Why President Clinton's Trip is Not Appeasement

About a decade late, but former President Bill Clinton is finally heading to North Korea. Not to secure the country's nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles programs, but to noblely win the release of two captured American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee -- as if the outcome was uncertain with another former president heading over there:

The Obama administration is rewarding North Korea for its bad behavior by sending ex-president Bill Clinton to Pyongyang to win the release of two US journalists, the former US ambassador to the UN said Tuesday.

John Bolton, an outspoken hardliner in the previous administration of George W. Bush, told AFP that Clinton's mission to Pyongyang undermines a number of public stands held by his own wife, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"It comes perilously close to negotiating with terrorists," Bolton told AFP when asked about Bill Clinton's trip to secure the release of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee ("Bill Clinton rewarding NKorea for bad behavior: Bolton" : Agence France-Presse)

While in principle I've always been a supporter of John Bolton even when he fell out with the George W. Bush administration when the administration did its sudden U-turn on its North Korean policy, I wouldn't believe it to be as bad as Bolton makes it out to be (yes, from one angle, it's a form of appeasement, but to rigidly be against a policy just because of it's name is a strike against common sense and an exercise in sheer stupidity) and considering how things currently are I think its realistically the most the U.S. can ask for.

Yes, while sending another former U.S. (Democratic) President to North Korea definitely looks bad as the U.S. seems to continually be rewarding North Korea for bad behavior -- bad behavior in the sense that North Korean behavior has led to sanctions on at least two different occasions by the United Nations Security Council, after mostly being championed by the U.S. And, sending a former President after the country allegedly explodes a couple nuclear devices definitely sends the wrong signal if the U.S. is against accepting North Korea as a nuclear state.

But realistically, and and I think this is where George W. Bush's North Korea policy was such a failure in its first administration, considering what the U.S. can actually do with respect to North Korea this is the best the U.S. can ask for. I mean with President Obama currently occupied with his domestic agenda and perhaps even the fate of his Presidency as the latest issue of the Economist points out:

"IF THE opinion polls are to be believed, Barack Obama is now, six months into his presidency, no more popular than George Bush or Richard Nixon were at the same stage in theirs" ("Crunch time" : The Economist)

Moreover, as the current U.S. President's attention is largely preoccupied by domestic concerns, such as healthcare, and as the six-party talks have died, there is no longer a readily agreeable forum for which North Korea and the U.S. can talk. So, I think sending former President Bill Clinton, who unlike former President Carter in 1994 was not married to then serving U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, will hopefully facilitate progress to be made on the more pressing issues of denuclearization, a peace treaty to a war that's lasted for more than half a century, and the division of a country. By this, I mean that these talks may lead to the creation of goodwill between the two sides and create new channels of communication (On a side note, I wonder if kidnapped Japanese or South Korean nationals will at all be mentioned as the two captured American journalists regain their freedom. My guess is not).

Perhaps, in this case, appeasement is the right way to go.

Though, if you look at U.S. actions in its entirety, appeasement would not be the right word to use. Recall, how the U.S. conducted it's own successful ballistic missile weapons test and, more recently, the successful missile defense test of weapons for all intent and purposes were supposed to simulate the missiles North Korea fired on the 4th of July:

"An Aegis-class U.S. naval ship then fired an interceptor missile, which struck the target about 160 km above the earth. The process -- from launch to shoot-down -- took less than five minutes" ("U.S. declares success in missile defense test" : Xinhua).

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).