[DeCal] Next Week (April 27th, 2010), Review, Fall 2010

April 27th, 2010

There's just one more meeting left and next week we will have a guest lecturer, Assistant Professor Christine Hong from UC Santa Cruz. She will be giving a presentation, titled, "Crossing the Line." You should have also received an e-mail from Leah that has the required reading materials for next week. Participation is considered mandatory next week. I believe there will also be a special visitor to our class. I hope to see everyone with the required readings next week.

Response Papers

I understand that for many of you this will be the most or last exposure you may have that relates to Korea for, perhaps, the rest of your lives. Answers to all response papers as well as a review of the class will be put up as a posting on this site around the beginning of next month. This will include a broad overview of everything we went over: which is basically all major aspects of Korean History from 2333 BCE to the currency reform in North Korea in 2010 CE.

DeCal Next Semester

We're in the process of assembling an entirely new team for the next few semesters (and possibly the next three years) to continue and extend this course and I believe we do have a core team in place, pending approval from our faculty sponsor and ASUC. However, if you're interested in participating, please send me an e-mail.

[DeCal] Response Paper #2

Response Paper questions:

1. What about NK's agricultural system and government policies made it vulnerable to the famine?

2. what did NK do to try and avert the famine?

3. What was the largest change as a result of the famine?

1 page, double spaced, 12 font

the ppt is attached to the email i sent out!  have a good wknd

[DeCal] Answers to previous assignment, Upcoming Presentations

Group 4

We will be meeting with Group 4 at 7:00pm, March 29th at the Free Speech Movement Cafe. As mentioned in class, due to spring break, we have decided to put off presentations by Groups 1 & 2 for another week. April 4th's lecture will bring us into what has been going on very, very recently in North Korea.

Answers for the in-class assignment (03/09/2010):
Topic: 1945-53 and South Korea (1953-97)

1. What were the 3 factors in the divergence between South and North Korea? In particular, what advantages did South Korea have that North Korea did not. [What factors did they share?]

By far the greatest advantage that South Korea had that North Korea did not was access to a gigantic consumer market that was more than willing to buy up anything South Korea would produce. Additionally, this was assisted by having access to foreign technology, foreign capital, and a superpower willing to both protect and subsidize the development of South Korea's economy.

Both South and North Korea have a legacy of a homogenous people with a strong sense of shared identity. For example, as pointed out with the sudden dip in gold prices in 1997 (as families in South Korea felt it to be a national duty to sell their gold to help the country regain some foreign reserves), the Koreas did not have to worry about a group (until about the 1980s, the Jeolla provinces come to mind here) that felt that they did not have a stake in the government. Koreans felt that if the country as a whole were to become richer, then they too would be better off. This allowed Korea to do things that might not be politically feasible in places such as Indonesia (where a slight reduction in gasoline subsidies sparked riots a couple years ago), such as quadrupling the price of gasoline overnight by fiat in the wake of the Arab Oil Embargo. Another example that comes to mind is systematic devaluation (and thus stealing money or "sacrificing" away the money of Korean households as their real purchasing power declines). Domestic consumption was discouraged and the government was able to extract high rates of savings from South Korean households and thereafter direct these savings into invesetment into "strategic" industries. These policies were in the aggregate very positive and saw South Korea take off on a path of sustained economic development (up until 1997 at which point Korean economic development took a different path). On a side note, this is the exact same explanation that is the rationale behind some of the more bizarre North Korean propaganda -- a common theme that (North) Koreans have a shared destiny (this of course, has probably changed somewhat since the famine).

Additionally, traditional Confucian values of education provided a highly educated, cheap labor force (which was unable to organize until the early 1990s and very similar to China's current policy of "official labor unions") with institutions that were only moderately corrupt. The term moderately corrupt is used to indicate that while corruption was (probably) pervasive throughout all levels of the country, even its dicatators were forward looking dictators that wanted to create a more prosperous and wealthy Korea.

And, finally, the most important is the mere presence of U.S. soldiers. When South Korea's geographical location and her neighbors -- the Soviet Union, North Korea, Communist China, and Japan are considered, it becomes clear how much South Korea would have had to invest toin an army/navy/air force that could credibly defend the country (it would have cost a fortune and probably take a ballistic missile program and nuclear weapons -- I imagine). Well, instead, that money went into developing the country further.

We can see many tangents with China's management of her economy with South Korea today [Taiwan's economic development was less about state directed economic growth into strategic industries and national champions, but rather the development of small and medium sized businesses. This is why there we are familiar with large, Korean multinational companies, such as Samsung or Hyundai, while Taiwan's smaller high tech companies do not have brand power that is usually associated with economies of scale and usually make components or chips for larger companies on a contractual basis, such as making chips for AMD or NVIDIA].

2. During the Korean War, from the perspective of those involved, what was gained (or lost) ?

China:

China kept a buffer state between the U.S. soldiers and its boundary. Arguably, the country chose to defend North Korea rather than "unite" China -- by invading Taiwan. It was also a huge propaganda win for the Chinese government as PRC soldiers were able to stop the almighty United States. Nonetheless, the country lost hundreds of thousands of people (I'm guessing more), including Mao Tse Dong's only child.

United States:

This largely depends on what angle you're observing the situation from. But, by and large, the most significant benefit was that there was "no communist dagger" pointed at Japan and the United States too was able to secure a buffer state between U.S. occupied Japan and the "monolithic" Communist bloc. The United States lost about 50,000 soldiers. Nonetheless, the U.S. was left with defending and helping to develop a very poor country with no natural resources. U.S. soldiers have been in South Korea continuously from 1945 to today. However, the true dividends for the U.S. did come, but much much later (As discussed in class, the 1988 Seoul Olympics was probably a larger triumph for the United States than it was for South Korea).

Koreas:

Millions of people died. The country remained divided. And, there was no reconciliation of the fissures that were built up during the Japanese colonial period.

Japan:

[Not really discussed] Probably the biggest benefactor of the war was that Japan was able to re-industrialize by supplying the United States war effort on the Korean Peninsula.

Soviet Union:

[Not sure here] But, I believe the Soviet Union didn't lose anything at all aside from the weaponry it supplied to North Korea and it's jet planes it got to test against U.S. pilots

3. At what point did the South become more prosperous than the North? [Not discussed, but, implicitly implied, at what point did South Korea become seen to be the more "legitimate" Korean state on the peninsula?]

Around 1980 is the point where GDP per capita figures -- an imperfect measure by any means when you have one country just building tanks and another building container ships, steel, etc for export take separate trajectories. But, nonetheless, after 1980, it becomes much more difficult to argue that the North was richer than the South.

I would say that the Summer Olympics of 1988 held in Seoul was the time when South Korea became to seen as the more "legitimate" state. The country recently held free and fair elections in 1987 and emerged as a democracy just in time for the olympics. Not only was the country seen to be much, more prosperous than the North (consider that South Korea had income levels comparable to subsistence economies in subsaharan Africa), but consider the year. After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the first world (the US+friends) boycotted the summer olympics held in the Soviet Union in 1980. Then, consider that the second world (the USSR+friends) boycotted the summer olympics of 1984 held in Los Angeles. Only North Korea and Cuba boycotted the summer olympics of 1988 in Seoul, South Korea.

I suggest that it is at this point that all the billions of dollars subsidizing South Korea inally paid off for the United States.

4. What do you think about the fact that South Korea only recently emerged as a country with true democratic institutions? In your opinion does this seem surprising? Why or why not?

I thought it to be surprising that South Korea only recently emerged as a democracy and am even more surprised that this happened at all. South Korea as a Confucian society is a very vertically oriented society with no democratic traditions. Nonetheless, I suspect that unequal development is the probable suspect here as development of the southwestern Jeolla provinces was ignored during both the Japanese colonial period and during the military dictatorships that followed. You can check this by looking at voting patterns, which consistently show upwards of 95% of the people from the Jeolla provinces voting for the same candidate. At the same time, you have large numbers of people in the Southeast (Gyeongsang Provinces) and even Seoul that vote for candidates for the party that has been associated for military dictatorships (Although I mean political parties here, they are, by and large, undeveleoped as in they do not yet run on issues and are more keen to appeal to regionalism or are parties based around a single candidate... not unlike that of Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party or Ross Perot's Reform Party --- except it happens not once every hundred years or so, but every five years.

[DeCal] Response Paper due March 30th

Questions to answer in response to Group 1's presentation:

How did north korea’s ideology change? (hint: constitution)

How is juche seen to be illegitimate (by those living in north korea)   What were the reasons and factors driving this?

How did the DPRK army develop their strategy (1948 vs 1990s)?

1 page, double spaced, times new roman, font 12

staple your in-class notes to it. 

Group 1 is omitted from this assignment. 

[DeCal] In class assignment, Review - 03/09/2010

Topic: 1945-53 and South Korea (1953-97)

Lecture Date: Tues, 03/09/2010

For 1953-97 [South Korea]: This is an overview of the lecture. This should also help Group 3 when presenting on North Korea (1953-97) and assist those trying to make up the in-class assigment. We will be meeting with Group 3 at 7:00pm at the Free Speech Cafe, Group 4 at 7:15pm -- this Sunday: March 14th,

In-class Assignment (03/09/2010):

1. What were the 3 factors in the divergence between South and North Korea? In particular, what advantages did South Korea have that North Korea did not. [What factors did they share?]

2. During the Korean War, from the perspective of those involved, what was gained (or lost) ?

3. At what point did the South become more prosperous than the North? [Not discussed, but, implicitly implied, at what point did South Korea become seen to be the more "legitimate" Korean state on the peninsula?]

4. What do you think about the fact that South Korea only recently emerged as a country with true democratic institutions? In your opinion does this seem surprising? Why or why not?

Answers will be posted next week.

[DeCal] PowerPoint File Is Now Available

[1876-1905]
Please come to class.

[1905-1945]
The PowerPoint file for Leah Yi & Tori Bazz's portion of the presentation is available here.

[DeCal] Readings, Change of Group Presentations

Reassignment of Group Presentations:

The rationale behind re-assigning presentations topics is that as most of history is very dense, it takes an enormous effort on the part of students, when presenting on topics far removed from the present, to not get lost in names, dates, and events and to still take something useful away from all of this. For example, while the  presentation on the Korean War three semesters ago was excellent in giving an overview of the major battles and the general direction of the war, none of the covered material proved to be particularly relevant to better understanding the Koreas of today.

I'm firmly of the belief that most of the heavy lifting should be done by student instructors and that as the focus of this course is not Korean History, this aspect should largely be left to student instructors. At one point, all presentations were given by a single student instructor (Spring 2009). With that in mind, I felt the effort of students in groups 1 and 2 would better spent on applying the conclusions from the historical presentations that student instructors give to contemporary issues. Group 1 will now be presenting on North Korea's Nuclear Program, Disarmament, and Six Party Talks. Group 2 will now be presenting on Unification. Both groups will now be presenting in MarchApril.

I have volunteered to cover the post-colonial period, the Korean War, and South Korea up until 1997 this following Tuesday.

Readings:

I have posted the recommended and required readings for all presentation groups except for groups that will be presenting in April. Please see the syllabus for more.

[Decal] Updated Syllabus - Downloadable

ASAMST 98/198 : Section 9, Spring 2010
Breaking Down Borders: Korea


The updated syllabus can be found here.

[DeCal] Change in group presentations!!

Hi, so Joe decided to present on what group 1 and 2 originally were going to present on.  Here are the changes:

March 9 - Joe presents (1945-53, Div. of Institutions: ROK) 

March 16 - Group 3 presents (Div. of Institutions DPRK)

March 30 - Group 4 presents (Famine in DPRK)

April 6 - Group 1 presents (6 party talks on DPRK Nuclear disarmament)

April 13 - Group 2 presents (6 party talks on Reunification)

April 20 - TBA

April 27 - Guest lecturer: Professor Christine Hong

[DeCal] Readings - March 2nd and March 9th

The readings can be found here:

http://northxkorea.blogspot.com/2009/09/decal-end-of-history.html
http://northxkorea.blogspot.com/2009/10/decal-korea-as-japanese-colony-reading.html

[DeCal] *Edited* Review - Korean History: 2333 BCE to 1876 CE

As promised, Leah Yi and Tori Bazz's presentation and review of Korean History: 2333 BCE to 1876 CE can be found here. And, all presentations that are available online can be found by scrolling down on the right hand side.

Remember, the point of this course is not to dwell on history, but to use it as a tool to better understand contemporary events. With this in mind, names of figures or even names of kingdoms become rather irrelevant then. Naturally, then what is clear from our understanding of Korean history is this:

The borders of Korea have more or less remain unchanged since the unification of Korea by Silla in the 7th century CE and there have been no significant movement or immigration to the peninsula (until perhaps the last decade or so) since the fall of the last Han commandery called Lolang in 313 CE. Thus, Korea has had a single group of people - more or less (for more, I mentioned the Korean Haplogroup - O2b, which is present in a significant number of males on the Korean peninsula and the Japanese peninsula, but absent among China's population), who have come to speak the same language over the course of 1,300 years.

Note that France was united around the first decade of the sixteenth century (I believe), Spain - 1492, Germany & Italy - 1870, Russia - I believe some time in between - I think most of what is Russia today was occupied by remnants of the Golden Horde (or Mongols) until the 16th or 17th centuries... So, you can imagine why Korea could be so nationalistic and so xenophobic (not a single minority ethnic group). I believe Korea and Japan are the only two countries, where you'll find almost no ethnic Chinese communities in significant numbers in all of East Asia. Up until recently, I believe there were 50,000 ethnic Chinese out of a population of almost 50 million (about 0.1%).

In this context, the issue of whether these kingdoms, such as Goguryeo (高句麗) or Balhae (渤海) were "Korean" are rather unimportant and, perhaps, even irrelevant next to how it is the merger of the separate kingdoms' people and culture (for more: check out Samhan/Buyeo, 三韓/夫餘 - in Sino-Korean/扶餘 - in traditional Chinese script) that gave rise to the singular identity of a Korean people. This is probably the most important theme to take from ancient Korean history (along with the geography of the Korean peninsula and the geographical location of the Korean peninsula). Also, I mentioned the Gangnido Map (and how it has a really long name. Wikipedia cites the term, "Honil Gangni Yeokdae Gukdo Jido ("Map of Integrated Lands and Regions of Historical Countries and Capitals", 혼일강리역대국도지도, 混一疆理歷代國都之圖) for the map. Nonetheless, it is an easy and quick way to visualize how Koreans saw themselves in relation to the outside world during the Joseon dynasty.  

Also, as discussed in class, I claimed that the North South States Period (남북국시대, 南北國時代) is a recent construct as it refers to a time when Silla (then Goryeo) controlled the bottom two thirds of the peninsula, but the rest was controlled by first Goguryeo (then Balhae) and the origins of the theory come from works during the mid Joseon period about a millenia later in the book Samguk Yusa (三國遺事). I also mentioned how this is used by modern (South) Korean scholars to justify the division of the Korean Peninsula.

Also, the name of the last Korean kingdom was touched upon and how it refers to North Koreans today in both the Koreas, all the Chinese languages and Japan. Perhaps, it's best understood by the Sino-Korean characters (or traditional -- classical? -- Chinese script): North Korean (Joseon Person (朝鮮人)) vs South Korean (Hanguk Person (韓國人)). Actually on second though, In South Korea, 朝鮮人 would probably refer to somebody from the Joseon Dynasty and the term 朝鮮族 would refer to ethnic Korean-Chinese (that have lived in China since around 1880. For more, See A Comparison of the Korean Minorities in China and Japan by Pyong, Gap Min). In both North and South Korea, they would just add the term South or North in front of their word for Korea. So, the term for North Korean would just be North (Hanguk Person) in South  Korea, while the term for South Koreans would just be South (Joseon Person) in North Korea.
 
Interestingly, in China the latter term was not used until after normalization of ties with South Korea. The term Hanguk actually derives from the period 1897-1905, when the Joseon dynasty fully joined the Westphalian (Western/Modern) International Order and which we have not yet discussed -- when it was no longer considered a vassal state after the first Sino-Japanese War (Became, the Great Empire of the Han People (not to be confused with the term Han used for Han Chinese (漢) vs Han (韓) Koreans)). On a side note, this is precisely the reason why classical Chinese characters are important as in both the Korean and Japanese languages there are a large number of homonyms that can't be described by words constructed from an alphabet (this is precisely why Kanji (literally Chinese Script or Sino-Japanese characters) are still in heavy usage in Japan and many (should) be in usage in the Koreas today...I believe -- there are 5 vowels in the Japanese language and no differences made through pitch. Korean is much the same except with a larger number of vowels and for the most part a single pitch as well).

 The historical connection between the Joseon Dynasty (the Hermit Kingdom, Land of the Morning Calm) and North Korea becomes very straight forward when thought in this light (and as we shall see over the rest of the semester).

[DeCal] Groups presentation dates/topics/readings

*refer to required/recommended readings on spring 2010 syllabus! if there is no link provided you can try googling.. if that doesnt work, email! koreandecal10@gmail.com

GROUP 1: MARCH 9th

Eruption of Fissures: The Korean War as a Civil War (1945 – 1953)

Presentation: Civil War

Fissures in Korean society were not able to be reconciled as the Korean (Civil) War became just

a single battle and the opening shots of the larger, Cold War fought between the United States

and the Soviet Union. National reconciliation never occurred and this had profound implications in

the development of North Korea. 

GROUP 2: MARCH 16th

Divergence in Institutions Part I (South Korea)

Presentation: Divergence in Institutions I (South Korea)

Why is it that the southern half of the Korean peninsula came to be a fairly wealthy, middle

income country with democratic institutions? How did this process happen? After all, Korea was

for thousands of years a centralized bureaucratic monarchy (and then ruled by centralized

bureaucratic colonial government) with no history of democracy? The presentation will heavily

emphasize the development of economic institutions first that began in the early seventies.

Policies conducive to sustained economic growth over the long run that took advantage of

favorable endowments unique to South Korea (access to the U.S. market, U.S. oil regime) led to

prosperity in the South. Democratic institutions also took hold, but took much longer with South

Korea holding her first free and fair elections in 1987). 

GROUP 3: MARCH 30th

Divergence in Institutions Part II (North Korea)

Presentation: Divergence in Institutions II (North Korea)

How did the Korean War effect the development of North Korean institutions? How does North

Korea fit in historically into Korean history? Many of the peculiarities of the North Korean state

have a historical rationale behind it. The notion of North Korea being a hermit nation began only

after the Korean kingdom of Joseon was invaded by the Mongolians, Japanese, and then the

Manchurians. In more modern times, of course, the Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese

War, and even the Korean War were also largely fought to answer the question of who would

hold sway over the Korean peninsula. Xenophobia against even diplomats in Pyongyang also

holds a historical precedent during the Joseon dynasty when Ming diplomats were not allowed to

roam the streets without of a guide. 

GROUP 4: APRIL 6th

Famine

Presentation: Famine in North Korea and its after effects.

Presentation will briefly go over why the famine occurred in the first place, but emphasis will be

placed on how this has changed North Korean society permanently. 

[DeCal] Why Should I Care About Korea - Spring 2010?

This is an outline of the presentaiton I gave this past Tuesday.

Objective of the presentation:

1. The United States is committed to defending South Korea with twenty thousand U.S. soldiers, who by design, are supposed to die in the event of a North Korean attack. And, the committment is enormous (half a million soldiers - OPlan 5027 (original link was bad). There is also a OPlan 5029 that South Korean President Lee Myung Bak recently agreed to that outlines what the United States and South Korea will do in the event of the North Korean regime collapsing). 

2. The events that are unfolding in the Koreas have a direct historical explanation and that during the rest of this semester, we will examine the historical dimension behind these events.  

Why should I care about Korea?

The United States is bound to goto war, moreso than by treaty, but by the continuing presence of U.S. soldiers that serve as a "tripwire." In the event of a North Korean attack on South Korea, the United States would instantly find that about 20,000 American soliders would be dead and the country will instantly be at war. The United States is actually then committed to sending half a million soldiers to Korea (Operational Plan 5027).

According to the 04 December 2000 South Korean Defense Ministry White Paper, the United States would deploy up to 690,000 troops on the Korean peninsula if a new war breaks out. The United States apparently had considerably increased the number of troops that would be deployed in any new Korean conflict. The figure had risen from 480,000 in plans made in the early 1990s and 630,000 in the mid-1990s. The latest Time Phased Forces Deployment Data for any contingency on the Korean Peninsula is comprised of 690,000 troops, 160 Navy ships and 1,600 aircraft deployed from the U.S. within 90 days (OPlan 5027-00, GlobalSecurity.org).

This is a very scary thought, especially in light of current U.S. committments to Iraq and Afghanistan and potential problems that may arise with Iran and China (as the U.S. is committed to defending Taiwan as well). Moreover, as the United States is currently in a position of seeing rising government deficits for the forseeable future, it becomes even scarier that those in control of U.S. foreign policy with respect to North Korea could actually fail to form a single, coherent policy as happened during the first half of the first George W. Bush administration ("A Long Road to Pyongyang" : Foreign Affairs Nov/Dec 2007). This is probably the number one reason why Korea should be important to all Americans and that students such as ourselves should take an interest as to first what is going on over there and what it is the United States government is actually doing about it. Not many Americans or South Koreans actually think war is possible, but, as pointed out in class that is exactly what was said about World War I. World War I did in fact occur and Europe has yet to regain its position in the world that it had enjoyed in the time leading upto the Great War.

Past fifteen years or so...

Major trends and events on the Korean Peninsula in the past fifteen years were also explored -- the most significant of which was the belief that North Korea was indeed interested in giving up nuclear weapons and introducing market reforms. However, I pointed out that informal markets that did spring up in North Korea did not mean that North Korea was actually interested in reforming its economy (as many in South Korea, Europe, and some in the United States believed), but rather that it was a loss of North Korean state control over its people that led informal markets to spring up as they replaced the food distribution regime that collapsed during the famine. This did not become apparent until the twilight years of the second George W. Bush administration (Also, I did refer to a large market area in the northern outskirts of Pyongyang and I couldn't remember its name. The market district I was referring to is: Pyongsong (not to be confused with the city of the same name)). Moreover, the significance of the famine was also pointed out in that it has for the first time since the end of the Korean War, made it possible to get some idea of what is actually going on in North Korea.

A point that I also touched upon:

Voice of America:

America does indeed have a government owned, news broadcasting agency that was formed after the end of World War II. However, as the United States Federal Government is prohibited by law of broadcasting directly to American citizens -- a form of propoganda, it is not widely known to Americans. However, in the 21st century and with access to the Internet, Americans can at any given time go and check it out.

[DeCal] UPDATED* February 16th, 2009

Note: I've edited this posting as I was rereading, I saw a great deal of grammatical mistakes, particularly with respect to indefinite and definite articles. I was born, raised, and educated in the United States, so I find these mistakes to be particularly inexcusable.  Also, I rewrote the conclusion of the differing views part of the post. - Joseph: 02/12/2010, 12:14am

Decal Update

Next week, February 16th, 2009, is the second time we'll meet and the last meeting before the add/drop deadline. With this in mind, the Spring 2010 DeCal Team decided to put off the presentation of how the past twelve or thirteen years have played out on the Korean peninsula. The presentation will pay particular attention to both halves of the peninsula. The purpose of the presentation will be to jump directly into topics that have yet to run its course and how these events are relevant to those in the United States. This will now be given next week.

Differing political views in the classroom...

I recently received a question about my political leanings as I have posted my opinion on a large number of fairly controversial issues, such as, how I view [The People's Republic of] China's treatment of her citizins in both Xinjiang and Tibet. And, while this is the first time I heard a student that express concern over how this may influence how the course is instructed,  it did make feel that it warranted a thorough response.

In this course, and as I will show in my presentation next week, I do make an active effort to avoid editorializing. However, when there are issues that invite controversy, especially on ongoing issues that have yet to play out -- I will not avoid them. As the DeCal takes place in an academic setting -- and one in which the grading system is highly skewed towards encouraging discussion -- I will not hesitate to make claims that might not be agreeable to everyone. For example, Communist China, which is a signatory of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refuge, claims that North Koreans crossing into China are is adhering to not subject to the UN protocol on political refugees as the nation claims that these North Koreans crossing over into its country are not political refugees, but rather economic migrants. This is a claim that is rejected by many in the United States, though I cite a figure, who here that may be considered by some to hold views that lie on the may hold views on other issues that do not reflect those held by most fringe of those held by the Americans, as well as NGOs and their affiliated student groups on campus, such as Liberty in North Korea (LiNK).

For example, Paul Wolfowitz writes:

The key with the Chinese will be working, on the one hand, to reassure them that they would not be stuck with a permanent refugee population and, on the other, to remind them, as a signatory to the U.N. refugee protocol, that China needs to comply with its provisions, including allowing access for the UNHCR. Starting slowly, with smaller numbers, could also help. Even relatively modest levels, for example 25,000 per year, could permit resettlement of a quarter of a million refugees over a 10-year period ("How to Help North Korea's Refugees" || Wall Street Journal Online)

However, I reject this view as the work of Yooknok Chang, Stephen Haggard, and Marcus Noland's "Exit Polls: Refugee Assessments of North Korea's Transition" shows that an overwhelming majority of North Koreans crossing into China would like to go back to North Korea after making some money. Even if their assumption that refugees in North Korea reflect a representative sample of the populace in North Korea were false, it looks as if -- provided that their sample groups are representative of the (illegal) North Korean population in China, that these migrants are indeed crossing over for economic reasons and, thus, China is not subject to the UN protocol on political refugees sample were not taken to be representative of all (North) Koreans, then at the very least -- provided that their samples are more or less representative of the view of at least those North Koreans in North Korea, then China is indeed correct. As their surveys of North Koreans that have crossed over into China show, an overwhelming majority of North Koreans that have illegally crossed over into China see their stay as transient and would like to go not to places such as South Korea, Japan, or the United States, but rather back home to North Korea. Thus, most North Koreans are indeed economic migrants and not subject to the UN protocol on political refugees.

[DeCal] The Spring 2010 Semester DeCal Team

Spring 2010 Semester, Breaking Down Borders: DeCal Team

We will have two new facilitators this semester, Leah and Tori.

 

Lead Facilitator:  Leah Yi

 

I am a second year, intended Chemical Biology major. I grew up in Seoul, Korea (Republic of Korea) and attended most of my school years at the public school in a very large US military base- a base that represents a “mini-America,” if you will, and hence a misfit in a quickly growing and developing Korean city. As you will learn in this class, the origins of this military base go back to the days of Japanese colonialization (1910-45) then was taken over my by US as a result of the subsequent US military occupation of South Korea. Although I lived in Korea for about 8 years, I was never very aware of the history of North and South Korea and the fact that they were once, in fact for a great majority of the time, a unified country. This was the incentive for me to take this class last semester, taught by Joe Chang, who in this spring semester will be assisting me and Tori (the other facilitator) in teaching this class. I hope this class will be as valuable of a learning experience for you as it was for me and look forward to a great semester (Leah Yi).

Facilitator: Tori Bazz


You will have to come to class to find out what she studies and why she is doing this decal. :)

Facilitator: Joseph Chang

I am graduating this coming May with a double major in economics and applied mathematics. I grew up in Southern California, at the boundary line between La Crescenta and La Canada-Flintridge. I attended both La Canada and Crescenta Valley High School, which by the way have very different cultures. Though I grew up or lived in areas with sizeable Korean minorities or absolute majorities (if South Korea is given consideration), I myself was not aware of how there are direct historical explanations as to why I would address my parents a certain way or even as to the way banks are named. For example, I think in South Korea I remember seeing a Shinhan Bank, which was a merger of two defunct banks during the IMF period -- though I wonder if Shinhan Bank is still around. The name of this bank is in English New Korea Bank, but in Los Angeles, I see quite a few Saehan Banks (versus Shinhan), which also means New Korea Bank; of course, the difference between the latter and the former is that Shin is a Sino-Korean word -- 新(신), whereas Sae (새) is a native Korean word. By the way, this is something I just thought of when I was driving when I was in Los Angeles this past winter and I'm not actually sure if transcribed in Sino-Chinese characters Shinhan is really this 新(Shin) character, but this would be an example of why I'm a student instructor for this course. I thought this was interesting. As this is my last semester at UC Berkeley, I'm also going to try and ensure that there is a smooth transition between the semesters I have been facilitating this course and the semesters I will not (Joseph Chang).

[DeCal] Spring 2010 Syllabus

The Spring 2010 Syllabus is available here. The course begins this Tuesday, February 9th at 6pm, 20 Wheeler. The reader will unfortunately not be available until the following Tuesday at the earliest -- it becomes fairly thick to put it mildly if I include all the optional reading. So, I'm still revising and collecting the various articles that will at one point be included in the reader.

[DeCal] Spring Semester 2010 - Breaking Down Borders: Korea

UC Berkeley's ASAMST 98/198 Section 9, Spring Semester 2010

Tuesdays, 6pm - 8pm

2 units pass/no pass

Breaking Down Borders: Korea will again be offered this semester. The spring semester DeCal team can be contacted here. I am creating a reader, which at this point may or may not be mandatory, for this class. This will, of course, mark the first time a concrete reader has been made available and with good cause -- having a reader will reduce the burden on students enrolled in the course and student instructors alike of having to try to locate the readings each week. The structure of the class will follow very similarly to the fall syllabus (an updated spring semester syllabus will be put up shortly) except in the way grades will be calculated. However, as a new group of student instructors take the lead and make this course their own the class could take a markedly different path. We all do share the vision of a smaller class size this semester; we opted at this point to limit the class size to 30 students so we wouldn't run into the problem of hindering discussion to the point where I felt it was unreasonable for students to remember sixty-five names or give a presentation in front of sixty pairs of eyes.

Personally, in retrospect, I wished we could have gone more into what North Korea is today at the end of last semester and how they have been acting recently and, fortunately, it seems not much has changed in North Korea since the end of the fall semester (a lot has actually been going on in North Korea in the past decade or so) and in the first class, scheduled for February 9th, I will give a short presentation on what has happened in North Korea in the past year and why we should generally care about what is going on in North Korea.

More information will be posted as it becomes available.