet train, but the same technology as the KTX train) and I remember giving up my spot to some grandpa probably in his like 80s or so and as coming from Seoul, I didn’t really think twice about doing it. But, my Japanese friend, and he was a very polite guy – I remember both his parents were teachers, thought it was crazy. He said in particular, “50 years ago…” people did that.

So, I feel from the opposite perspective, it’s the case that (and I’m replying in particular to that Filipina “lady”, who was talking about killing some rude Korean girl) from the opposite perspective it’s the Southeast Asians, Japanese, and those who come from societies without a strong Confucian tradition that are the ones that are seen to be rude. I believe a lot of other Koreans, who might not recognize that it’s this Confucian tradition, probably also feel this.

Now, if you said Koreans were racist, I’d agree 100%. The way in which Koreans treat let’s say Filipino/Vietnamese/Pakistani laborers are different than the way they’d treat Chinese or Korean-Chinese (Joseon-jok, 조선족,朝鮮族) laborers. Of course, this is different than the way Nigerian merchants are treated (who I swear to God, especially, when wearing American sportsgear, look “American”), and, of course, the simplest proof though: the way in which African-Americans are treated when compared to Caucasian-Americans. And, of course, there‘s the racism discrimination (i.e. regionalism) that’s practiced on other Koreans as well. In some parts of South Korea, Korean-American English tutors are paid less than Caucasian Americans just because they don’t look “American” (Me).

(The exact thread among the entire list of comments there is posted here: "Why Are Koreans Rude?" ROK Drop)

If you are somewhat sensible you might find some of the comments on that discussion to be extremely disturbing and, if you are a Korean that is native to the Korean Peninsula, then you might find yourself getting extremely upset. A word of caution here though. Don't take these comments too seriously (If you are Korean, or let's say, a Korean native to the Korean peninsula, then it might be safer for you and for those around you to not read them at all).